Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:30, 3 September 2007

Film Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Comics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1. June 2006 – October 2006
2. November 2006 – February 2007
3. February 2007 – June 2007
4. July 2007 –

Heads-up on including new information

As with any other article on Misplaced Pages, The Dark Knight should have a high standard of verifiability. When you include new information about the film, the information needs to be verifiable by other editors. To do this, include where you got the information from by citing accordingly. (My recommendation is to use the Cite news or the Cite web template for citing your source.) Also, the citation must be a reliable source. Ideally, the best information comes from those who are from the studio and not anonymous -- the director, the producers, the screenwriters, the cast, and so forth. Sources of information that do not count as reliable sources include blogs, scooper reports, forums, etc. If you are unsure about whether or not to include certain information, just ask about it on the talk page, and we will help you determine if it's worthy of inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Scarecrow

I was checking up on Cillian Murphy's[REDACTED] article, and it says that he was on the set of the Dark Knight . The "evidence" of this information was here in the article's references list: http://en.wikipedia.org/Cillian_Murphy#_note-MegaStar If we're not going to confirm his appearance in the actual Dark Knight (film) article, then I think the info should be removed from his page. I guess it depends on whether or not MegaStar.com is a reliable source of information or just another stupid tabloid. Long story short: we have conflicting information on the Dark Knight article and Cillian Murphy's article. ARBlackwood 03:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the information from there with an explanation in the edit summary. The only valid Murphy reference is one in which he told MTV that he wouldn't be returning. There's been no verifiable information about his role other than an insider video that shows a masked Scarecrow figure. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually there was a picture with him unmasked and Bale on the set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcflytrap (talk • contribs)

That doesn't fall under WP:RS. Alientraveller 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't say it did. Was just responding to Erik's comment about the only video was with a masked Scarecrow. Mcflytrap 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should say the scarecrow will appear (there´s no doubt about that) but not mention Cillian Murphy, y´know.~~franshu~~

That information is still bereft of a reliable source. Alientraveller 15:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that we have no idea of the extent of Murphy's involvement in the film, there's nothing we can say about his involvement. If he's back as the Scarecrow, in what context? A major player, a cameo, a brief portrayal that may be cut? We can't determine that from a picture. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No... but we CAN determine the scarecrow IS in the film190.136.153.144 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No we can't. All we can determine is that someone looking like him might be in the film. There's a special thing called "editing", where people can sometimes be entirely cut from a film because a director feels their appearance doesn't add anything, but detracts from the film. There's a whole lot of "ifs" and "possiblies" and many other speculative words. Nothing that meets WP:RS has happened though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

too BIGNOLE: well your talk of editing is a speculation and i thought that was a no no for[REDACTED] 65.123.157.253 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong type of editing. He was talking about FILM EDITING. DurinsBane87 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

there may be "evidence" that Scarecrow will appear in the film, but the fact of the matter is, even if you have high resolution photographs of Cillian Murphy in and out of his costume on the set,[REDACTED] will not confirm anything on this film unless it is stated by Warner Bros. Seriously, keep your panties on, if Scarecrow truly is in the film, then sooner or later he will be added to the article. It's not like we're deliberately trying to keep him out of the article. ARBlackwood 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah and the talk of film editing is speculation wich is a no no this is not a talk page as bignole has stated before then has gone on to speculate himself. fact of the matter is we know there is a scarecrow and that it was filmed by chris nolan and i have a feeling just like the denttoo and soserious this too shall come to pass all we have to do is wait then say i told you so to the 2 editors who seem to be against truth when the time is right65.123.157.253 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He isn't saying that we'll include talk of film editing in the article, he's saying that because film editing exists there's no proof that scarecrow will appear in the film. We can't add information like that based on photos, you need an article or release from a reliable source stating it. That's how[REDACTED] works, thats the guidelines involved. Wiki isn't about truth, it's about verifiablility. We only are allowed to add things that can be verified. Also, please take the efforts to improve your grammar, it's difficult to understand what you're rambling about at times. DurinsBane87 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

noted 65.123.157.253 07:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"ear in the film. We can't add information like that based on photos, you need an article or release from a reliable source stating it. That's how[REDACTED] works, thats the guidelines involved. Wiki isn't about truth, it's about verifiablility."

