Talk:The Dark Knight/Archive 5

message: Okay it's been a while since anyones talked about it in full detail by why isn't Whysoserious.com considered an offical source since it clearly a Viral by WB and even has Audio and pictures that only WB could get. Such as the new picture and the Audio of Heath ledger saying the line "and Tonight your going to brake your one rule" in the Joker voice he used in the teaser clearly showing that it could only be WB sources that made Whysoserious (or at least has control over it now) and should be taking as an offical source along side "I believe in Harvey dent". But on the subject that should make Rory's Death kiss also part of the Viral campainge  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.225.161 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included links to the viral marketing sites in External links.  Considering what the sites have shown, there shouldn't be any dispute about their authenticity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whysoserious-After the word hunt 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/movies/moviesspecial/04lyal.html?_r=3&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It's a NY Times article with Heath Ledger, and there's a bit about his role and how it's been for him acting. It talks about a Joker diary he's been having. It's kind of interesting.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_begins_2_the_dark_knight/news/1677671/
It's kind of old. Not sure if it should be put in. That's why I'm putting it here. I also added a bit about the filming in Hong Kong. It's a bit wordy, so I wouldn't mind anyone cleaning it up--Lordkelvin 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! The first is kind of interesting, and I'll try to find a way to incorporate the diary. The second offers little itn eh way of substance. We can't incorporate the vague hints at plot, and the one shot that's described lacks context; the rest of it's just adjectives, really. ThuranX 03:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the New York Times citation is great!  I remember reading about Caine's comment on the Joker, but I personally think it's a little too promotional.  What is Caine going to say, "He wasn't that scary when he came onto the set"?  However, I think there are two useful bits in the New York Times -- Ledger's description of the Joker as a "psychopathic, mass-murdering, schizophrenic clown with zero empathy" and the bit about Ledger keeping a Joker diary.  I think the description is necessary in independently determining the psychology of the Joker -- I know that there's been debate about whether a character is really a psychopath, a sociopath, etc.  The description can go before Bale's description of the Joker, perhaps? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You're welcome. I'm still a bit amateur in editing Wikipedia articles, so if someone could do it, that would be great. Thanks. --Lordkelvin 04:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, great job man. Why dont you review the edits after they're made, and you'll get a good idea of how you can incorporate the next find. ThuranX 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. --Lordkelvin 04:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Do it now, and let's get it started. Pull all the Joker writing, development, and portrayal to it; make-up and prosthetics, if we find them, probably go under production though. ThuranX 05:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, like the Batsuit is covered there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: spot on ThuranX 05:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Because Bale, Ledger, Eckhart and Gyllenhaal's entries were so big, I de-bulleted them. I think this is a good way to distinguish information from main to supporting to minor characters when there is so much real-world information. Alientraveller 10:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this worth putting up?

message: I don't know whether to include this, because on the one hand, for many people, Jack is the Joker, but on the other hand, he didn't create the character. It was just so funny to see him think this is a sequel, but if he's joking... Alientraveller 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he meant as a sequel to Batman Begins since he probably saw the end of the film with the Joker playing card.  This brings up a good point, though -- people will be comparing Ledger to Nicholson, so I think the Reception section should address that in some fashion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think its certainly notable. I don't agree with what he said, but the man is 70 he can say whatever he wants now. Rekija 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of disturbing that he thinks it's a sequel to a 1988 film and can't face his age. (and yeah, as I read it, it's clear he didn't get the memo about 'new continuity'.) but it's worth noting in the article. ThuranX 03:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I read from his statement was that he was pissed that they didn't ask him to "help" them on the sequel. I didn't see him saying he wanted to be the Joker, but that he felt they were basically obligated to "consult" him on the character and how the "new" Joker should be represented in Nolan's film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrogant old bastard, for a guy with that lara flynn boyle on glass tables fetish. Anyways, in it goes, and we should stop foruming up the place. ThuranX 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Nicholson's reaction 

