Talk:The Dark Knight Rises/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Plot Holes Posts

The post at the top of the article mentioning plot holes has references included that don't have a damn thing to do with mentioning about the Dark Knight Rises plot holes. The gamespy articles isn't even about the plot, and has more to do with comparing the film to the Arkham games. The section at the top of the article should be removed. The guy also spelled criticizing wrong. The mention of plot holes is not something that's really paramount in the discussion of the film so much so to be included at the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrapper (talk • contribs) 08:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Reading through the article, there's about one line noting this fact in the article. —Ed!^(talk) 11:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit showing up thrice

I just made a minor edit to the page (changed "was been fixed" to "was fixed"). I think someone else was editing the page at the time. After I saved and checked the summary, I saw that the edit shows up thrice. Is that a problem? Trevor coelho (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh and Bane/Bain

This sentence misses the point that Rush Limbaugh was trying to make: "On the other side of the political spectrum, politically conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh alleged that the film was biased against 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney due to Bane's name being a homophone for Bain Capital, the financial service company Romney used to head"

He said, in part, the following: "I never said that the villain was created by the comic book character creator to be part of the 2012 campaign. I never said that at all. Everybody's out there running around saying I got this giant conspiracy theory that the Batman people, the creators, the comic book creators, created this thing to campaign against Romney. I never said that. I didn't say there was a conspiracy. I said the Democrats were going to use it, which they are." Complete transcript here http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/18/world_on_fire_over_batman_and_el_rushbo

There is a difference between the filmmakers' intent and those in the political world, including those in Hollywood who are marketing the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFisherJr (talk • contribs) 15:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

DonFisherJr (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Implication of Bane as "Offspring" of Ra's al Ghul

I've made the edit three separate times within the article, and it's continually revoked without reason. After the plot detail that states that the other prisoners within the prison describe the story of a child who escaped, I've added, as consistent with the film, the implication of Bane as Ra's al Ghul's child. This has been reverted three separate times. Within the film, both the viewer and Batman are led to believe that the child shown escaping from the prison is both the child of Ra's al Ghul and Bane. If this implication is not included in the article, than the final "plot twist", which reveals Talia al Ghul as the child to escape from the prison, makes no sense. The way it stands now, "it was she to escape from the prison as a child...", implies that there was some indication otherwise. That indication exists in the film, but not in the article. A simple, "leading Batman to believe this child was Bane", or something more well written along those lines, would suffice if placed after the "a young child believed to be the offspring of Ra's al Ghul." line. I'd make the edit myself, but it apparently keeps getting reverted without any stated reason or message, whether sent personally to me or posted on this talk page. This is an open community, treat it as such, whoever keeps reverting my edit. If a good reason is proposed for not making that edit, I'm completely open minded. ItalA19 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why epic

Why there is an "epic"? (JasHne VB (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC))

Epic film – An epic film is a genre that emphasizes human drama on a grand scale. Epics are more ambitious in scope than other film genres, and their ambitious nature helps to differentiate them from similar genres such as the period piece or adventure film. Epic historical films often take a historical or imagined event, or a mythic, legendary, or heroic figure and add an extravagant, spectacular setting and lavish costumes, accompanied by a sweeping musical score, and an ensemble cast of bankable stars, making them among the most expensive of films to produce. The Dark Knight Rises is nearly three hours long, has an estimated budge of $250M ($100M more than Batman Begins and $65M more than The Dark Knight), large action sequences, and a popular actor or two. sounds like an epic to me. 138.162.140.52 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the classification. Meets the criteria for the epic genre. In an anecdotal manner I might add that the tone of the film felt more on par with Greek tragedy than Hollywood, haha. --DimentalLabs (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Added the term "epic" to the lead. If you think that this does not match the criteria for the film. Discuss here. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

At least find a soure that says that it is an epic. FYI, opinions don't count, the genre must be defined as an epic.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

At best, even if a source classifies it as such, the primary genre is "superhero film". We don't need to be listing multiple genre's in the lead. That is why we have categories at the end of the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012

The last sentence in the plot can be changed from: "Alfred witnesses Wayne and Kyle alive together at a café in Italy, while Blake inherits the Batcave." to "Alfred witnesses Wayne and Kyle alive together at a café in Italy, while Blake, whose legal name is revealed to be Robin John Blake inherits the Batcave.