My impression was that Misplaced Pages is about truth through verifiability. --CmdrClow 07:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth is reached through the verified material, not the other way around. DurinsBane87 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I said. Truth through verifiability. Truth is 50% of that. --CmdrClow 08:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

truth is the end result, and can only VERIFIABLE truth can be used. DurinsBane87 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the very first sentence at WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." (Bold is not mine.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

but you guys are verifying truth if its about verifiability then that means that we can verify something false and slap it in article if its by that logic ! 65.123.157.253 03:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's verifiable, it usually not a lie. DurinsBane87 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

years ago it could have been verified that the earth was flat,that witches exist etc. Theres an article about god but he hasnt been verified to exist so since theres no verifiable source to prove god exists delete that article too! my point is that this is about verifiability and not truth you can verify something false and on that logic youd hafta slap it on the article as opposed to whats true. so its truth through verifiablity to verify that something is true not just about verifiability!65.123.157.253 05:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the[REDACTED] article about god claim that he exists, or just that people believe he exists? There are thousands of reliable sources saying that people believe he exists, but a church website or religious pamphlet is far from a reliable source. Even if religious sites were reliable for cetain things, they wouldn't be reliable about an article like that as it is a conflict of interest, which is overed in wikipedia's policies. If you don't care to read or follow wikipedia's policies, you really shouldn't be here editing. DurinsBane87 07:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

you picked what i said about god and ran with it and didnt adhere to the rest of the things i had to say or the point i made65.123.157.253 08:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop arguing and just listen to the consensus. Alientraveller 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ok i read it what are we agreeing to abide by ? also i havnt edited anything65.123.157.253 08:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To not add Scarecrow without a reliable source. In this case, it would be a cast member, including Murphy, saying he is in the film. Alientraveller 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

i never said we should 65.123.157.253 10:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand at this point exactly what the unnamed user is arguing for (partially due to his grammar, but mostly because of his rambling on of "Henry knows that she knows. She knows Henry knows she knows and Henry knows that we know it.") Alright, what's the problem? The problem is that it is rumored that Scarecrow will be in the film. There have been photos taken that do not fall under a reliable source category. There have been no news articles, no magazine articles, no reliable internet articles, no reliable sources. Nothing can be placed on Misplaced Pages without a reliable source. The purpose of a reliable source is to determine information that can be included, for it is most likely true. I'm really not seeing what the argument is here. It cannot be included. Now, it was mentioned that a number of fans believe that Scarecrow will be in the film because of the previously stated pictures taken....... is there a reliable source for that? Is there a news article stating just that? No? Well then, there is no reliable source. That information cannot be included. How the unnamed user derives that by this logic lies can be posted is beyond me. The only this is possible is if someone lied to reliable source organization, in which case we've got new information for the article. The Filmaker 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing official is gonna be given about scarecrow as his appearance is a surprise moment in the film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps. So we will wait until the actual film. Alientraveller 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And where is the source for the supposed "surprise moment"? I have yet to read a source (even an unreliable one) that states this is without a doubt a surprise moment. I've read assumptions and speculation, which are merely rumors. And we all know how we feel about rumors on Misplaced Pages. The Filmaker 18:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I noticed Scarecrow's[REDACTED] page basicly said he wasconfirmed. So unless things have changed (which I don't think they have, considering no change here or on The Dark Knight's article has been made)I think it should be removed. It said this:

Murphy has also been spotted filming on the set of Batman Begins sequel The Dark Knight, reprising his role as The Scarecrow, though it's not known how big his role in the upcoming film may be, though being as the film focus is mainly on the Joker, it isn't expected his role is to be very big. In an interview with Wizard Magazine, David S. Goyer said that the Scarecrow's role in The Dark Knight probably won't be much bigger than Willem Dafoe's role in Spiderman 2. (Taken from Scarecrow (comics)

Does that sound reliable? I think it couldbe fake but I don't read Wizard. Should it be removed? User:Claycrow

I removed the mention of Murphy being spotted filming, and I added a citation-needed tag to the mention of the Wizard interview. I checked the site myself, but there's nothing there (yet). Sometimes Wizard magazines will have articles in print for some time before they get online. If you come across a link to the interview, feel free to provide it here, and we'll work in the Cillian Murphy information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternately, give us the issue number and apge info for a standard print citation. ThuranX 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering I've actually seen a screenshot of Scarecrow, I reckon Cillian Murphy should be added to the cast section. Defunct Lies 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a reliable source with that? Was it a release? or was it a "scooper" pic. Because, for the 1000000th time, scooper pics are not reliable, and aren't allowed to be included for both copyright and verifiability issues. DurinsBane87 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Does "scooper" mean leaked pic or something cause it was leaked and I came across it pretty much by mistake. Defunct Lies 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. DurinsBane87 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Michael Hall