message: There is a new interview (today) with Heath Ledger, about Joker. It's from LatinoReviews, which is not a reputable source. But there is an video interview attached. I would say that since it has an interview attached, it's most likely...real, and not a fake interview. I'm not sure whether to put it in or not. But it has some good Ledger quotes and info. http://latinoreview.com/news/exclusive-heath-ledger-on-playing-the-joker-3297  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordkelvin (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Interview...perhaps

message: *Knight Time: “The Dark Knight” Moves Into Post-Production, Away From Chicago —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screen Magazine 

message: I'm not sure if this counts as "verifiable," but its from IMAX.com, pretty recognizable company. It has a few good tidbits about the IMAX shooting.
http://www.imax.com/ImaxWeb/xtras/?dl=beo/screeningroom/btn1/dk/dk_prologue--Lordkelvin (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absolutely verifiable, the footage is unquestionably authentic. Thank you for pointing this out, quite informative. As for new information, I think it has little to none. Unless people were unaware that the Dark Knight was filmed with IMAX technology and cameras. 72.49.198.90 (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea it was. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well read the article. Alientraveller (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Interview/Behind the Scenes by Imax.com 

message: The main article says that a seven minute preview of the Dark Knight will be shown in IMAX presentations of the film 'I Am Legend'. Not long after it says, a five minute preview of the beginning of the Dark Knight will be shown at the start of 'I Am Legend'. So yeah, I'm not sure which is correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.200.151 (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it to be consistent, though another editor may need to check about the accuracy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction?

message: Since the Batcycle has been replaced with an image of the Joker for the time being, I'll put a link to it here so it can be restored when there's enough critical commentary all around. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok, the image has a FUR for the Batcycle page. Alientraveller 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, true... I didn't look that closely.  Nix that, then. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batcycle 

message: Many sites have reported back after seeing early screenings of TDK. There are a lot of spoilers, though. However, some important things to note is that the clip is in fact 6 minutes, not 7 or 5, and is definitely a clip from the movie. Nolan also introduces the clip in the beginning. The MTV article also states how Nolan is aiming for a 140 minute film. 
:http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1575671/20071203/story.jhtml
:http://www.wizarduniverse.com/movies/batmanbegins2/006550689.cfm
:--Lordkelvin 05:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Alientraveller 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, thank you! You're awesome! 74.215.118.142 20:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TDK Prologue Early Screenings

message: http://whysoserious.com/steprightup/poster.htm
--Lordkelvin (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate it, but it's already up. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Poster

message: FYI, see the last paragraph in this article: Boucher, Geoff. " Dark Knight sneak lights up IMAX screen", Los Angeles Times, 7 December 2007. Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a working URL for some of us. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To save those that don't want to register, (Erik found a non-register link) here is the paragraph. Interpret how you see fit."Cillian Murphy, who played the villain Scarecrow in "Batman Begins," is also in the cast credits, but Nolan only smirked when asked if that suggested that Batman would have three villains to deal with this time around. "He is in the film briefly, yes, but I don't want to give away all of our surprises."  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for any confusion. Why would any "interpretation" be necessary though? We finally have a reliable source: the LA Times is reporting that Murphy is in the official credits and Nolan confirms he's in it. Anyway, I thought I'd allow y'all to work it into the article. --Melty girl (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The "interpretation" I was referring to was how to present the information in the article. Whether to just state "Nolan has confirmed Murphy" is in the film, or to say that Scarecrow is in the film, since Nolan doesn't explain how Murphy is in the film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included Murphy now, with an explanation of what Scarecrow did in the first film, because we don't know anything of the character's role this time. Alientraveller (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Nolan only said Murphy will be in the credits. For all we know, Murphy could be in the "Special Thanks" section and not appear in the movie at all, or maybe he provided vocals for the music score. I'm just playing devil's advocate, here; I hope the Scarecrow is back. 63.139.169.49 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been "known" for a while that Scarecrow will be back. There are a bunch of set pics of him with a chechen gang in his costume and full attire. It couldn't be put onto Wikipedia until now due to the issues of verifiability. --Lordkelvin (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's kind of bordering on synthesis, saying that "here's a picture of what appears to be Scarecrow" and here's Nolan's words that say "Murphy is listed in the cast credits", so that means it must be Scarecrow. The pictures aren't anymore verifiable now than they were before, and I just don't like listing Murphy as a character when Nolan was really vague about what Murphy will be doing in the film. Not that I think it should go without mention, because I don't.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 05:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm sorry, but that's just a case then of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At the least, put him in the cast list. He's been confirmed. Just say "Nolan has confirmed Murphy will return, but details concerning his return are unknown." Anakinjmt (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, how is it a case of "IDON'TLIKEIT", when I clearly said that he needs to be mentioned in the article? Secondly, he IS mentioned in the article already. The debate is about how we should, or if we should, interpret Nolan's words in the article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we take LA Times' word for it, and Nolan's nod to a "brief part". That's called not spelling it out. Alientraveller (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's official: Scarecrow will be back

