Jump to content

Talk:The Dark Knight Rises/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

article

"however, 42 Entertainment, the company behind the viral marketing campaign for The Dark Knight, will not be returning for The Dark Knight Rises"

this is an obvious plug from 42 entertainment and needs deleted. It has nothing to do with The Dark Knight Rises

108.32.14.188 (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC) The decision to make this as a article was from here and here. This section is for your opinions on the subject. Jhenderson 777 21:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And also when the film actually is filmed. Remember to replace this with this. Jhenderson 777 21:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hold on a sec... does this mean that both this and the incubtor article are still up? Instead of moving the incubater to here? - J Greb (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The information was a little bit changed and it started with this draft. It does not look like what the incubator looks like just yet per WP:NFF and WP:Film project. If the incubator can be moved I think we should still wait when filming starts. Jhenderson 777 20:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm So... instead of working on the article that is in the incubater you went your own way and created in a sand box. And instead of moving the page you preformed a cut and paste move that shucked all of the edit trail on the work you, and hopefully others, did. All of this while ignoring what WP:FILM holds as the criteria for an article even though you were one of the editors helping hold the line on this as a redirect late last year.
Can you behaps see why other editors may just find this more than a little frustrating?
Right now I'm very tempted to speed the article and suggest you and Erik scavange what you can and help maintain the incubator article until the film project hit the point where an article wouldn't flaut WP:FILM gidelines.
- J Greb (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect to J Greb who needs to more say contributive things than what he feels is a another contributor's bad edit and needs to sound more cool about the situation like administrator should, Explanations behold, the userspace draft was created before I realized there was a incubator for it and was never used again for a while. See Talk:Batman in film#Batman 3 sandbox. And I only changed things around on it when User:Erik felt that it could be a article. Frankly I don't know what you are talking about when it comes to moving to incubators. I didn't see article incubator of The The Twilight Saga:Breaking Dawn being moved to the article at the time. So my bad I guess an administrator was the only one supposed to create it as a article since it is protected. You should read what WP:Film project says that it does meet primary guidelines even more so than a film guideline. And I also trust User:Erik's judgement on the matter being the lead coordinator of WP:Film kind of similiar of you being the word for WP:Comics. And I strongly suggest you don't say bad things about his opinion, you can throw in bad comments about my contribution but if you throw in another editor in the party then you are going too far. Also in regards to this comment

"Can you behaps see why other editors may just find this more than a little frustrating?"
So far that's a you thing. I have invited a whole bunch of editor's to weigh in and that's the reason why I created this discussion page to see if there is any differences and in that case I would have gladly reverted myself. And furthermore show me a guideline that says copy and pasting a article to a redirection page is a bad thing. Since I have created a userspace drafts in the past that's just what I am used to. The only way I can do that is probably me be a administrator myself. And I say this with sincerity to a humble contributor, please have a more respective comment next time. Jhenderson 777 21:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Before this heats up any further I ask both J Greb and Jhenderson777, two editors who I highly respect to tone down the rhetoric and review their wikiquette. To be fair WP:NFF is guideline currently under much debate in the project, and will probably be reviewed in the near future. See my comments at Talk:The Dark Knight Rises#WP:FILMS guidelines for some background info.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for jumping in. If it was just two of us debating. Then yikes. I do agree that this could have turned into a ugly debate. Even though I was trying my best for it not to be. Jhenderson 777 22:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Categorization

Further information: Talk:The Avengers film project § categorization

As with The Avengers there is no film, the rationale behind the articles existence is that there is an abundance of coverage regarding the films development. Therefore we should not include film cats until filming begins, which is higher indicator that production will be completed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all good. When I unhid the categories I didn't realize there was any edits before my latest revision. I thought they were already unhid from last time. ;) Jhenderson 777 23:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No sweat, this post wasn't directly point at you but more for general record keeping in case it is brought up again.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Keep up the good work.:) Jhenderson 777 02:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILMS guidelines

Writing mostly about comics and only recently spilling over into comics movies, I hadn't been aware of Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films, which specifically notes that even high-profile films are not exempt. On the other hand, we have The Avengers film project and I myself blithely created the stub Magic Kingdom (film), which fellow editors, apparently equally unaware of the policy, have contributed to (and contributed well, I might add).

While the latter does seems a policy vio (and might be better suited for Wikinews, perhaps?), the former does follow the overall Wikipedia policy that we break sections off into their own article when the section becomes too long to be manageable. This is why Iron Man 3 is not its own article, but a section of Iron Man 2.

I would say that while my Magic Kingdom (film) is a WP:FILMS vio — which I'll own up to there — both The Avengers film project and The Dark Knight Rises each conform to the larger Wikipedia policy manifest at WP:LENGTH and WP:SPLIT. The basis for that policy is that having a section too long to be easily readable in some browsers, particularly mobile platforms, does no good. The footnotes alone would be unwieldy to integrate, and we certainly don't want to discourage editors from full and proper footnoting.

My view is that these articles are allowable for the reason that they are too long to be sections of other articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I may buy the for the Avengers project since it incorperates material from existant films. This one doesn't. Keeping it simple and showing restraint until the princile filming starts should keep the section in Batman in film in check. For those that feel there is a need to tack every twist and turn, there is an incubator version of the article that van be maintained and then moved here - to keep it's edit history intact - one the WPLFILM criteria are met.
This rather that a long article on the film's pre-production and casting that is going to get seriously trimmed to add in the material about the film itself and the critical comentary it generates. That is if something doesn't happen that cancells the film and we're left with an article to serious trim to fold back into Batman in film to match Triumphant.
- J Greb (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Something else I wasn't aware of -- the incubator article. That's good to know.
I'm still not sure why Dark Knight Rises should be incubated while The Avengers film project is not, since both are continuations of existing movies' stories. I'll go along either way — I'd just like to see some consistency so that we can have a guideline we can point to next time so as not to repeat this discussion, which is important to have ... but just once!  : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to give a bit of background, The Avengers (2012 film) was proposed for deletion because it violated, WP:NFF. The result of AFD was noconsensus for deletion because it became evident that there was such an overabundance of reliable sources that though it failed WP:NFF it exceedingly passed WP:GNG. The consensus we reached was that we would treat the article not as film article but as article on a planned films development. We then removed all of the usual identifiers of film articles and carefully reworded it as not to mislead readers.

This format was then carried over to The Hobbit film project and it seems the same rationale is being applied here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And looking at those, I'm starting to wonder what the hell we're going to do if/when the films arrive. If the don't happen the articles can likely stand as is, but... How are we going to tackle triming down those articles to accomidate the inevitable largish plot section, the cast list, and the crtical cominatry/disection sections of the finished films? Are we going to have a "... project" article to cover the pre-production/pre-filming of the film and a second on the actual filming, plot, post production, promotion, and critisism? - J Greb (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe if and when filming commences the articles will be reformatted to mirror other film articles but to answer your question if coverage of the film's production or other such section becomes too lengthy, then they will probably be split to there own main articles like Themes in Avatar.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I could weigh in and debate this. But I don't feel like that, I have already said my part. Instead I feel my teacher about this certain subject should talk about it. For he's knows everything I know and he's better at explaning it. For those who are debating on this (if you feel like) please contact User:MichaelQSchmidt. And Erik should probably weigh in too since he's the first that felt it was ready. Good luck. ;) Jhenderson 777 22:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning: Long-winded

The above discussion underscores an ongoing general debate about the efficacy and application of GNG versus SNGs and a seeming contradiction with application of one SNG (NFF) in particular seeming set to overrule policy. Some editors feel that if the GNG is met, an SNG need not be met. Others feel that if a SNG is met, then the GNG need not neccessarily be.... or if a SNG (NFF) is failed, then the GNG and policy may then be ignored.

Personally, I feel that the GNG and the various SNGs are intended as mutually-supportive and not mutually-exclusionary... specially as WP:NOTABILITY states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines", indicating to me that in a failure to meet the GNG, editors are encouraged to other considerations.

It is understood that WP:NFF was set in place to prevent Wikipedia being flooded by articles on minor unmade films... planned projects lacking coverage or notability... and I agree that as a governor set to limit run-away crap article creation, it serves a valuable prurpose. But it is an error to read this one SNG as seeming set to disallow all future film topics being discussed, for POLICY itself allows such discussion when it states that "articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced" as long as editors do not offer their own opinions or analyses, and (as in the case of films) editors take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims.

Again, NFF was set up as an SNG to address articles on future film topics that lack the sufficiently wide interest to merit consideration for inclusion.... but as the GNG itself states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list", it can be seen that through the very policy and guideline set for measuring inclusion, this could then include certain highly covered future film projects whose enduring and in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources allows consideration of a stand-alone article.