Anthony Michael Hall - Should be listed under the main actors, I think his role is significant. Legobrickmaster 09:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He is listed, but we don't know his role or its significance. Alientraveller 09:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alientraveller. Hall's actual role is not verifiable, and the role's significance is not independently clear. That's why we've included uncertain roles in a prose paragraph, until we can find out with independent evidence that a role is notable enough to be in the main actor list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:25, 7 August 2007(UTC)

It is has been rumored that Anthoney Michael Hall is to be Edward Nygma, who as we all know becomes the Riddler.Though the transformation is not expected to happen in this film.Two-face aka Harvey Dent(Aaron Eckhart) is supposed to be the next villain.So Legobrickmaster and Alientraveller are both correct, he is a very important key but just not in this film.Expect to see him in a few places in the movie probably dealing with new technology for Lucious Fox.(morgan Freeman) {chris bbd lyons) 4:09 am 10 august 2007 (UTC)

Rumors are not verifiable. We will need to wait for concrete coverage about the nature of Hall's role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my question, is it a "they haven't decided his role" type of thing, or do they just not want to tell us yet? User:Claycrow

The latter. As you can see above, there are rumors about his role. However, I'd like to remind you that per talk page guidelines, Misplaced Pages is not a forum for general discussion. It may be better to discuss the film in general at a place like IMDb. Also, to leave your signature, type four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

According to IESB.net, Hall's role is that of a reporter holding a personal grudge against Bruce Wayne. Would this website qualify as a reliable source? 74.67.115.198 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this was first reported here and that site has been covering The Dark Knight accurately from the start. --Itsallthat 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

David Banner

Does anyone outside the rap music scene know who he is? Does anyone outside the rap music scene care that he auditioned for Gamble yet lost out? This is hardly notable. Mcflytrap 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Other actors auditioning for a role are always notable. Alientraveller 14:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that we don't know the degree of Gamble's role in the film, and that David Banner seems notable, and that MTV covered the audition, it seems best to include the information for the time being. When the film comes out, we can determine if his role is notable enough to warrant mention of Banner auditioning for Gamble. The same would go for other roles, such as the mayor of Gotham City. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Joker Image

details of a panel at WizardWorld where the scarred and horrific image of the Joker is confirmed as the film image. AlanD 10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know that. Alientraveller 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Terribly sorry if I've offended, was sent the info and posted it up here to try and be helpful not to seek sarcasm.AlanD 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

exclusive footage

It should be at least mentioned in the marketing section, in my opinion.franshu190.30.207.17 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are You talking about the WizardWorld Panal, cuz if so then i totally agree that it should be mentioned. After all, they did officially reveal that Harvey becomes Two-Face there. The Great Morgil 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