message: I have added a paragraph describing the cake/cell phone promotion that was used by the production company to invite members of the press to the film's premiere and it has been deleted twice. The link used to source the promotion leads to a video clip posted by extremely well known gossip columnist Perez Hilton as he unveils the cake itself and shows the viewer how the promotion worked. The last person who deleted this content apparently had no idea who Perez Hilton is; try google. TheGoonSquad (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a better source, YouTube cannot be cited.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should have posted here first.  How's this: http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12518 ? joshschr (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That website would work better, but if it's to be re-implemented, I suggest providing a more concise description.  The detail about the cake that accompanied the YouTube citation was borderline indiscriminate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a follow-up: Comic Book Resources.  The end of the article says that there'll be a full report later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cake Promotion

message: http://www.omelete.com.br/images/galerias/thedarkknight/posterexclusivoomelete.jpg 
I'll try to get a more verifiable source. It might take a day. But I'm 99.9% sure it is real, as of now.--Lordkelvin (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New International Poster

message: I heard from a friend that a new trailer for "The Dark Knight" would be shown at the beginning of the new "I Am Legend" movie...and yes there was a nice long 3 minute or so trailer...
I checked youtube and apple trailers and wasn't able to find it...it is a very exciting trailer...
if anyone finds a link, post it up.
I also heard, in conjunction to the new trailer theory, that IMAX was going to show 5 minutes of the beginning of The Dark Knight, and 2 minutes in the middle of the movie...all this before the movie I Am Legend starts...in IMAX.
So if you were to go watch I am Legend in IMAX, you'd get to see 7 minutes of the new batman movie...
Anyone see I am Legend in IMAX last night? --Huper Phuff talk 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a source: http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6602 --Huper Phuff talk 18:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Trailers / 7 minutes in IMAX 

message: I'd like to initiate discussion here to ensure that we don't keep changing the poster repeatedly.  Now, IMP Awards shows three Joker-related posters, while the current poster image is another poster not involving the Joker.  Unfortunately, with poster images, the input can be rather subjective.  I've generally had the stance of choosing an English-language poster that shows as much detail of the film as possible (as opposed to a mere logo).  Obviously, that approach can't be taken with the current batch.  However, I would want to stick with the current poster with Batman overlooking Gotham City as I feel that we've addressed the appearance of the Joker sufficiently (and directly) in the body of the article.  Any thoughts on sticking with this so we can avoid a cycle of poster changes via consensus? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the poster with Batman overlooking Gotham City is fine. --Pixelface (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that changing the poster to the smile graffiti one would make it Joker-centric.  We have no actual representation of Batman in the article, though I think there seems to be interest in restoring the Batpod and Batsuit images when more information becomes available.  We have a clear picture of the Joker in the article, and I don't think that the restoration of the Batpod image would really compensate for the lack of Batman.  Right now, the three non-poster images are actually Joker-related -- the IMAX filming, the direct shot, and the marketing website screen shot.  I think we'd be better off waiting until additional posters are released, especially the one-sheet.  (Hopefully, it won't suck like POTC 3.)  For Dent, though, I don't think that the vandalized political campaign image has as much weight as the viral campaign that involved the collaboration of fans. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster consensus 