I see that at editors above are discussing just how to properly write an article on a future film. First and foremost, the topic must be demonstrable as surpassing the inclusion criteria set by both policy and guideline. In a constantly changing encyclopedia, as events progress any article and its contents can and will change to meet that changing progress... and THAT is well worth discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as this article is kept…

I was the one who originally requested page protection for this article, to avoid exactly this, and I'm not sure why it was unprotected so easily. As long as this article exists two things need to happen:

This was handled really poorly, and has kinda become a mess. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I did ask Erik that it should be titled film project but he felt that wasn't necessary for disambiguation reasons. But since we have a different opinion I guess it maybe should be done if more feel that way. As for merging the article incubator (which I do admit I never knew that was legal) no problem, I am going to place {{Db-histmerge}} on the incubator this article right away. Jhenderson 777 15:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
And should such an event arises in the future, it would be far better to improve the one in the incubator, and then request a renaming as a non-film article and a re-evaluation for suitability in mainspace for the incubated article. Its a new process, and we're still working out the kinks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The moving to incubator can't be done. I didn't think it was legal. And I agree with Michael. I am not sure why you think this is a mess. It's just a gateway to many possibilities. Jhenderson 777 00:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I do not mean that THIS one could be moved... Ouch. I meant that the earlier incubated one... the one now IN the incubator and slated for history merge (good call), might have itself been re-written, re-titled, and then approved for release from the incubator, rather than have spent time creating an entirely new article. But as the deed is done, let us learn from the experience. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No. The deed doesn't have to be done. Anybody can put it back as a redirection if it's a real problem (or request it since some people are ok with it) Just like I did when I placed it as the article first time around. I was never against that. I was just bold and giving it a try. I assure you the Incubator will still be updated along with that article which is the only problem I can think of. Jhenderson 777 01:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
In my saying "the deed is done", I was referring only to your having written a new article, and what we can learn from the process. We are not at odds here. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok good. Jhenderson 777 15:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

requested move

The Dark Knight Rises → The Dark Knight Rises film project — Until filming has actually started. Jhenderson 777 15:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment, the names The Avengers film project and The Hobbit film project were chosen partly because there are other films name The Avengers and The Hobbit, and we could not possibly refer to them as The Avengers (2012 film) and The Hobbit (2012 film) due to WP:CRYSTAL. On this issue I remain Neutral.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I remain Neutral as well. Even though I am the one to start this, this is more based on User:Xeworlebi's suggestion above. Jhenderson 777 20:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the use of "film project" was the way to properly disambiguate The Avengers and The Hobbit from the other topics. There is no other topic also titled The Dark Knight Rises, so it is appropriate here. We just need to be clear in the article body that it is a planned film and that it has not begun filming. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no need to make it a film project since it is the actual title of the movie, and there hasn't been another movie with the same title. We should keep this page as it is, but merge it's incubator with it because there is no reason to have both. -- Ice (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It does not make sense to not have a page for this project, while one exists for The Hobbit film project. There is enough information to create a start article, at least. Although, I must admit that the page should be cleaned up and provided with an infobox to be filled out as more information comes in. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Robin Williams rumor a lesson in bad sourcing

Thank you, first, to User:TriiipleThreat for removing that badly sourced post. I'm appalled by the sloppy citing, even granting that most of us aren't professional journalists or academics. Here's what went down:

An editor cited the Robin Williams rumor — going so far as to POV the word "likely" — from Syfy.com

But the Syfy item clearly attributed the rumor to AcesShowbiz.com. A search of that site revealed the "news" didn't originate there — at "aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00038210.html" (which Wikipedia's spam filters won't even let us link to) it says only that Williams "is now reported to play Hugo Strange after Batman-on-Film (via IGN) tweeted on January 28, 'RW as Strange?'"

OK ... so Syfy is fourth-hand, AcesShowbiz is third-hand. Let's go to IGN. There is says, "Geek Tyrant points out a cryptic, inconclusive tweet today from trusted Bat-site Batman-on-Film -- which read simply, 'RW as Strange? Hmm...' -- has created a bit of a buzz online." So ... Syfy is actually fifth-hand, AcesShowbiz is fourth-hand, IGN is third-hand, Geek Tyrant is secondhand and a cryptic, unsourced tweet on a fan site is the original source for this??? And this tweet isn't even readily found at Batman-on-Film via a site search.

Seriously. Any joker (pardon the expression) can tweet anything they want. It's important that we track things to their source and not take some clearly sub-standard "news source"'s fifth-hand word on something. (I'm appalled that the "journalists" at Syfy.com didn't bother to take five minutes and track this "news" down to the unsourced tweet — it wasn't hard.) We need to be careful to read where a piece of "news" comes from in a secondhand report and then check it. Most of the time the secondary website even links directly to the previous source.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

May have been a bad example of sourcing, but it turned out to be true. Boufa (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above mine, the rumor was indeed true and is has now even been confirmed through the trailer. Robin Williams will be portraying a character in this upcoming film. You should take a look at it.

Just a heads up the trailer with Robin Williams is a fan-made trailer using footage of Williams from Nolan's Insomnia. The Morgan Freeman voice over in that trailer is from Se7en. Williams has not appeared in any actual trailer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.30.235 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Freeman, Caine and Oldman

Is there any confirmation that those three will be returning. This is cited in the text, but doesn't make mention of them returning (only mentioning that they were in the previous films). As an aside, that article might be good to work into Batman Begins, particularly on why Nolan used high profile actors to play supporting roles. Capt. Colonel (edits) 20:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wally Pfister quote

Judging from the partial transcript at this BleedingCool.com page, which links to a downloadable one-hour audio of a radio interview, the information isn't definitive: Pfister even says that he's not saying Hathaway is definitely playing Catwoman. His exact words are: "Brendon, I’d get fired and I wouldn’t even get to shoot the picture… I can't really say" — so, in fact, he's specifically pointing out that he's not saying that.

That specifically negates any interpretation of his reply "in the affirmative" about shooting a screen Hathaway screen test for Catwoman. His nodding "uh huh" to the interviewer saying "Catwoman" could mean other things. Two possibilities: 1) That he assumed the interviewer simply meant Selina Kyle. 2) That he didn't want to seem rude and correct the interviewer. Or Pfister may very well have slipped up and let the Catwoman out of the bag, as it were.