Damodarant (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I vote to deny this one. His legal name is irrelevant to the plot of the article. We only know that his first name is "Robin". We do not know if John Blake is also his name, if he had a different last name, or what. Lastly, it's a passing reference to the comic character and had we not know who "Robin" was in the comics we normally would not even include it in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: as per Bignole. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 06:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's already included in a description of the character in the cast section, which is a better place for it than the plot summary. DonQuixote (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this madness. So the movie is wrapping up and tying loose ends, but a reveal of the full name of the character to start with [i]Robin[/i] isn't considered worth mentioning in the plot? I haven't seen the movie and just wanted to read the plot, and I'm glad I make a habit of checking the history to see if something important is being edit-warred over, otherwise I would have missed this important tidbit. 64.148.0.109 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's unimportant to the plot. It's a throwaway line that's only important to the character. Hence why it's in the character description and not in the plot summary. It's madness to include every little detail in the plot summary when it can be fleshed out better in other sections of the article. DonQuixote (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree that it's unimportant. If he said his name was "Joe", in no relation to anything, then yes, I would agree. Setting the stage for the introduction of Robin, as in Batman and Robin, is hardly a minor detail that should be relegated to the Cast section (which I didn't read before it was mentioned here, nor should I have to pick up an important plot point). 64.252.116.241 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

How is "Batman and Robin" important to the plot of The Dark Knight Rises? It's probably important to the plot of the next movie, if there is one, but not this one. DonQuixote (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Blake's first name being Robin has absolutely nothing to the with the plot of the film, which is main focus of the article. The only majorly important part of Blake's character is his detective skills, which he uses to deduce Batman's identity, and it is mentioned in the plot because it does have significance to the storyline.Tng88 (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not important to the plot of this movie if you've got blinders on and pretend this movie has nothing to do with the Batman universe. As an important piece of information that is revealed at the end of the film as it is tying up loose ends, it deserves mention in the plot section, which is why people keep on trying to add it back in. I really don't see what's so horrible about including it that you want to keep on fighting it. 64.148.20.113 (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Or...it's important to the plot if you've got blinders on. Yes, we all get the reference, but it's not really tying up loose ends. As pointed out above, his first name could've been "Joe", at which point there would not have been a dangling plot strand. That's why it's not minutely detailed in the plot summary. However, it's importance to the Batman universe is recognised, and it's importance to the character of Blake is recognised, so that's why it's included in the character description. This also allows us to flesh it out further, pending the availability of more reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you "all get the reference", and you even acknowledge its importance in the larger scheme and to the identity of the character, should be enough to include it in the plot. A mention in the "Cast" section just doesn't do it and is likely to be missed by the average person who comes to this article to read the plot. The fact that it is Robin who is taking control of the Batcave should be acknowledged in situ. 2602:304:941:4719:92E6:BAFF:FE25:5C9E (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The plot summary is not the article, it's a small part of the article. In fact, (and I'm exaggerating to illustrate a point) the plot summary can be "Batman comes out of retirement and beats up the bad guys. The End." The important parts of the movie, such as character development and character exposition, can be described in sections that explicitly deal with the issues. The other sections are more important than the plot summary. DonQuixote (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Put it this way, has there ever been a version of Robin where the person's name was "John Blake" or even "Robin John Blake"? The answer is "no". To link to the comic book character of "Robin" would be to imply that they are one in the same. Now, what if "Robin John Blake" decides he should be called "Nightwing" or "Batman" or something else? We don't know who he really is because Nolan merely used the name "Robin" as an in-joke to fans who would know that name. He does not actively say who Robin John Blake (if that is his actual legal name, we only know his legal first name is Robin) is supposed to be. He could be a completely new character just created to take over for Batman in another way. We don't know. So again, to say it is a direct reference, or even imply it through links, would be inappropriate and original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(To DonQuixote): I think at this point you're going off the ledge in making radical claims. One of the main reasons people read Wikipedia movie pages is to read the plot summary, and not your ridicuously shortened version, either. Relegating an important detail such as the Robin reveal to the Cast section doesn't make sense, especially when there's a perfectly obvious place in the Plot to put it, and it's not like it takes up a lot of space. You've already acknowledge its importance, so I really don't understand the resistance.