message: I think we can cite stuff from the trailer now. Maybe we could have before, I dunno. http://www.atasteforthetheatrical.com/deathtrap/default.htm --Lordkelvin (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trailers can hold misleading information, so we generally don't cite them.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my bad then. --Lordkelvin (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't anything big. Just, when you think about what happens in trailers, sometimes they can be cut and splice together out of order--with dialogue from one scene accompanying a different scene, and giving the illusion that the topic is directed at the scene appearing. An example would be The Prestige, which contained a scene of Michael Cain talking about a "real" magician, but with the images appearing on screen it was insinuated that the "real" magician was Christian Bale...which it wasn't--or sometimes use scenes that are eventually cut from the final film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's fine. I understand. I didn't mean to sound mopey. --Lordkelvin (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trailer Officially Released Online 

message: It now links to the trailer, is that important to note?--Lordkelvin (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could save us on external links, if we can consolidate links to a single website that hosts more than one topic.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  thedarkknight.com is updated 

message: Where did this source come from. I mean, the caption for the Joker picture, "The Joker's make-up is meant to resemble a skin disease because he does not remove or reapply it." I will remove it if thats okay with everyone.--Lordkelvin (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the original wording that Alientraveller had before.  I think some IPs have just screwed around with the caption over time and rendered it incorrect.  Does it work now? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Wow, Alientraveller wrote that? I really like the wording. --Lordkelvin (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like original research to me. --Pixelface (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation tag in the neighboring passage has been replicated to follow the caption. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Precisely. Alientraveller (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Since there were no changes to it, I went ahead and slightly reworded it to remove some of the confusion...
The Joker's make-up reflects the grungy nature of his character.  The style in which his make-up is applied resembles an infection as the "Joker has left the make-up and just let it rot off".
Feel free to edit it, but I think that makes the idea more clear. --Huper Phuff talk 18:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Skin disease according to the article? I believe this is wrong

message: *'Dark Knight' Trailer's Joker Shots Have Guillermo Del Toro, Others Smiling —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions about the Joker 

message: look here http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=215864911  now i know it is myspace and i know there is much possiblity that it could not be concept for @ Face but the right side in my opinion does look like arron eckart.  I can't find any source from where this picture came from. Could someone help me out here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.82.245 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fan art. Alientraveller (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't been any concept art or pictures of two-face yet--Lordkelvin (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this real concept art

message: There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth editing over whether the Joker is just a nutcase in make-up. Here's the original quote:
Nolan completely dodged the question, brilliantly I might add. So it's better to just leave in the understanding of how Nolan wishes to focus on Dent's arc and not make this "Joker Begins". Either the character's origin is left completely ambigious, or there'll be major revelation in the picture itself of him actually having vitiligo or something, it's best we just understand Nolan's story intentions until the film comes out. Alientraveller (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joker wearing make-up 

message: Is the information on who could have played The Joker relevant anymore? That section looks so cluttered with sources and with names that it doesn't read nearly as easily as it could. --CmdrClow (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's still useful information on the casting process. We can revisit the issue after the release, when the article will probably see lots of drive-by editing. ThuranX (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's worth keeping because it seems rare in cinema for actors to have expressed such an interest in a role before production even began.  The "reputation" of the Joker role, if you will.  As for it looking cluttered, perhaps we could move all the interested-actor citations to the end of the sentence?  From what I can tell of the citations, we wouldn't be confused about which belongs to which with the clear title.  Thoughts on that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One concern of mine is where exactly do we place the popularity of the role so as to not distract from actual issues like Batman and Two-Face. Either we could study this in a "Pre-release reaction" section regarding the actors who were interested before Nolan and Ledger realized this was their chance to work together, as well as reaction from fans (Del Toro, Loeb, Dini) or previous portrayers (Hamill, Nicholson). That, or show how the Joker is such a popular character and how everybody has their own interpretation of him, which would benefit his articles. Alientraveller (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, whaddya think? Alientraveller (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice restructuring. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The popularity of the role before the casting process seems like it would be better placed in the Joker's "in other media" article since it pertains specifically to that character, and is not necessarily essential to learning about the film. --CmdrClow (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Joker section