The fact is, we don't know which of those three (or more) possibilities is true. And since Pfister goes out of his way later to specifically state "I can't say," then we certainly can't say. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Is this a reliable source to say that Levitt has been cast in this film? http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=20525&count=0 69.134.221.93 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The article sources Deadline which states JGL is in talks, meaning negotiates are still in progress therefore has not been cast yet.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It can be kind of tricky if you're not used to doing it, 69.134, but if you take another look at that site, you'll see that the headline (which says Gordon-Levitt is "confirmed") doesn't match the actual article — the article doesn't say anything about him definitely being cast in the movie. Weird, right? It's like whoever posted that just skimmed the original item.
Which brings us to point two: WorstPreviews.com, whatever that is, attributed the story to the WP:RS Deadline.com. So we go to the link that WorstPreviews appropriately provided, and get to this article, which is headlined only "Joseph Gordon-Levitt In Talks To Join 'The Dark Knight Rises'".
I think at this point it's fair for us to say, "By February 1, Joseph Gordon-Levitt — like Hardy, an Inception alumnus — was in talks for a role." The citation would be Fleming, Michael, the link and headline above, Deadline.com, February 1, 2011. I can't speak for other editors, but I'd certainly have no problem with that. Just remember: Always trace something back to the original source. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with mentioning Gordon-Levitt as "in talks". The Deadline.com journalist is someone who has reported on similar casting news in the trade paper Variety. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Michael Fleming is a well-known and respected film journalist, as it happens. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My only issue with reporting "in talks" is because the same source even says that it doesn't mean he'll be in the film. A lot of people could be "in talks", and I wonder if we're just giving preferential treatment to an actor who has appeared in a Nolan film and that somehow makes his "talks" more likely to lead to him actually having a role. There was no official source saying he was "in talks", just the writer saying "I'm told". I could at least feel comfortable with "told by studio execs" or something more specific than the vague "I'm told". By whom?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I wasn't looking past Fleming's reputation and that of Deadline.com. I think you're right: "I'm told" without some other attribution is too vague. Could be the actor's agent feeding the writer a "leak" of maybe-true maybe-not information to get a buzz going. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it not worth mentioning at all that Levitt is in talks for a role in this film? I know it is not guaranteed casting, but there continues to be talk about it. The Wikipedia article can afford to be dynamic and limit the detail to the fact he is in talks. Even if nothing pans out, the consideration is worth mentioning, especially when we find out who beat him out for the role. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I would say yes, even if he isn't casted, other actors seriously considered for a role is interesting and in my opinion noteworthy information. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
My only issue is that the sources says simply "in-talks". It does not indicate who even says he is in talks, or who is doing the talking. The originaly source only states that they were told, not be "studio insiders" or anything...just "told". Then the other issue is that "in talks" could mean that the producers are trying to talk to him, they were talking to each other, or that he is trying to talk to the producers. Since we have no idea who is revealing this information we don't know the direction that the "talks" are going. Are we dealing with a Sean Young situation where the actor is advocating for themselves, or is Nolan going after him? We know very little and I think that it's undue weight to place on an actor that is "in-talks" when we don't list every possible actor who is "in talks" for this film. I think we're giving preferrential treatment to an actor who has worked with Nolan.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
All we have to do is mention that he is in talks. It would not be undue weight, especially when a gauge of current news reports shows that it is not just a detail relevant to a tiny minority. The threshold is verifiability. Levitt being in talks is a report published by many reliable sources, and we can limit it to just that detail, holding out on speculation. It's going to be one sentence, and the detail will almost certainly be followed up on, one way or another. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it's important to keep in mind that as an encyclopedia, we don't have to jump on every new report in the press. An encyclopedia takes the long view. And since there's no deadline, there's no rush to include this very uncertain sounding news about J G-L. In fact, speaking as a veteran journalist, this sounds very typically like the kind of thing an agent "leaks" to try to drum up interest in his client. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh well I kind of just wiped this out earlier. Didn't know it was being discussed. It came from PerezHiltion.com, which came from MoviesOnline.ca.. which said it came from "Interesting news coming from the fan site ComicBookMovie which is reporting via an insider that they know what role Joseph Gordon Levitt is set to play in the upcoming release of The Dark Knight Rises". I mean we need to wait until a reliable publisher confirms this. —Mike Allen 03:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The actor has been cast or at least is in talks for the role of Alberto Falcone.--114.74.155.7 (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the source of this claim? Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verified by a reliable-source citation, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


We can finally put the rumor to a rest. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is playing Black Mask. [1]

Fansit....so you'll need something more reliable than that. And I do say, we can try for a source that actually identifies where it gets its information and not these "insiders" and "someone close to the project"? Pretty please?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you. It's times like these that you have to have to have faith that a major company like Time Inc., Entertainment Weekly's parent company, cares enough about its reputation to make the EW report credible. Variety has top-notch trade journalists, of course, but nobody's infallible.
And I wholeheartedly agree with you: All of this would be easier if, as you say, journalists would identify sources like we're supposed to ... at the very least say "a studio source" or "a source in Gordon-Levitt's management company." Something. Otherwise, they're putting speed before credibility and accuracy, and that's not good. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this reference John Blake, a reference to Thomas Blake a.k.a Catman? I am the Blood 08:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood3 (talk • contribs)

"Planned casting" section name

I have to agree with MikeAllen and WhiteKongMan, this section naming is weird. The casting has already started, Tom Hardy and Anne Hathaway have already been casted. So the casting is no longer in the planning stages. If filming never starts they would still have been casted, they have signed a contract, that's already in the past. I could go for either "Casting" or "Planned cast", the latter one which is used at The Avengers (film project) and was given as the reason why it should stay "Planned casting" here by -5-, but "Planned casting" seems wrong to me. Xeworlebi (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Casting has been done and is currently being done. So "Casting" is the best way to identify the heading. By that logic, should we rename the "Filming" heading, "Planned filming" since filming hasn't started yet? —Mike Allen 21:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Went ahead and changed it to "Planned cast" to make it in line with The Avengers (film project). Sorry, I thought the Avengers article also said "planned casting".-5- (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It depends on the intent of the section if it's about casting info then 'casting' is fine but if it is intended to be a cast list then it should be 'planned cast'.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Well it doesn't look like a list to me. —Mike Allen 23:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Page should not exist...yet

Its too early for a dark knight rises wikipedia, not much info has been released and the status of the movie can change. Too early, there are many superhero movies due out next year including superman and spider man. The people behind Spider man has released enough info for a wikipedia, the people behind the dark knight rises has not. Lets just wait a while for more info to come out before starting up an article. This article should be deleted or redirected F.R Durant (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, guess i retract my last statements, i think since this movie is basically "going" to happen it does deserve the page, so forgive me for any problems i may have caused by nominating this article, its back to normal now. F.R Durant (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's all good you didn't cause any trouble. Per WP:NFF what you said is true in some areas and is the reason why we are treating this different than film articles until it really is filming. :) Jhenderson 777 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the 'planned title' and 'yet to be produced' parts in the intro of the article because The Dark Knight Rises is the official title and the film is now in pre-production. It's redundant and useless to keep these parts in the intro and misleading and will make others that read it think that it's not confirmed yet when it clearly is. - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.170.76 (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edits back to the original wording. Pre-production is not production and anything can happen between now and filming. No film no matter how high-profile it is, is immune to setbacks. As WP:NFF states there is no "sure thing" production. Once production begins there is a higher likely the film will be released and at that point we can reword the article. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Planned Cast List updated and Comments about Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Juno Temple

I have changed the cast list to represent a list to make for neater editing and easier reading. All of the sources are the same. Although I am not quite sure about Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Alberto Falcone. Variety said insiders speculate him to play this role. It hasn't been officially confirmed by Nolan. I would change the source to the actual Variety article. A lot of articles following up on Variety have rearranged the wording, some say he is and others say he most likely will be. Variety also reported Juno Temple to be in talks, so maybe we could add something. But, this is Wikipedia and I know people will want to wait until it is officially confirmed.

If you want to revert the edits, then you may, but I think this will make the transition easier for when principal photography starts. Mwolvesto50 (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the film is not actually in production yet, that is why we have not created a "cast" list. Anything can happen and the film could be post-poned or cancelled outright between now and when filming begins.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
That is fine. But can you respond to other part of my post? Mwolvesto50 (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as the Alberto role, I'd be fine with removing it because I hate using things from "insiders". That's no better than "scoopers" and scoopers report rumors not facts. As for Juno Temple, I'm for waiting. We had this issue with JGL. He was "in-talks" for the longest time before being "officially" cast. A lot of actors can be "in-talks" but that doesn't mean they're actually being considered by the people in charge. Some actors advocate for themselves, while sometimes it's the studio that does the advocating. Either way, it still means "in-talks" and not "hired".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Concur with  BIGNOLE  . --Tenebrae (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Marion Cotillard

For English-language Wikipedia, when quoting a source in a different language, we must provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation. In practice, in this case, this means the pertinent French sentence(s) in the footnote, followed by an English translation. Please see WP:NOENG. --Tenebrae (talk)

Unconfirmed Bale quote

The supposed Christian Bale quote cited to a copy-paste site called Starpulse.com, which does not to original reporting and did not say where it got this quote, appeared without sourcing in a number of places. Ain't It Cool News, in this article, tracked it down to the unreliable WENN / IMDb, considered it "100% dubious" and since 2008 had not been able to get it confirmed. We cannot use a living person's supposed quote without absolute reliable-source confirmation. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (a)

He has recently been confirmed as Alberto Falcone [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbeefy023 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they are going by the Variety source. —Mike Allen 19:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually this was a leak, nothing has been confirmed yet. We will know soon enough though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbeefy023 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as its referenced, add it. Im pretty sure this is the charecter he will portray in the film F.R Durant (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Except, we have a reliable reference stating that that is false.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ensemble cast

Nolan confirmed that the ensemble cast from the first two films would return. So, should we still include it when every cast member confirms they will return (specifically Nestor Carbonell)? --Boycool (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

He was not part of the ensemble cast. The ensemble cast includes Bale, Caine, Freeman, and Oldman. They are the only main characters who have been in all of the films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard’s ‘Dark Knight Rises’ Roles Revealed

Lussier, Germain (2011-04-19). "Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard's 'Dark Knight Rises' Roles Revealed". /Film. Retrieved 2011-04-19. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hippie127, 20 April 2011

I have a picture that i am lead to belive is the cover of the movie

i would like to post it Hippie127 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: where is the image? — Bility (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Begins 6th May

The line: 'filming is scheduled to begin in May...' can be changed to "is scheduled to begin 6th may' at least for the next few days until it actually begins, at which stage this page will be flooded with update requests. Here is the citation: According to their report, Christopher Nolan and his main crew will arrive in India on May 1st. Christian Bale is expected to arrive on the 4th or 5th, and filming will take place for two days on May 6th and 7th. They will be shooting at Jodhpur’s Mehrangarh Fort

[2]

Also, only 445days, 2hrs, 12min until this film is releasedRickert28 (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: Filming in India finishes today. [3] Also a photo of production [4] Rickert (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
For some reason I get the vibe that batman-news.com is not a reliable source. And that photo doesn't show.. anything. —Mike Allen 03:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Skylercardella, 7 May 2011

I have a photograph of the movie poster. Skylercardella (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you post the link to the image? —Mike Allen 23:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Villains

So, there will be a R'as flashback (I'm assuming they'll be linking the Lazarus Pits with Venom...) and Bane/Catwoman are the confirmed villains, basically? Is the cast list a final one, or is it possible that there may be other villains not yet cast/announced as surprises? DB (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't know, but probably. Although, Catwoman hasn't been confirmed to be appearing in the movie, only Selina Kyle. Plus we don't know if she will be a villain, hero or love interest. Most likely she will be there to distract the audience away from Miranda Tate, who will turn out to be Talia al Ghul. Jake Corey (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Trustworthy source?