exactly, i´m talking about that. franshu190.136.96.203 03:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No verifiable, reliable source, then it doesn't go in. I don't know what would actually go in regardless. Just to say "there was some exclusive footage at WizardWorld"? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a scooper site, or a place to come for current events on your favorite subject. Things have to have encyclopedic relevance...and yes, I know there are plenty of articles that don't adhere to that, but this one tries to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole. It's not encyclopedic to report the emergence of every promotional item in relation to the film. The viral marketing campaigns have been notable, but it's commonplace for footage to be shown. The footage mention would be fleeting because when the film comes out, there won't be much use for mentioning it. The viral marketing, though, is something that can remain. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If footage was shown, then it´s as notable as the viral marketing campaign or the guys dressed like the joker... it´s even more relevant than that. franshu190.136.159.20 18:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Footage being shown isn't as notable as a viral marketing campaign, which I don't think is that notable itself considering the lack of coverage it actually got outside the comic book community. It's just simple footage. No more, no less.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's commonplace for footage of upcoming films to be shown, whether at conferences or expos or in teasers and TV spots. Unless there is some unique notability for its presentation, such as what was done to show both the first Joker image and the first teaser trailer for this film, or for a certain untitled teaser, it doesn't really warrant inclusion. Is it really notable to mention that The Invasion or some other upcoming release just had a new TV spot last night? I would suggest thinking of this article in terms of the long run; what information would be appropriate to last "forever" here? Commonplace commercial acts would not be. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a trailer (or exclusive footage, in this case) is ALWAYS more important than, for example, how much money will be left in Chicago because of the film, or something like that. Nobody actually cares... nobody who´s looking for TDK info, don´t misunderstand me. It is also more relevant than the actors who "wanted to play" this or that character but at the end didn´t (what´s the sense of this? it´s almost trivial info). franshu190.31.43.155 21:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So clearly you care more for fiction than facts. Alientraveller 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to say "you're outta yo mind" if you think a trailer airing is more important than the real world content such as how much money the film makes Chicago--if it helped in some way other then some novice amount of cash, like if the city was in a deficit which was fixed because of this production. Misplaced Pages is not a news organization, or an entertainment chathouse. We aren't here to serve your filming needs; try SuperHeroHype, or BatmanOnFilm if you want that. We're here to bring the public the best encyclopedic articles possible. Something as extraneous as footage shown at WizardWorld is not encyclopedic, and neither is mentioning a trailer being aired. I think linking to the trailer is sufficient.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor, we have no intention of catering to fanboys. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and this involves the real-world context of what has influenced the film's development or how the film's production has impacted local economies of its shooting locations and whatever else WP:MOSFILMS entails. A list of scenes shown in the exclusive footage is not long-lasting, encyclopedic information. The interest of actors in portraying the Joker and Harvey Dent reflects the popularity of this revitalized franchise; it's part of the film's reputation that actors would express interest in a role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I´m not asking you to DESCRIBE the footage, but tgo mention it was shown. If you don´t, then the marketing section is senseless... if you make a marketing section you MUST mention marketing campaigns. The exclusive footage in WWC is as relevant as... uhhh, another example..... the comic con spider-man 3 trailer showing venom, remember?. franshu190.136.153.88 01:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually do think marketing sections are senseless, unless they have some notability to them. Some films have that some do not. In most cases, it would be one of the first sections I would vote to be removed if an article became too long--unless evidence can be shown that the marketing was notable in some way. Also, "exclusive footage" is not marketing when it's shown to a limited number of people who have access to the event. It isn't some wide-scale event.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bignole is right. It's rather indiscriminate to say that a studio has provided a film by promoting its footage or by distributing promotional materials. Like Bignole said, if there are unique marketing ploys, like the two viral marketing campaigns that have been had for this film, it can be covered as notable highlights of the marketing. For example, in Production, cameras are used to film these movies, extras are hired to stand in the background, lights need to be hooked up for interior scenes. These are things to expect, and the distribution of footage and promotional materials like posters are also to be expected. I don't believe that revealing footage of the film, whether for this or in upcoming trailers or TV spots, are notable in the long run. We don't cover the revealing of images like the new Batsuit or the Batpod, but since there was content based on them, it was included. We included real-world context from that convention about production, but there's nothing unique about footage being shown. Films eventually show footage before their release at some point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Only those things which make a particular marketing campaign unique, and/or draw attention in a non-traditional manner, such as 360 experiences and so on, are worth noting. Finally, franshu, PLEASE register. You switch IPs regularly, making conversation with you in any way other than talk pages impossible. Register the franshu name, thank you. ThuranX 03:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

AHH ERIK BIGNOLE AND THURAN ON POINT AS USUAL I DUB YOU THE VERIFIABULLYS

OK, I´ll register, but actually I don´t have very much time so maybe I´ll wait some time before doing so. franshu190.137.19.199 00:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Right, I´ve just registered. I don´t know what you wanted to tell me but you can do it now.Franshu 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not notable that footage was shown but it's very notable that a not-so-well-known rapper auditioned for a minor role, and lost! Mcflytrap 17:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's rank?

Are we sure Gordon is commissioner now? Wasn't he just promoted to a lieutenant in the last movie? Or has that been re-retconned?