message: It's about Joker and Dent. Sorry if it's been posted. It came out today anyway. It has some interesting things like, the movie is predominately about Dent, etc.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-dark13jan13,1,6582601.story?coll=la-entnews-movies&ctrack=1&cset=true
--Lordkelvin (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this: They're in good company on the side of evil; here's another alternative. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We pretty much get the point across in the Development section as to the film's focus on Dent with the Joker as a plot device rather than a character. Thanks anyway to Lordkelvin and Erik. Alientraveller (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: LA Times Interview with Nolan

message: Here's two sources for anyone that wants to add in information about filming over here (in my home county - WOO!):
*Riddle that points the way to Batman set
*Holy Batman - the Caped Crusader is back in town
-- Harish - 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources on filming in Bedfordshire, England 

message: According to the interview with Heath Ledger on IESB.net, when asked what specific comics inspired his interpretation of the Joker, he mentioned The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum, and "[trying] to read the comics and put it down." Given the context of the question, I interpreted this to mean 'putting it down' in his performance, that is, having the Joker's depiction in these comics adapted to film to some extent. However, the wikipedia page for The Dark Knight currently cites the aforementioned interview as meaning that Ledger attempted to utilize these comics in his interpretation, but ultimately decided against it due to an indifference toward the medium of comic books in general, and 'put them down' in the sense of deciding against reading them. Where Ledger has stated that he 'hates comic book movies' in a prior interview  [], which may have been taken out of context regardless, should this be taken to mean that the actor did or did not utilize these writings in his performance. Where I admit that this may be a fairly trivial point, it would seem somewhat misinformative to cite an interview out of context. 24.24.90.148 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, you're right. I've replaced it with the actual ambigious quote. When I was putting the information, I had been subconsciously intepreted it that way because of his previous interview regarding comic book movies. Alientraveller (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "But I really tried to read the comics and put it down." 

message: For wikipedia's sake. Let's just never acknowlege it so we can keep our precious article intact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.164.167 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's just Ignore the fact that Heath Ledger died

message: :If you go to thedarkknight.warnerbros.com now, they have a message/memorial for Heath Ledger. I'm not sure if that's important to mention. They also added a black ribbon on whysoserious.com, in memoriam of Ledger. Maybe not. --Lordkelvin (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Change on official website regarding Ledger

message: This page is going to get out of hand, I ask for a admin to semi protect or completely protect the page.
I have a feeling that this page is going to get edited too many times when the movie hasn't even come out yet, people are already trying to change things to "The Late" Heath Ledger and things of that nature.  Protect this page please.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect Joker 