Can anyone speak toward the veracity of one of the sources? I see that it is a blog ("Fork This Llama") and therefore may not be the most reliable of places. If it is not proven to be a reliable source then we may need to consider getting rid of it. Besides, it is not like there are not other, more official sources available. Here is the link provided to the site in question: http://forkthisllama.blogspot.com/2011/04/status-update-marion-cotillard-and.html BalanceFish (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edited because I am an idiot that did not sign his post.

Bane pic

This is apparently the first official picture of Bane, I'm not sure if it might be useful in the article but I saw it and thought I'd provide it if it can be.

http://batman-news.com/2011/05/20/thedarkknightrises-com-reveals-first-photo-of-tom-hardy-as-bane/

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The photo originally surfaced on www.thedarkknightrises.com. It's an official photo so I think the article should include it until more notable stills come along. Geeky Randy (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Possibly at Bane (comics), but as it stands now I do not seen enough context or rationale in this article to use this non-free image.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Well for the moment in time it is the first official image from the production of the film so that's a big deal, could be used for casting or production or even marketing as it is the result of an ARG, and we remmeber the extent the Dark Knight ARG went to.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
All non free images must have critical commentary on them, and just being the first official image does not mean that we need to include it. Since we are not a news source, but take historical data, the image itself does not appear to be of significance outside of being a news report.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we could include it as part of undoubtedly new coverage about this film's viral marketing? The media will surely report on this photo and hopefully do some sleuthing and reporting about the marketing and the photo itself. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine finding it on Bane (comics) eventually and it's probably better off there too. If we do manage to have an idea to place it here it won't probably be useful forever but with a good commentary it could be a nice spare for the time being and the image can still be around for the fictional character article. Jhenderson 777 19:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but this reports, "Joining the cast are Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Selena Kyle, Marion Cotillard and Josh Pence." Non-fans are funny! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Ive heard through some people that this picture is fake but i cant be too sure. Anyways i say add a short bio for bane but dont add a picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.R Durant (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Durant, we need to wait for secondary sources to describe the characters. Since Nolan changes Batman characters pretty radically for his films, we don't know how he will portray Bane here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah i know, but we both know for copyright reasons he can only change the charecter so much. We knew who the joker was in the dark knight, just not how he was going to be protrayed. Same applies here, so i think a basic bio like the one i just submitted would be fine; since he is a announced villian — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.R Durant (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, we're not really trying to describe Hathaway's character either. The best we can do is link to the character articles. I think it's too drastic of a step to try to pull the comic book traits and apply them here. We need to verify such traits for the film specifically. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
eric.....come on. You and i both know who bane is going to be, lol. But i guess you're right. We have to wait till a bio is released — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.R Durant (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, Bane did not have access to the venom at some point in the comics and had to build himself up. So Nolan's version may be like that, or the so-called venom may be something more adrenaline-based than muscle-building. There's a lot of ways it could be done, IMO. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Sunjata, Diego Klattenhoff, and Burn Gorman

Would reports on these actors being in negotiations for roles in the film be worth mentioning in the article? http://www.showblitz.com/2011/04/sunjata-2-more-go-gently-into-the-dark-knight-rises.html

74.65.109.238 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The dark knight rises photo

someone needs to upload this photo to wikipedia and make it the official photo for this article http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=hp#!/photo.php?fbid=164294963602294&set=pu.117326344965823&type=1&theater 207.157.10.118 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC) F.R Durant (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

upload it as a teaser photo F.R Durant (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if it's an official poster. —Mike Allen 01:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
If that's the official poster, you'll need it from a better source than Facebook. The movie website currently has no logo. --Boycool (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What about the new logo revealed at the licensing expo: [5] Rickert (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't add anything. It's just the Batman symbol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New Dark Knight Viral

http://ivykiss.com Is this worth adding, or should we wait for whatever it is to be "unlocked"? 72.236.43.88 (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Like to make an edit, buuuut...

Page got all locktified, so maybe somebody who has access can do it for me? Found a pretty interesting newspiece from a fairly reliable source: http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/exclusive-what-batman-star-shot-a-scene-for-dark-knight-rises-on-monday

Can't make any real confirmation or assessments as to the exact details of the role, but his presence is as confirmed as it can get without Neeson himself stating it. And...before you write it off for whatever misguided reasons lol, please keep in mind that the original leak regarding Lewitt also originated from McWeeeny. Thanks. --NeutraVega (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Liam Neeson

Are there any confirmed developments regarding Liam Neeson reprising his role as Ras Al Ghul? Yids2010 (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

if rotten tomatoes counts... it's on his list of movies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.185.169 (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Catwoman

Can we find a source that Anne Hatheway will or will not play Catwoman as well as Selina Kyle? --Boycool (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The source that the other editor is providing says "someone from the film" describes the catwoman costume. As always, I hate using anything that doesn't identify people by name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Copypasta'd from Boycool's page. Has any official source actually said she will be Catwoman yet? The sources being added just seem to be pure speculation that because she has a costume it is her Catwoman costume and she is going to be called Catwoman. I mean I'm not doubting that, that is how it will go but as far as I'm aware, noone official has said she is anything but Selina Kyle yet and all these 'news' sources are assuming. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A POSTER HAS BEEN RELEASED

http://batman-news.com/2011/07/11/the-dark-knight-rises-teaser-poster/

I'm no good at adding posters and stuff so can someone PLEASE add this to the article? Thanks! Cross Pollination (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done —Mike Allen 03:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Catwoman will be in it

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Anne-Hathaway-on-Being-Asked-to-Host-the-Oscars-Video/topic/oprahshow just to end all discussion, I got this link from this article on Batman-News (a very reliable and great site in case there's anyone on here who doesn't follow it) http://batman-news.com/2011/02/28/anne-hathaway-confirms-catwoman-will-be-in-the-dark-knight-rises/ Cross Pollination (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Batman Dark Knight Rises Teaser Poster

Warner Bros. releases first teaser poster of Dark Knight Rises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam4484 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Filming locations - Wollaton Hall

Has been rather an open secret for the past few weeks (even the BBC reported on it), but one of the locations for this film is Wollaton Hall in Nottinghamshire - official council statement BBC report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.114 (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is filming in the leading paragraphs? Shouldn't this be further down? --DavisJune (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for Protection