It could be someone's mistake while reporting, or it could be that we don't know the amount of time that has passed since the last film and he could have gotten promoted again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the source, Gordan says "We can call him commissioner now." I think it's a bit to ambiguous at this point to add the information. The Filmaker 22:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

At the Panel yesterday at the WizardWorld Convention in Chicago, They did call him the "former lieutenant now commissioner Gordon".The Great Morgil 00:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you do not have an actual reliable source, that is beyond "I was there.", than we cannot keep the information. The Filmaker 00:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the fact that any and all electronic devices were banned from the event, I think any evidence is impossible. The Great Morgil 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And thus, it cannot be included. No reliable sources. The Filmaker 03:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Newsarama's link doesn't seem to be working anymore... anyway, it seemed to be a reliable enough source, but Wizard's coverage doesn't mention anything right now. (Besides, I think I heard in the rumor mill that Commissioner Loeb was back?) I've excluded mention for now until something concrete arises. A detail like this doesn't demand inclusion at the moment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also add that since our cast lists are supposed to reflect either the official cast list or the cast as they first appear, he may end the film with the fall of Loeb and the rise of Gordon. Until we know, let's hold off. ThuranX 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Premise section

Why was the Premise section removed and included in the lead section? It doesn't conform to WP:LEAD, which should be a concise overview of the article. I don't think we had the most developed lead section before the premise was merged into it, but I think the Premise section should exist on its own. What we could do is write a fuller lead section that encompasses the production and the marketing of the film, and the premise can be mentioned very briefly, "Batman confronts the Joker," or something like that. It just seems odd to have "unique" information in the lead section that does not exist in the article, even though that Premise section is small. (My expectation is that an official synopsis will be revealed in time, in which we can rewrite in a neutral tone, to lengthen the section some more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the change. I don't believe it should have been moved either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

restored it. ThuranX 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I merged it into the lead section because I found the small section to ugly, and felt it didn't deserve it's own section. The lead is normally an overview of the entire article that does not contain as Erik put it "unique information", however this does not mean that unique information is forbidden, nor is it even discouraged. And there is no reason I can see that it shouldn't be allowed in the lead, provided that it is not trivial and cannot be merged into other sections with subjects that deserve there own sections. The Star Wars film articles, up until recently, contained the note akin to "Among fans it is commonly referred to as (abbreviation for film title)". (for the record, they were removed for the lack of a good reference) If you'd like to find actual reasonings for it being an overview. The cast section pretty much provides the same information, with Batman, Gordon, and Dent rounding up criminals and fighting the Joker, although reference can still be kept. The Filmaker 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it can be granted that there will be some redundancy between Synopsis-type sections and Cast sections about plot details, whether the article is for a future film or a released film. I understand that unique information can exist in the lead section under certain circumstances, but this information is usually sentences like the one you mentioned, not a full paragraph. I believe that we should instead rewrite the lead section to encompass the article better, with a sentence mention of the premise like I mentioned before, about Batman dealing with the Joker. (I don't usually focus on lead sections for future films since they tend to change rapidly, but we could have a full one here for the sake of being comprehensive.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Some information

After researching the website IGN.com in the movie section they have seemed to have gotten a screen new actual footage trailer and from the information given it seems to be that A.Two face will appears in this movie B.Nothing on scarecrow has been said meaning he might be in the movie for nothing but a quick cameo and C.That Ledger will neither be doing a Jack Nicholson take or Mark Hammill(In the TAS) take on the joker but from what the film makers say he has his own style that is just as good check it out http://movies.ign.com/articles/812/812404p1.html

I'm not positive whether or not IGN.com falls under WP:RS. But I'm not an expert on the subject. The Filmaker 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Already cited, and IGN is a reliable source: a diamond in the rough. Alientraveller 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

IGN is fairly reputable in its own right; it provides exclusive interviews and set visits. However, when it reports something as a rumor, it should be overlooked. It's not The New York Times in terms of scooper reports being substantial. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I just didn't see the information so yeah my bad for posting already posted information--Change is coming and potter should have died 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New Images

Look here http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=11644 can we use this somewhere or not? ManofSTEEL 2772

At the moment, no, because we have no critical commentary to accompany any new images. But, it should be ok to leave this link here for later, when the article is more developed. There were some good images in there, like one of the Joker and Batman, and I'm sure that when the article is more fleshed out these will provide better quality then a simply screenshot via DVD. That is, if we find that what's on those pages is something we can use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some huge spoilers in there! ManofSTEEL 2772

Very interesting... It looks like some of those were scenes shoen in the exclusive footage they showed (Joker and batman in the interrogation room, etc). I don´t see what spoilers the photos can have... at least, I already knew there were a lot of batmans in this film. I don´t know if anyone has realized, but one of those pics (the one where all the fake batmans are) show a guy who looks like cilian murphy. Am I OK or it´s just that I´m obesssed with seeing the scarecrow again?Franshu 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actual Joker pics.

If these arent correctly sourced or cited with truth, i apologize.

(link removed)

(link removed)

(link removed) found them there.