message: "Nolan was initially unsure of returning for the sequel, but eventually decided upon creating a new interpretation of the Joker, based on the villain's original appearances in comic book lore." It seems to me that this should either be rephrased to indicate that this is what Nolan THINKS he is doing (with a citation), or removed as original research (or simple falsehood.) The facts of the interpretation in the film that have already been verified by cast and crew are that this Joker is a knife-fetishist with facial scarring, greasy makeup, (poorl) dyed hair, and punk sensibilities. That's hardly the Joker as depicted in his original appearances, who is eerie (as opposed to bats***-crazy), methodical, and does not at any real point DIRECTLY kill anyone (choosing as he does to use hidden gas and the like)- and who is at no point indicated to have any facial attributes other than the color of his skin, lips, and hair. (In fact, the idea that the Joker has anything wrong with his actual mouth at all (the "frozen grin") was only introduced in the first Burton Batman movie- he's often been shown in the comics to have an unusually wide grin but also the usual variety of facial expressions.)206.218.218.49 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations for this line are in the Development section:Nolan was initially unsure of whether he would return, but felt that he did want to reinterpret the Joker on screen. After much research, his brother and co-writer Jonathan Nolan suggested the character's first two appearances be their influence. The director "felt like we've actually come around to something eerily close to those first two stories." Jerry Robinson, one of the Joker's co-creators, was consulted on the character's portrayal. The lead is merely a summary of the rest of the article, and therefore does not require citations (as per WP:LEAD), as long as the facts it presents are cited elsewhere. Steve T  • C 16:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where it's taken from- I am simply saying that what we have here is Nolan's assertion- we do not have a fact. It is a WP trope that people are not considered good sources for their own actions, histories, etc. When someone independent of the film watches it or reads the script and says, "This version of the Joker is clearly based on his original appearances in the comics," then it's fair to use it. Quoting someone who is actually involved in the making of the film, and who is demonstrably wrong, is NOT appropriate, based on the precedent established by other articles. I'm not saying the line should be removed- simply altered to say, "Nolan has suggested that..." or something of that sort. The same way that in other articles for in-production films (like the new Indiana Jones) it is considered acceptable to say, "Spielberg things "Indiana Jones and the..." is the best of the series," but having an intro saying "Indiana Jones and the..." is the best of the series" in the lede based on that quote would be strictly verboten. It would be like putting in the lede for Bill Clinton, "He did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky." Sure, we can find numerous citations of Clinton saying that- but it still isn't true. Nolan says the new version of Joker is based on this first appearance in the comics. And this is clearly not true- and it's not citable unless someone NOT connected with the production say it's true. 206.218.218.57 (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense — these are the people who are making the film. Nolan drew inspiration from the Joker's first appearance just as many people since the 1970s: he made the Joker a cold-blooded murderer and robber going after the high-profile people of Gotham. The Joker has no origin: he had no origin for his first eleven years of existence. Nolan is definitely not taking inspiration from Cesar Romero. If this is all about the Joker merely wearing make-up and having greasy hair, that is really your own opinion as to what defines the character. Alientraveller (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Bunk. A creative source, speaking on the record, as in a public interview, is a fine source for information, esp. when the interview is published in a reasonable source. Further, much of what he states is also public material in the form of a press release. Your Clinton example is a strawman, as it does not speak to the same sort of information provided. A better example would be Gov. Bill Clinton speaking in 1992 about what he intended to do as president for the Nat'l debt, as he's describing his own intended policies, just as Nolan spoke on his policy towards The Joker. Nolan is not malking a statement which can be contradicted, only evaluated by his actions. For example, critics may shoot up the movie, sayign it fails to achieve a grandiose Joker performance, and fails as well to deliver characte development. ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Hold on now.  I know what the editor is trying to say.  It's like the intended / unintended themes.  For example, a filmmaker may intend to portray the main character as a hero, but he's seen by academic scholars as the paragon of misogyny.  For this film, the director has explained how he has approached the character.  Since the film is not yet out, others cannot pass judgment about the accuracy of Nolan's attempted portrayal or cannot share their own interpretation of the character.  When the film comes out, why can both perspectives not coexist?  Nolan is not trying to say, "I'm going to make the best Joker ever," but he cites the influences.  When the film comes out, we can keep an eye out for sources saying, "The Joker appears closer to this particular incarnation than that incarnation."  Thoughts on that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: that' what we usually do, but that's not what he's saying. He's saying Nolan's inherently unreliable, because he's tied to the subject, and shouldn't be used at all. We've reported all this as Nolan's statements, and we've done so with citation. That's what's required. That others don't concur, or see his vision will be covered in the reaction section when it's out, as we always do, providing balanced coverage, as wikipedia needs when possible. ThuranX (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I get from his comment at all. I don't think there's a problem with having Nolan's feelings vis a vis his interpretation be known, in the article, as long as it's clear that it is taken from a quote from Nolan. The issue anonymous poster raises is that it shouldn't be in the opening paragraph of an article, which is supposed to lay out the objective facts and typically is not cited. He is also correct that there is precedent on WP of profilee's statements being given less weight than the public record- it is, after all, one of the reasons why editing one's OWN article is strongly discouraged. I think all parties could (or at least, should) be satisfied if we report on Nolan's comments and cite them in the article, but leave only the objective facts in the intro.ChrisStansfield Contribs 09:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph re: Nolan's take on the Joker 