I've added a request for temporary protection over at RfP. My reason is the high volume of edits that state a teaser trailer was attached to HP7.5, as per WP:FILMMARKETING. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it was recent unprotected JUST before the trailer came out. Don't know what they were thinking unprotecting it at all before release tbh, this is the kind of film that draws editors who think they are right and won't hear anything else.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The trailer is talked about on every entertainment website imaginable, I don't know why people thinks it must be on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Is it really notable? Did it cause someone to have a heart attack? Did it crash the internet? I don't know if semi-protecting it will do much good since most of the edits come from registered accounts. —Mike Allen 09:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd only think it was notable if someone provides a professional analysis of its reception. It's appearance before Harry Potter or leaking isn't so much notable. With decent sources in a marketing section, that indicates the penetration of this last HP film, I could see it being notable for hitting a lot of audiences. But that's if the sources can be found.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thre hasn't really been any analysis because there hasn't been much to analyse. Half the trailer is cut from Batman Begins, and the other half is mostly Jim Gordon in a hospital bed. There's a lot you can read into that - there's quite a few article out there analysing the poster, for instance - but nothing to substantiate it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The citations I used when I added that content contained analysis. The trailer is part of the marketing campaign, isn't it? Should we just remove that section all together? My description of the content, although cited, was the only part of that statement that violated WP FILM MARKETING. I don't understand how a reasonable person could argue that the rest doesn't belong there. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Further, the existing piece under marketing does nothing but describe content. Again,if your wish is to remove current events from wikipedia, then I suggest you delete the marketing section and put a hard lock on the article until 6 months after the film comes out. Otherwise, reporters like me are just going to keep adding information as it comes in... you know, like with the rest of wikipedia. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing notable or exceptional about a poster or trailer being released. WP:FILMMARKETING specifically warns against such customary marketing methods unless it accompanied by useful commentary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I added useful commentary and it was removed! Just remove the whole damn section then! --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I tweaked it once again to include specifics and reactions, as well as more citations. It would be awesome if the folks hawking this article were more interested in actually collaborating and contributing. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
A few things: (1) Please do not edit war. The process is Bold, Revert, Discuss. You made a bold change and it has been reverted, do not re-add it until consensus to do so has been established. (2) You still have not added anything notable. You described the posters contents. The fact that this will conclude the series has already been established in the Production section. All trailers provide clues to film's plot. The fact the trailer was leaked isn't useful as it has had no (not yet anyway) impact on the film's marketing. (3) Comicbookmovie.com is not a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I brought it here to discuss. Once again, how does the information differ from the existing marketing content. Shall we compare it to every other marketing section on Wikipedia? My guess would be it's very similar. I don't understand how my addition is bold. It doesn't contradict anything else in the article, it's simply a current even in the marketing campaign. It's certainly notable as there are hundreds of articles on it and the poster - can you think of another sequel that's getting this coverage? How about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_%E2%80%93_Part_2#Marketing Take a look at the FIRST SENTECE. As a matter of fact, there's an article on the coverage of this leak as well... shall I add that as a citation? I'm glad I'm not a new user, because I'd have given up by now. Zero collaboration. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the "other stuff exists" argument is that it assumes the other page is correct. I would say that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2#Marketing is in violation of project guidelines as well as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
If your friend jumped off a bridge, would you do it too? Just because another article does something bad, doesn't mean every article should be that way. And that's before we even get into the fact that it's an article about Harry Potter. Which is never a good thing Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
How is it bad? How does it violate the film marketing rule beyond your personal opinion of what should and shouldn't be here? Why the hell do we even have a marketing section???--Williamsburgland (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
DarkwarriorBlake - in your own words: I'd only think it was notable if someone provides a professional analysis of its reception. It's appearance before Harry Potter or leaking isn't so much notable. With decent sources in a marketing section, that indicates the penetration of this last HP film, I could see it being notable for hitting a lot of audiences. But that's if the sources can be found.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC) --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's compare this to two good articles and another article that I'm familiar with. Look at The Dark Knight (film)#Marketing. It's all about the viral marketing they created for the film. In a nutshell, it reads, "They wanted to create hype, and this is how they did it", which is essentially what this article does by talking about Warner Bros. advertising their most anticipated film of 2012 with their most anticipated film of 2011. Now, look at Valkyrie (film)#Marketing and Cowboys & Aliens (film)#Marketing. Those articles are all about the strategies the filmmakers used to create a high anticipation for the films, the reactions to those strategies, and the changes in strategies as a result. I suggest we find a happy medium with this article. --Boycool (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm game, but my understanding at this point is that we remove all valid information until a consensus is reached, and someone writes a perfect addition to an article. I'm going to go ahead and remove the marketing section of this article until someone else does that since it's much easier that actually contributing. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with Boycool, inclusion of routine marking methods is acceptable if accompanied by the type of the critical analysis as stated in those articles. Williamsburgland, if you find anything useful you can suggest here in discussion first. Discussion is a large of the collaboration process. Also please avoid making any pointy edits. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)@William: As far as I can tell, what was written was not analysis. This isn't your fault, the sources available just don't provide it. They gave a rundown of waht happens in the trailer and speculation on what it all means but that isn't analysis. Analysis would be the thought process behind the trailer, someone with authority saying WHY it was run in front of HP first (Hardly a crossover audience, we know it is because HP will be seen by a lot of people but we need someone professional to say that) and if it had anyt kind of significant impact. It being recorded and put on the Internet is in itself not notable any more than we would talk about how every film ends up on the Internet. If an entire film was leaked in advance, that'd be notable, but a trailer? Nope. In addition, giving "fans" an idea of the plot is also not notable. At the aformentioned Cowboys and Aliens, the editor there before Erik got involved had a plot summary of the events of each trailer. The section was ridiculously long and just regurgitating plot. A trailer's purpose is to tease with plot elements but giving "fans" something to speculate about is again, not notable. That it features the first video footage (I think, can't remmeber) of the film might be somewhat notable as it is the first motion/video foray for the marketing campaign.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point, a perfect addition to the article is really out of the question, as the film is only in the beginning stages of its marketing. We can create a small, well-sourced marketing section with potential, which will surely lead overzealous users to follow in the footsteps of Altitude2010 (talk · contribs), or we can wait until later in the marketing, when we can analyze a clear marketing strategy. --Boycool (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make a point - I was removing the marketing section because based on this conversation it simply doesn't belong. @Boycool, I appreciate your insight. Perhaps as the campaign rolls along a section can be added more along the lines of the films you mentioned. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so I understand... does Tiplethreat own this page? Why doe he/she make final decisions as to what will/ will not be left on the page? I say remove the marketing section - it doesn't fall into the criteria discussed above.--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
No I do not own the page, just looking to guidelines. WP:FILMMARKETING specifically states that viral marketing is one of the types of exceptional marketing methods that is acceptable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it uses cloverfield's as an example of how a viral campaign can build hype (in the same sentence that it mentioned the teaser). Please include this if you'd like to include the section. O--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
In this case the section mentioned the film's use of viral marketing through social media to reveal films first promotional image. This is not customary marketing. Removing the entire section was pointy. We only stated that the manor in which the poster and teaser were described was not notable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Pointy is your opinion, and frankly you're wrong on that. As to your take on the viral marketing - many films have viral marketing these days, and all of them reveal promotional images. The section doesn't contain outcomes per WP FILMMARKETING and thus needs to be removed. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Many films do viral marketing but its far from the norm unlike releasing a poster or trailer through conventional methods. Also no where does the guideline state that the outcome of the marketing method warrants its inclusion only to avoid describing customary marketing methods.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you need to read that paragraph more closely. It says 'Do not merely describe the contents of the trailer...'. It doesn't say you can't, it simply says it must be in relation to outcome. It says the same for the Cloverfield example of viral marketing. The section as is did not include this, therefore it needs not be there. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Again the guideline does not state the campaign's outcome is requirement for inclusion. The Cloverfield example is given for its use of unorthodox methods as it is preceded by the statement referring to customary marketing methods.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you're interpreting the guidelines very selectively. Nothing about the campaign currently underway is unique, and frankly it's hardly even viral (a single website and questionable twitter feed). I get the feeling you're going to have it your way without compromise, and honestly I have better things to do.--Williamsburgland (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You have yet to propose a comprise, only the blanket removal of the entire section since your additions were not accepted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually I made a number of changes to my contribution, which you removed with no discussion. Again, do what you like, I'm off for the weekend. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Williamsburgland, I'd say the consensus is that the trailer attached to HP7.5 is not notable enough to warrant inclusion on the page. Having read one of your previous edits (the one about the poster "appearing to show a crumbling skyline, suggessting the destruction of the city"), it is full of original research, and does not justify the inclusion of anything about the teaser trailer. Now that consensus has been reached, please refrain from editing this into the article. It may be interpreted as vandalism if you continue to do so. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that no one has actually read my arguement, and I'd question whether or not the film marketing guidelines were actually read before being applied to this article. It very clearly uses Cloverfield as an example because at the time, it's viral marketing was unique, and states that discussing the outcome and affect of that marketing should be included. This marketing section doesn't explain how this marketing is viral (and frankly, it isn't, it's a single website), what effect it's had or why it's notable. The exclusion of my material and inclusion of the material there is arbitrary at best. I'm done. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
And all of this asinine bickering despite the fact that in my citation for my addition, the teaser trailer leak is specifically described as VIRAL: http://www.theimproper.com/film/2602/dark-knight-rises-teaser-leaks-fan-scramble-to-see-it-watch

--Williamsburgland (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Going viral" and "viral marketing" are the not the same thing. What they were describing was someone illegally video taping the trailer and loading it on the web. That is pretty typical for most films, especially high profile films. They were not describing a viral marketing campaign from Warner Bros. to promote the film. Since there was not anything noteworthy about the illegal video taping (i.e., there wasn't any real ramifications from it), it's not worth putting in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Slow edit warring

In light of #Request for Protection and the actions of editors since the page was semi-protected over this I'm going to ask a simple question before taking administrative action:

When this page gets fully protected to allow editors to work through this without edit warring, is there damn good reason not to drop the article back to this point as the "wrong version"?