As said below, these cannot be included unless they are used with critical commentary. The Filmaker 01:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I heard rumours said warner bross had those pics taken down and already told some site who had them. The rumours also said the pics were stolen without permission. Don't have any reliable sources to support the rumours though. Should wait for the reliable source. (PS: I believe the picture was real due some of the picture coincidentally match the trailer report from wizard world chicago ) Kunderemp 18:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the images have been removed from numerous websites, which is more reason not to include the images. I don't think it matters to discuss their inclusion due to the illegal distribution. When images are distributed in an official capacity, we can see about matching them with any relevant content in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. We don´t want to get into truble, do we?Franshu 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Batman Picture

in the article you discuss the design of the new batsuit. there are pictures out there that show the new suit. i would like to see a picture of the batsuit in the article because you can describe it all you want but i know that you dont get the full effect of how different it is unless you see. this is just a suggestion but i do believe it would improve the article because you do describe the differences, so show them as well. ~DOUBLE D~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.19.73.142 (talk)

Consensus was reached here. Alientraveller 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reason for not using it is because we had to decide on either the Batsuit or the Batpod, and the Batpod had more real world content available describing it. We cannot have both, because the section on the design cannot support two images.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An additional reason is that the current official image of the Batsuit is not quite clear, either. The illegally leaked photos of the new Batsuit obviously cannot belong on Misplaced Pages. When more overall information about Design is forthcoming (see length of Batman Begins#Batsuit), we can incorporate that information and the relevant photo. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

understood....i didnt notice the previous discussion about it....sorry ~Double D~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.19.73.142 (talk) 22:32, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

New Budget info

The budget for the movie now exceeds $200 million, see here http://movies.ign.com/articles/814/814250p1.html Consider changing the budget info of the main article accordingly. 72.49.194.69 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

IGN isn't as reliable as the Chicago offices. Alientraveller 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that IGN cites a scooper report from HollywoodChicago.com. So someone purportedly involved with the studio sharing this information isn't verifiable. $50 million is a big difference, and I'm sure a more reliable source will surface about the budget growth, provided that it's true. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

IGN isn't reliable? Do you realize that countless video game and other media articles strewn across Misplaced Pages cite IGN as a source? Why should it be considered unreliable in one article, yet reliable in hundreds of others? I don't really care that you change the budget info, but you need to clarify what you say when suggesting IGN cannot be cited. 72.49.194.69 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

An example of this, I cited IGN in the article for the videogame 'F.E.A.R. Sequel' under the citation name of "Monolith's Paranormal Project" in which I added a release date to the article. The editors (I'm guessing) apparently found that acceptable. 72.49.194.69 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

IGN isn't as reliable dude. Don't mess with wording silly boy/girl. Alientraveller 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to be condescending. I think he just needed a clearer explanation about why the IGN citation would not be appropriate here (the scooper issue). I'm sure if IGN had an exclusive interview with a producer that said the budget went up to $200 million, IGN would be appropriate to cite here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry there fellow editors. Alientraveller 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Location

cbs2chicago.com says: "Star Christian Bale will be seen hanging out around the IBM Building on Wabash -- since that's doubling for the headquarters of Wayne Enterprises." I don't remember if this was covered in Batman Begins, but the article for the building is here. Worth including? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Slight conflict -- 330 North Wabash isn't the home to IBM anymore, Hyatt Center (on S. Wacker Drive) is. So which building should it be assumed? Hyatt Center looks like the one, so I don't know how to word this reference with the apparent conflict. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we wait. Besides, wasn't Wayne Enterprises the Chicago Board of Trade Building? Alientraveller 18:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we'll wait, but I have a feeling that it's 330 North Wabash -- it was known as IBM Plaza, where Hyatt Center hosts a bunch of companies. I don't remember the film, though... I thought that was the central water hub? Bignole saw the movie recently, he should be able to tell us. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as exteriors are concerned, neither really look like Wayne Enterprises, they could have doubled on the inside. But, I'm sure I'll be going through the DVD special features for the BB FA drive after the review section is done, and if it was different then we could note that they changed the building stand-ins.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Loeb

Loeb is in this film, so Colin McFarlane should be added into the cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk • contribs)

Unless you actually have a reliable source... Alientraveller 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you just love Anon? 72.49.194.69 12:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Joshua

• Unassessed film articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Unassessed Comics articles
• Unknown-importance Comics articles
• Unassessed-Class Comics articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject Comics articles