message: I'd like to explain the removal of "dilemma of his vigilante crusade".  That is the core conflict for Batman, and he deals with that "dilemma" on a continual basis, so there's really nothing new here for Dark Knight.  I also rephrased the bit about the Joker, because "escalation ... situation ... personified ... portrayed" was, well, bad. EAE (Holla!) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the lead 

message: This film qualifies as a member of :Category:Posthumous works in the same way as Queen of the Damned (film), The Crow (1994 film), and even more so than Bad Santa.  Ledger was the second-most important actor in the film, and the timing of his death before the film's release justifies the categorization. EAE (Holla!) 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Iv'e started a discussion of this where it belongs. Until that is settled, do not readd the category. thank you. ThuranX (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: FYI, the mystery discussion location is Category_talk:Posthumous_works. cheers, --guyzero | talk 07:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no mystery. The Category is vague, I discussed it at the category's page, as this is not the only page affected. Please avoid cheapshot sniping comments like that in the future. ThuranX (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing cheap about pointing out the mysteriousness of an unlinked "where it belongs".  The discussion here was about whether this film belongs in that category; the discussion there is about whether that category should be deleted.  Those are two separate discussions, and they belong in different places. EAE (Holla!) 07:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posthumousness 

message: Please as a sign of respect to Heath Ledger can you please add that this is his final film, as well as maybe his best work since The the patriot. I hope they put a in memory of Heath Ledger at the start or end of the film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.208.61 (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know if it's his "best work" or not since none of us have seen it and even still that'd be a NPOV violation, unless it's maybe the consensus of many published film critics. With Terry Gilliam's "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" apparently be canceled it might be appropriate to include a mention of it being his final completed film. But that'll be up to someone else to decide whether it's worth mentioning now or not. PHOENIXZERO (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please.

message: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0242759/
24.17.73.18 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDb is not a reliable source. Nolan himself dismissed the rumour in a Wizard interview. Alientraveller (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he laughed (dismissively), and said "We'll see." 24.17.73.18 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, IMDb is not a reliable source. Alientraveller (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to CastingCallPro, she is playing Maroni's mistress. So add this and Nolan's denial of Harley, and we're dealing with just some websites believing IMDb to be reliable. Alientraveller (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should consider a subpage on WP:FILM to show cases of why IMDb can't be reliable.  We can use Internet Archive to find the purported cast/crew members before a film's release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarah Jayne Dunn is Harleen Quinzel/Harley Quinn

message: I'm not sure if this is something more appropriate on the Ledger article. It's a pretty heartfelt letter from Nolan about Ledger, about his experience with him working on the film. http://www.newsweek.com/id/105580 --Lordkelvin (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice letter.  Since this is an expression of Ledger's involvement with the film, perhaps it'd be appropriate as an external link as a kind of memorandum? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nolan talks about Ledger on Newsweek