It seems the reason for the semi has been taken up by registered editors in spite of the request and the current protection.

- J Greb (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Teaser Trailer has been released

The Teaser Trailer has been released - http://www.trailerpulse.com/the-dark-knight-rises-teaser-trailer/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.210.173 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Robin Williams' Character

The teaser trailer has been out since approx July 4th, and Robin Williams is clearly in the movie. What character does he play. He seems to be the Doctor that creates Bane, but I don't recall that characters name. Anyone have any idea, or want to update the wikipedia page with the info. Boufa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

Erm, that's not Robin Williams.... It's Gary Oldman. Cross Pollination (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Robin Williams has indeed been confirmed (Source) I won't make any changes personally as I'm not confident I'll edit the article to the right standards, but I thought I'd just back this point up. RoadToDawn (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If that trailer is real, he's at 0:11-0:12. If he is in the film, how did that not get reported? —Mike Allen 00:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh I guess it was reported, though "unconfirmed" back in January.[6] —Mike Allen 00:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not real. The dialogue from Williams is from "Insomnia". There were clips from Blade II, Aeon Flux, Equilibrium, and many other films. It's a good fan made trailer, but it's not real and Williams is not in the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Well that solves that. Thanks. We should make a FAQ at the top of this page. Not like anyone would read it though... —Mike Allen 00:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
He's in the film in spirit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Since when are critiques of trailers cited?

There's no purpose in having bloggers' opinions on a teaser trailer. Sure the film's got a lot of hype, and people are going to dissect ever bit of marketing, but critical analysis of a trailer is rather pointless--especially when very little is known about the film, and we're a year from release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.22.32 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's just a loophole to get passed WP:FILMMARKETING. —Mike Allen 22:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


Agree with this. Seems like an excuse for self promotion. Should be cut. Scmods (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the second half or so of #Request for Protection. --Boycool (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached more than once, what else do you want to hear? —Mike Allen 21:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Using loopholes to get past WP:FILMMARKETING is encouraged on several talk pages, including this one. "Self promotion"? Preposterous. I am in no way involved with the film. Critical commentary exists for the trailer and analyzes the ability to create "hype", which is the base of any "Marketing" section. There is no reason not to include it. --Boycool (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
My issue is more with the overuse of "Kofi Outlaw" (seriously, that's his name) in the section. I mean, why does he gets most of the paragraph, when Spencer Davis is regulated to mere statement? Davis' statement comes across more like it needs to be on the back of a DVD box, where as Outlaw just seems like undue weight placed on the opinion of what amounts to an amateur film critic (i.e., true professionals don't use psuedonyms).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
After the film is released the trailer dates will serve no purpose to the reader. Why would someone want to know when a trailer was released a year earlier? Wikipedia is not a news site and listing every trailer as they are released serves only one purpose to the reader: "Click the ref to watch the trailer now!". —Mike Allen 01:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
You could maybe have a statement that marketing started over a year before the film. Sometimes there is some interesting info on marketing like I found for the Hangover II that I don't think was ever used. But I agree that a trailer release date is not that special.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with others that 'Kofi Outlaw' is not notable enough to include his opinion of the trailer, and certainly not so much of it or even his name. Seems like a self-appointed critic, and perhaps 'Boycool' is his 2nd pseudonym. -Anon98.92.. 98.92.185.180 (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I assure you it isn't. I don't know who the hell he is, I was just looking for an excuse to include the trailer and shut the (non-Wikipedia-savvy) fanboys up. --Boycool (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

When does Selina Kyle officially become Catwoman?

Okay, given the sheer number of edits that we keep seeing and the way some people are strteding to get frustrated with one another over the issue, I figure it's time to settle the matter once and for all: when does Selina Kyle officially become Catwoman? What do we need as supporting evidence in all of this?

Before I started moving into the film pages, I was (and still am) a regular contributor over at WP:F1. We, too, experience a high number of unsolicited edits, simply because a tabloid ran a story claiming this driver is moving to that team, and all for the sake of a higher readership circulation. So we put in place a rule: if you make an edit, the reference you use MUST have a quote from a person who is in a position to comment and is named by the article. So, if Fernando Alonso moves from Ferrari to Force India, then the reference supporting this must have a quote from Alonso himself or someone within the Force India team. Anything less (particularly "a source inside the team") gets reverted.

I figure the same logic can be applied here. We can officially recognise Anne Hathaway as playing Catwoman when Hathaway or Nolan comments on it. Or, quite possibly, Christian Bale and any other prominent figure involved in filming (though I'd be cautious as to exactly who the person is). And finally, any official promotional material released by Warner Brothers. Anything less than this would, I think, be unacceptable as a reference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not about what they refer to her as, but what the character is credited as. Hathaway has already called her "Catwoman", because that's how everyone knows her. But, they did the same thing for "Two-Face", yet in the film he is never actually called "Two-Face", nor is the character credited as anything other than "Harvey Dent". Thus, we cannot identify characters as such just because we know them by a different name. The recent pictures that were released were even stated to have been identified as solely "Selina Kyle" and not "Catwoman", yet certain news sources are still calling her "Catwoman".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Minor quibble with that. With "Plot" and "Cast" sections we've set the bar at what is in the film. So a lot of these articles lack "names" in those sections - Two-Face as pointed out (though... see below), Hawkeye, War Machine, Black Widow, etc in the precursers of The Avengers, a number of cameos in the X-Films, and so on. A degree of flexibility exists in the "Production" section with quotes and paraphrasing sources that use the "costume name". But it is generally with minimal weight.
Part of the problem here is we are essentially reporting on a film that hasn't been completed so we don't have the cast list and dialogue to point to. For me, I'd say that:
  1. We keep the "character" names in the "Cast" section as minimal and reasonable as possible. In the case of Hathaway's character, "reasonable" is "Selina Kyle". "Catwoman" can be added later is the name is actually used in the film.
  2. We keep the "Cast" and "Casting" separate. Both Batman Beyond and The Dark Knight blend the two which forces "The Scarecrow" and "Two-Face" into the cast list and plot sections. And I'd really like someone to double check those two films to see if those names actually are used.
- J Greb (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know when it was changed, but I changed it back at The Dark Knight. He never once goes by the name "Two-Face" and the only time it is ever mentioned is when he forces Gordon to say the nickname he was given when he worked at Internal Affairs. He isn't credited as "Two-Face" either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Crane goes by Scarecrow. The only time "Two-Face" is used is by Gordon ("Two-Face. Harvey Two-Face"), similar to the way many of the superhero/villain names are referenced but not used in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. --Boycool (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying Harvey Dent can't be refereed to as Two-Face because he never calls himself that (despite being called that by another character)? Liam Neeson is credited only as Henri Ducard, and the Joker never identifies himself as such - he only hands out playing cards. In regards to Catwoman, it's fairly clear that this is Selina's alter ego in the film. Why bignole is so insistent on reverting everyone's edit now rather than waiting for an indication that he's right (the vast preponderance of evidence says he isn't), as well as the Two-Face edits, is anyone's guess, and might help explain why Wiki is losing otherwise eager editors. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Neeson should be identied as "Ducard", but when it is revealed at the end he can be referred to as "Ra's". In the cast list he should be credited as he is credited. A mention can be made that he is revealed to be the real "Ra's Al Ghul", but he should not be credited as such. The Joker is referred to as "Joker" by everyone else in the film, and Ledger is credited as "Joker" in the film. Thus, he can be referred to and credited on the page as "Joker". Harvey isn't even called "Two-Face" by anyone, Gordon merely recounts what the name is. That's it. Why you feel the need to credit characters with names that they are not actually credited as is beyong me. That makes the information inaccurate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your rules for crediting comic book characters in movies. Despite the fact that Harvey Dent is transformed into a character that is identical to his comic book alter-ego and is universally referred to Two-Face in referenced media, he cannot be referred to as such because billing refers to him only as Harvey Dent (likely in a move to avoid spoilers, much like Ra's in Batman Begins). I'm not going to bother pointing out that you apply the same twisted methodology to Catwoman despite the consensus against you as it's simply not worth fighting you. You're a prolific editor that relishes applying an "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" methodology, and you sir are the reason people are leaving 'erikbignoleeidia'. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to be snide. User:Bignole is absolutely correct here. The movies and the comic books are two different media. In The Incredible Hulk TV show of the 1970s and early '80s, Bruce Banner is called David Banner. He's never referred to as Bruce Banner in the show — just as Harvey Dent is never referred to formally as Two-Face, just as Obadiah Stane is never referred to as Iron-Monger in Iron Man etc. These are choices that the filmmakers made, for creative reasons of their own to make the comics material work onscreen. It's not up to us to second guess them. All we can do is report their creative choices. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't being snide... I based my statement the experience of others, and the fact that bignole reports this gleefully on his user-page. If I were to sardonically put a link to vandalism I had made, and another user pointing that out, I don't think it would be wrong to call me on that anymore than it's wrong for me to point out the bignole considers himself to be right regardless of consensus. Now, as to your point, I do see where you're coming from, but if in some form of media Banner's giant green alter ego was never named, it would be reasonable to call that character the Hulk regardless... particularly if there were thousands of verifiable references confirming that. That is my point. What I'm not going to do is cross my arms, shake my head and erase and revert until I get my way - that doesn't seem to work for editors without tens of thousands of edits anyway the way it does for bignole. I also feel my point about editors leaving wikipedia in frusteration is pretty valid too given it's founder's concerns: http://www.pcworld.com/article/237452/wikipedia_aims_for_more_contributors.html --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Further - this isn't a point that I raised - I joined a discussion based on an issue that another editor raised, and my frustration doesn't stem from this issue... if you review the edit history you'll find I'm quite uninvolved in this particular dispute. I do, however, have experience with the editor in question and a minority of others that will have it no way but their way while the rest of us try in vain to please them (scroll down to the 'marketing' section for reference. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this is some "twisted methodology". First, it's actually more objective than what you are saying. The film doesn't credit a character by a certain name, then we don't credit them by any other name. That's pretty objective. The fact that the media knows that Selina Kyle is Catwoman doesn't change the fact that Nolan, for what has been released so far, isn't actually calling her that in the film. That doesn't change who the character is, simply how the character is referred. As for always assuming I'm right and everyone else is wrong, that's just total B.S. and seems like a weak attempt to be insulting because you don't actually have a good argument. There is no "consensus" that we should be calling her "Catwoman". Since I'm not the only one removing that name from the article, clearly I'm not acting alone in my "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" methodology you're criticizing me as having. Just because you disagree with how I view Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and subsequently implement them doesn't mean that 1) I go against consensus even when I'm wrong (cause I've "lost" plenty of polls to change things and followed them afterward) and 2) That you need to be rude when we edit together. People disagree, it's a part of life. Learn to deal with that and we'll get along just fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't help that everyone calling her Catwoman is doing so purely because she is playing Selina Kyle. Doesn't matter no one involved with the production has said one way or the other. She's just Catwoman because. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah - just because: http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=catwoman And bignole, I don't understand why you'd even bother to argue... it's something you acknowledge and cherish. I've said my piece, and I'm done. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
You realise your link supports me right?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the point has been made, and I know we're all editors of good will and don't want to pile on. I'm sure User:Williamsburgland is feeling disappointed, and maybe a couple of editors here have vented a bit more than necessary. But I think he now understands the why and wherefore of longstanding consensus not give character names that aren't specifically given in the movie itself. He's been here since 2008, contributing anonymously as an unpaid volunteer like the rest of us, so why don't we chalk it up to live and learn? I'm sure Williamsburgland, like the rest of us, has provided valuable contributions during his time here and will continue to do so in the future. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Batwing-hovercopter-thingy