(To Bignole): I'm not asking for a link. I'm not asking that it's explicitly stated that it's Robin of Batman and Robin or anything else. I just want the obvious reference to be included so that anybody reading the page can judge for themselves what to think of it. As a reader of the plot summary this is something I want to know. 2602:304:941:4719:92E6:BAFF:FE25:5C9E (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To that regard, you're trying to push the agenda (please do not take offense to the wording) that it is a reference to the comic book character. Although it probably is, it is still a minor point of the film and has nothing to do with the overall plot. You know that connection, which is why you want it there. But, as I stated before, if his real name was revealed to be Robert, instead of Robin, we would not have paid any attention to it whatsoever, and no one would be fighting to have it included in the plot. It's because fans know who "Robin" is in the comics that they want it in the plot summary. The average reader probably doesn't know who Robin is, and probably when they saw the movie did not pick up on that little reference. That's the point behind inside-jokes, they're not for everyone to get.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The reference to the Batman universe is obvious, and nobody disputes it. However, you're the only one asserting the definitive meaning (that it's an inside joke). It could be that (though I doubt it), it could be used in further movies, or it may go nowhere. Whatever happens, it's an important tidbit that has lots of people speculating, and its exclusion from the plot is regrettable. 2602:304:941:4719:92E6:BAFF:FE25:5C9E (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem, you cannot show that "lots of people are speculating" or show a significant weight to this "tidbit". It's mentioned in passing literally at the end of the movie. You want to attribute significance to it, again, because you know what the name "Robin" is attached to in the comics. You cannot, unfortunately, show that this was anything other than a one-line passing mention. You're crafting original research to support your request to include it in the plot. The plot is meant to summarize (key word is summarize) the overall film. It is not meant to include every minor detail, no matter how important someone might feel that it is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll say again that nobody disputes the relevance of the name. As to not being able to show "lots of people are speculating", there was plenty of speculation before the movie came out, and all you have to do is search for: dark knight rises robin, to find many, many articles wondering if Robin was in the movie. Calling this a "minor detail" is ridiculous. Anyways, I'm done wasting my time here. 2602:304:941:4719:92E6:BAFF:FE25:5C9E (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To the person above - if you feel strongly about this you should not give up. I'm fighting for a different cause, but I haven't given up. Farhadpersia (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012

Macgregory800 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

box office wordwide $268,387,000

reference - http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm

Article is now under full protection. Marked as answered to get it off the requested edit list for semi-protected. If this change still needs to be made, then please use an {{edit protected}} request. RudolfRed (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2012

Macgregory800 (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

box office after 5 days $286,021,000	 worldwide

reference http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm

Article is now under full protection. Marked as answered to get it off the requested edit list for semi-protected. If this change still needs to be made, then please use an {{edit protected}} request. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Last Sentence of "Plot" Section

The last sentence of the "Plot" section has bad English and I'm also quite sure Robin is revealed to be John Blake's MIDDLE name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.172.229 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote it, it was bad. I'm pretty sure Robin was his first name, that when he said "John Blake" she couldn't find him because Robin is his first name. I could be wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Blake specifically refers to his "legal name". This suggests that his full name is Robin John Blake, and he goes by John. But this is ultimately moot point - Blake's real name is a minor detail that does not affect the plot. It's an item better-suited to his entry in the cast section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012

It should be noted that it is implied John Blake is going to continue on as Batman as Bruce Wayne's successor after he discovers the batcave. Also Marion Cotillard should be credited as Miranda Tate/Talia Al' Ghul. I can understand trying not to reveal important plot points but if people do not wish to spoil it for themselves they shouldn't visit the page before seeing the movie. Vaspala (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no indication of what is happening at the end there. Considering he lacks any ninja training his successorship will likely be short. And its nothing to do with plot, its to do with the credit she has, is introduced with and carries for the majority of the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

We can infer that Blake will take over the mantle of the Bat, or don a red & green outfit and become Robin the Boy Wonder, or that he's going to build a Batman museum, or something else. The plot section should only summarize what actually happens in the movie, not what might happen in the future. How is Cotillard credited in the closing credits? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Article is now under full protection. Marked as answered to get it off the requested edit list for semi-protected. If this change still needs to be made, then please use an {{edit protected}} request. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012

Please change "and Bane is killed by Selina" to "and Bane is blown away by Selina"

I don't believe that Bane was killed by Selina Kyle, only severely injured. This leaves a premise for future writers to construct a movie regarding the revenge of Bane, as is depicted in the Knightfall comics (which The Dark Knight Rises is partially based on).

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Knightfall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bane_(comics)

Davidwnbrgr (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Davidwnbrgr (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What you think might happen in the future is not what the article is based upon. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well in all honesty, assuming Bane's death could be considered [research]. There is no indication that the character dies. I feel "Bane is incapacitated" would be more appropriate. QValintyne (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"There is no indication the character dies" - aside being shot with a cannon tht had previously been used to blow a hole in a wall of cars. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't prove anything really. Talia is visually shown taking her last breath on screen. For all we know, Bane survived the shot with major injuries. We can only judge from what we've been shown. You've got to realize Bruce rehabilitated rather quickly after his back injury and other unlikely events occurred during the film. Why is it unhealthy to assume that Bane was able to survive the shot? QValintyne (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I understand the apprehension to say that he is dead because no one checked his pulse, let's at least be real here. This isn't like Harvey Dent falling off the building of an unknown distance. He was shot in the chest with a canon that had literally just blown a hole through dozens of steel cars. That's death right there. If Talia didn't survive her truck falling over a bridge, I think a canon was powerful enough to take out Bane. As for Bruce, let's not act like it was some sort of miracle (which is why we don't say that in the article). He was in that prison for about 5 months, which is enough time for a back bone to heal. He only broke one vertibrae in his back (as stated in the film), it was "reset" (though probably not the most efficient way), then healed, and then he started physical rehab. So, it was not so "unlikely" that it could not have happened in real life. Either way, I think it is within reason to say that a canon shot to the chest equals death.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012