message: The entire marketing of the film is now up in the air.  The studio heads have a big job on their hands.  The film has been in the media associated with Ledger.  The posters are going to probably be pulled featuring him as the Joker.  The official web site for Batman: The Dark Knight, and the Joker web site, both have tributes.  The Dark Knight's web site was actually shut off for a full Heath tribute.  The voice over completion was also reported on, if Ledger finished post production.  All of this should be mentioned. Right there you have the marketing, production, etc.
You don't have to go into rumors, just what is surrounding the film, now that Heath is deceased.
Nolan has issued a full page tribute to Heath that is heartbreaking. 
This is all related to the film, and I hope you get that, since sooner or later, it's going to end up on here as we get closer to the release, and the media totally making it about Heath's last film, and interviewing the cast, asking them about it.
You could now get it concise, and get it "over with", before people start coming on, posting paragraph, after paragraph about Ledger. 68.82.82.248 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at the end of the Release section, mentioning how Ledger's death would affect the Joker-centric marketing campaign.  Not sure what could be said in the respective entry in the Cast section, though.  Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article is now, the mentions of Ledger's death seems fairly disconnected from the rest of the section. That is, both the Cast section and the Marketing section report a fairly organized presentation of the information, and are then proceeded by a statement acknowledging the death of Heath Ledger. The cast section summarizes the characterization, acting technique, and initial reception of the character of the Joker in this film, but then seems to tack on an obliquely related mention of his death. Similarly, the Marketing section describes the details of the viral marketing campaign and trailers in fairly specific terms, providing an informative history of the marketing, but then makes a somewhat vague statement about the unknown state of said marketing campaign due to Ledger's passing (although I will admit that the information as of now is fairly vague). It would seem to fit better to eventually add a subsection to this article acknowledging Heath Ledger's death in regards to how it affects this film, although I would suggest waiting until the online speculation dies down a bit. In the meantime, I might suggest mentioning Heath's passing in a sentence or two, as that seems to be consistent with the structuring used for The Crow and The Queen of The Damned.74.74.86.54 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, WP:NOT a memorial. Second WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good reason to do anything. Finally, we've specifically addressed this to achieve consensus before, and no amount of WP:ILIKEIT overrules good editing and better content policies, including well argued consensus to focus on ledger's death ONLY vis-a-vis it's impact. ThuranX (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't mean to suggest that the circumstances surrounding Ledger's death ought to be detailed in this article, nor the public response to it be mentioned, and I do apologize for not making this clearer. What I was trying to say is that the current mentions of it seems to be somewhat unrelated to the sections that they are listed under. For instance, the cast section describes the characterization of the Joker, but the following mention of his death seems to have little to do with this characterization. I do think that the article should limit itself to only mentioning his death as it effects the film, my only suggestion was in regards to how the infomation was structured within the article. 74.74.86.54 (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering that Ledger will sadly not be with us to explain the inner depths of his performance, it seems fine to have a secondary paragraph discussing analysis of his performance. Halloween, an FA, adds a little bit of critical opinions in the direction section (though this seems appropriate considering the low-budget nature of the film). And as more on the marketing takes place, we will report it. Alientraveller (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we're all interested in reporting how the death of Heath Ledger impacts this film, but I'm not sure if there's really information besides speculation (especially regarding to the film's marketing).  You suggested a separate section about it, but I would have to disagree because sections are usually meant for substantial content.  Sometimes we build sections that we expect to be expanded later on (like adding Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ratings to a "Critical reaction" section with the expectation of quoting actual reviews down the road).  However, in this case, we really don't know how much his death will really affect this project.  It's definitely affected The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus in a big way.  I think the best approach is to add what little we know whenever we can, and if there happens to be a boon of verifiable information down the road, especially with the possibility of this being his last film (depending on Parnassus), we could re-explore the possibility of a separate section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: A death can affect more than just marketing. If you all remember back to the movie "Dirty Work", Chris Farley was in it even though he had died before it's release. Even if there isn't any real evidence to back it up, we all know a substantial number of people went to see that movie that might not have otherwise - simply to see Chris Farleys last performance. The same is the case here. Ledger was apparantly very troubled, and it will likely show greatly in his portrayal of the joker. The page doesn't need a memorial, but a mention is definately in order - his death will sell tickets. I for one was not interested in this movie - but I am planning on seeing it now just to see Ledgers final performance. --Magus05 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Heath's death needs to be mentioned!