Okay, I edited some information in about the weird contraption being used in filming. These edits were deleted, and rightfully so; I commented too much on the speculation surrounding the vehicle. However, because it is being used for filming, I certainly think its presence warrants a mention, so I've undone the reverted edit and trimmed down the emphasis on the speculation (which was entirely my fault; I've been doing this so long that I ought to know better). Does anybody particularly agree or disagree that the vehicle should not be mentioned? Re-reading the section in question, I think the whole thing would benefit from a re-write, because - while it is all worth mentioning - it is starting to read like a series of running updates on what the production crew are doing. Once the film is released and the full article is complete, I imagine that very little of the current content will survive as is. Any suggestions? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Batmobile/Tumbler picture

I suggest that the picture of the camouflage paint batmobile vehicle be captioned as a "Tumbler", as there are many of these vehicles being shot in Pittsburgh that are not necessarily 'The Batmobile'. [7] and [8] shows two camo Tumblers being filmed for a chase scene with Catwoman. And it appears that the 'Batwing' vehicle is serving as the 'Batmobile' in the same sequence. ~~ Nw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.83.221 (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The article looks great so far! I was wondering if someone could expand the lead section to reflect the comprehensive article body. For example, to identify Bane and Selina Kyle as key characters and to summarize where filming has taken place. Thanks! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at it, but I'm sure it could use fixing. I just tried to incorporate something from each section. While doing so, I realized that there is information that needs to be cut because it is irrelevant now. If someone else doesn't take care of it first, I'll go over it again later tonight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.102.121.139, 5 September 2011

change street smart Gotham girl to Holly Robinson

76.102.121.139 (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No sources have been provided to confirm that the character is Holly Robinson. --Boycool (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.160.128.86, 12 September 2011

First paragraph, third sentence, "The Dark Knight Rises will see the return of Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman as Batman/Bruce Wayne, Alfred Pennyworth, James Gordon, and Lucius Fox, respectively." remove, or move, "as Batman/Bruce Wayne" after Morgan Freeman's name. It should be after Christian Bale, should it not? Thank you!

173.160.128.86 (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Its worded as "Actor1, Actor2, and Actor3 are playing Character1, Character2, and Character3." You need to read the actors/characters in the same order. Avicennasis @ 08:56, 13 Elul 5771 / 08:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Morgan Freemen

As requested in the edit history here is the source verifying that Morgan Freeman will not be appearing in The Dark Knight Rises. Jayden Matthews (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

They are misrepresenting the question and the answer. You can see it here. To quote: "SuperHeroHype parent site ComingSoon.net caught up with Morgan Freeman at the Clearwater, Florida junket for his latest, Dolphin Tale, and asked whether or not he was done stepping before the cameras for the third Batman film. "No," he said coyly, "and that's all I'm going to say about that."". 12:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Starring credits

There seems to be a bit of miscommunication between Geeky Randy and Bignole over the starring roles in the infobox. We typically take this information from credits listed on posters, press releases or the official website. These credits were also listed at the end of teaser trailer that Geeky Randy was referring to. Bignole is right that we do use trailers as a source of information but in this case particular case I think its okay since were talking about the credits after the trailer not the trailer itself.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm neutral on Cotillaird and JGL, but Freeman should at least stay in. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
We don't know the real significance of those roles yet. It's a teaser trailer. Official press releases and after that a film poster is usually going to list who they really think is a "starring" role. Even then, Freeman has never really had a "starring" role, he's more been a high profile actor in a secondary role.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears to be the same credit list that would appear on a poster or press release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Just seems to list all of the major actors in the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Filming

Filming is also being done in Newark, NJ. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/10/dark_knight_rises_to_be_filmed.html http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2011/10/dark_knight_new_york_shoot.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.36.186 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nationality of the film.

Is the film "American"? It may be set in America and have American money, but the director is English, and so are some of the producers, screenwriters, writers and not to mention the four of the main actors. Do they just get ruled out? 92.19.41.152 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavisJune (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman as Bruce Wayne/Batman

I didn't know the role of Batman had been assigned to Morgan Freeman. Can anybody tell me if there are more interesting news about this movie?? Let me know why my correction has been reverted. Thank you all, gentlemen! --Funzi159 (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a list of cast members followed by a list of their characters. It doesn't say that Morgan Freeman is playing Batman. Barry Wom (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake, I just didn't notice. However, I think it would be easier to read if the name of the characters appears alongside the name of the actors, rather than this type of list, which might create some confusion at first sight. Just a suggestion! --80.180.152.192 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be a pretty common misunderstanding for this article. Maybe we should change it to something like "...starring Christian Bale as Batman/Bruce Wayne, Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth, Gary Oldman as James Gordon, and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, respectively." because the only thing people seem to see is "Morgan Freeman as Batman". --Boycool (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure youneed to mention who they are playing in the lead except for in a brief plot summary which we don't really have. I would have said just remove the character names entirely. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, 80.180.152.192 was me, just didn't notice I had not logged in! However, I agree with the fact we might remove the names entirely and just leaving "Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman" plus the rest of the main cast! I just don't think it is necessary to cite all of them, except the main character, of course. Surely, it has to be changed the way it is now, it's not so clear, especially for those (few) who are not common with the Batman universe. --Funzi159 (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Protection

I've requested this article to be protected. Since IP users keep polluting this page. Fanaction2031 (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Account of the prologue

Should an account of the progloue be included in the article now, or should it wait until the film's release? I can't remember what was done with TDK. This progloue has been screened to the press in the past day or so, and while journalists have been asked not to go into exacting detail, I have found one article - (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/09/batman-s-new-nemesis-the-muscle-bound-bane-revealed.html) - that gives more detail than others, enough to write a brief account of the prologue. The reason why I'm asking now is because Ghost Protocol comes out in the next few days, and I imagine the page will see a series of edits adding this in. I figure it's better to come to a consensus now, rather than on the fly, mostly because I've just come out of a sticky debate on another page, and I'm in no mood to repeat it here. Especially since this page is a lot more high-profile.

So, do we include details of the prologue or not? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no, because it's placing undue weight on a 6 minute clip.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It's an incomplete plot portion, I can't see any reason for including it. The bigger question is, is the critical reaction to the prologue worth mentioning? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
And I believe the page is protected at the minute so that will at least trim the less well-thought-out edits Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Critical reaction is positive. Very positive. I'd say it's worth mentioning, because despite all the glowing comments, a lot of articles have pointed out that Bane is very difficult to hear in the prologue. Whether this is the finished product, or something that will be refined in post-production remains to be seen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the responses in. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a new poster

I've tried adding it to the article, only for it to be reverted back to the teaser poster. This new poster is official.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=32661 http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Dark-Knight-Rises-Poster-Promises-End-Batman-Legend-28300.html http://collider.com/dark-knight-rises-bane-teaser-poster/131686/

I am going to edit it back into the article. Cross Pollination (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The new poster is already there, the old image is possibly cached in your browser, do NOT edit it back in. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
And not for nothing, a new poster doesn't HAVE to replace the previous. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ; I think the page will look more up-to-date if it has the latest poster. Nonetheless, Darkwarriorblake does have a point: Please do not change the poster until discussed about. So, I say that it is better if we change the poster to the latest available poster. Warriorblake I hope you concur. Eddyghazaley (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm mostly confused because the poster you've put up was already there for me. The one with Bane's back and the broken cowl. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Google chrome has issues. Apparently, in order to speed up the load of a page it saves the images set on a certain page in the temp RAM system(cache). So every time I open the page I see the old picture. I am truly sorry. Eventually, I had to resort to Explorer to identify the problem.Eddyghazaley (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

this entire article is slanted IMO

towards making the upcoming movie sound good.

but of course it's protected so no one can edit...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.199.45 (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out some examples of where you believe there is a bias. We can review them and make changes accordingly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
There isn't really any kind of critical option to make it sound anyhing until it comes out and things like Bane's speech being incoherent are noted. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 December 2011

Please add a link for Newark NJ because the other cities where filming took place in are linked except for Newark, NJ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark,_New_Jersey

Kick79 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2011

Please correct the sentence below as Morgan Freeman does not play Batman/Bruce Wayne!!! Just remove the text "as Batman/Bruce Wayne".

"It stars Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman as Batman/Bruce Wayne"

Richykav (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It says, "It stars Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman as Batman/Bruce Wayne, Alfred Pennyworth, James Gordon, and Lucius Fox, respectively." - That is actually the correct grammatical structure when listing multiple characters. The "respectively" part insinuates that the order of character names matches the order of actor names.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 Not done, per bignole--Jac16888 Talk 01:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

sources to use.

An useful source on the marketing section:
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/12/23/dark-knight-rises-trailer-smashes-itunes-record/ Jhenderson 777 20:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I added it. The sentence might need a little copyediting though. Thanks. --Boycool (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bane/Gordon Controversy

Under the marketing section, it says that a trailer was released and it was criticized due to Gordon's labored breathing in the hospital when it clearly is not Gordon, it is clearly Bane. Can someone please fix that? Thank you.

 Not done, The critic is referring to the teaser trailer not the recent theatrical trailer.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Cities as Influence

{{edit semi-protected}}

Nolan cites Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities instead of Occupy Wall Street as an influence. It is rumored that Occupy Wall Street has been a source of inspiration for the film as the plot of uprising of the poor against the rich implied by the filming location and the lastest move trailer, but A Tale of Two Cities deals with the uprising of French peasantry against the French aristocracy, which is similar to the current Occupy Wall Street. Can someone add this somewhere else? Thanks a bunch!

Sources: http://comicbook.com/blog/2012/01/12/the-dark-knight-rises-based-on-a-tale-of-two-cities-not-occupy-wall-street/

Mryoupedia (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done This is not an appropriate edit for this page. —EncMstr (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Marion Cotillard Confirmed As Talia Al Ghul

Recently the young actress Joey King let it slip in a interview that she will be playing a young Talia Al Ghul. She grows up changing her name to Miranda Tate. Here is my link [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.44.19 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Fecking kids, spoiling things. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The source traces back to My Entertainment World which I do not know is a WP:RS. However in any case it does not mention Miranda Tate or Marion Cotillard.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2012

The phrase "a major earthquake hitting Gotham" should be changed to "a major earthquake devastating Gotham. It conveys more of the plot of the comic and its connection to the film.

67.255.3.162 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, needlessly dramatic --Jac16888 Talk 15:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

I am concerned about the removal of the nationality in the lead section by an IP. The IP is now on the verge of violating 3RR should the user revert again. Should we just remove it or keep it in the lead? Rather than getting involved into an edit war, I am posting here to see if others can voice their opinions on this matter. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As I've said above, it's easier to just remove it. 92.19.41.152 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I assume these removals are because of a difference of opinion as to whether we should be including "United Kingdom" in the "Country of Origin" section? Although there are UK film companies producing the film, Warner Bros., who owns both the "Batman" character (and the other characters in the film) as well as the film franchise itself, is American. Since they are the parent company, it is pretty safe to call this an "American" film. A lot of films are joint ventures with international companies, but that doesn't change who the parent company is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I see your point. But does that make it relevant to include? Should it the fact it's American be included in the The Dark Knight and Batman Begins? Also, I have no problem with wether or not the UK is in the "Country of Origin" section. 92.19.41.152 (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that it's definitely an "American" film despite the involvement of UK talent. However, I'm unconvinced that it's necessary to include "American" in the lead paragraph. Barry Wom (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I think if it's anywhere, the infobox is the best place. I've never cared as to whether a film is identified in the lead section as an "American", "French" or whatever film. The infobox can identify the primary country of origin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. American should definitely be in the lead paragraph. It establishes the character of which the movie is based on. Is there anyway to add this in? DavisJune (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Davis

The nationality of the film has nothing to do with the "nationality" of a fictional character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

But the film is an american film due to the fact that is is produced by an american company. How does that not need to be in the lead? It establishes the origin of the film. This is vital information to the public and adds to the cultural production in society. DavisJune (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The film is being produced by an American and a British company. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
FFS. I've just said it's a British/American production according to the infobox with a majority of main cast, director and writer originating from there. The nationality is contested, when it is contested it is recommended to not include it at all. Discussion over. Stop reverting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I've taken it to the talk page 3 times, you've ignored that. There is a series of style and presentation rules on Wikipedia, people don't just magically all put out similar stuff. I've noted above that there is evidence it isn't solely a US production, you've taken it upon yourself to ignore me to push a jingoistic agenda. I've issued you a warning for edit-warring and ignoring instructions to discuss it, other than that I'm not sure what else can be said to get through to you.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 March 2012

Hello, the following link has changed from uk.ibtimes.com to ibtimes.co.uk and should be reflected here as follows: ^ "'Dark Knight Rises’ Official Trailer Leaked, Watch Here Now [VIDEO"]. International Business Times (Etienne Uzac). 18 December 2011. Retrieved 19 December 2011.

Current: http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/269041/20111218/dark-knight-rises-official-trailer-leaked-video.htm New: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/269041/20111218/dark-knight-rises-official-trailer-leaked-video.htm

Desertmirage1874 (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "If not Falcone, is Joseph Gordon-Levitt Black Mask in 'The Dark Knight Rises'?". Batman-News. 2011-03-21. Retrieved 2011-03-22.
  2. ^ [[9]]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dark_Knight_Rises/Archive_1&oldid=1137231179"