Please change "The rich and powerful are forcibly brought before a show trial presided over by Jonathan Crane and given the chocie between death and exile." to "The rich and powerful are forcibly brought before a show trial presided over by Jonathan Crane and given the choice between death and exile."

The difference being that 'choice' is spelt wrong in the original text.

90.198.61.69 (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Bane's face

The image of Bane that is currently on the article highlights his whole costume, but the caption is talking about his skull, face, and mask. To make sense out of this, I uploaded an image that closes up on Bane's face but apparently, others think it makes more sense to highlight his whole costume instead of his face. Can we come to a consensus? Farhadpersia (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed here, after I started a non-free content review of the image when another editor decided that one twice the original size needed to be uploaded in place of the lower resolution. In the discussion, it was proposed that one of just his face was more appropriate given that more detail is given to his mask in that section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well if your proposition agrees with my move to replace the current image with one that closes in on his face, why does it keep being reverted? Without further ado, I'm going to revert it back if no one else will. Farhadpersia (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a 3RR report against the user above as he's violated the rule and reverted two editors changes. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The caption mentions the mask, the section itself refers to his costume and design.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@William, sure I may have "violated" a rule but I found it necessary.

@DWB, first see this, and second, the caption mentions the mask, and important thing is that's where the image is being used. The section talks about the coat, and the previous image did not even feature Bane in his coat. What are you getting at? Farhadpersia (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you are approaching this wrong. BRD means Boldly edit, Revert, and Discuss. When you perform an edit and it is reverted in good faith, policy is to discuss until a consensus has been reached. Your policy seems to be "I'm going to edit what I want, when I want, and no one can stop me." I've reverted your edits once again - a revert on your part will likely result in a block. Participate in the discussion the Bignole referred you to, reach a consensus and then perform changes. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Everybody THERE seems to think that a closeup image of Bane's face is more appropriate than a full body shot, that's enough of a consensus to me. I participated in that discussion, no one else said anything, so I will proceed to move back the image once again.

What are you trying to prove William? I mean specifically, by constantly reverting the original image? How is my new image "trolling" like you said? How is it a policy that hurts wikipedia? How is it a policy that is counterproductive?

I don't believe that your revert is of "good faith" but rather just a personal grudge undermining everything I've tried to do, which is improve wikipedia. So if I am banned, I must ask, why? Just because I broke the rules? Yeah, but the ends justifies the means, and I repeatedly explained that I did this because waiting was taking too long. Farhadpersia (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't speak for me, I think a closeup doesn't really convey the menacing performance put forward in the movie. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request July 27th, 2012

In the final sentence of the 3rd introductory paragraph the sentence reads "During a midnight showing of the film in Aurora, Colorado, a gunman opened fire inside the theater, 12 people and injuring 58 others..." It should read "a gunman opened fire inside the theater killing 12 people..." Just a little misprint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.76.195 (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Detail in the cast section

Looking at the cast section of this article, I think there is far too much information posted there. Some of it could probably be relocated elsewhere - maybe a subsection on casting under production - but the cast's in-depth thoughts on what motivates their characters is just excessive. It's like people have been adding anything and everything they can find on the cast and characters, and the end result is that the entire section has become swollen under its own weight of detail. I think it needs substantial re-writes, because about 90% of it is just quotes from the cast. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I say one or the other. I don't like seeing cast lists and "casting" sections that just divide up information into 2 locations. If we don't need a "list" then just include everyone in the "Casting" section. Actors can be put next to character names in a plot section if it's necessary to actually do immediate attachments.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the more-pressing issue is the sheer amount of information included. Like I said, it's as if editors have simply added anything and everything that they could find on the subject, without giving much thought as to what should actually be included, and the end result is that it's a bloated mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone through most of the article now, and removed a whole lot of unnecessary content. I've condensed quotes in particular down to their important components, paraphrased a lot of it and done some fairly extensive rewrites in places. All in all, I managed to get rid of about 11,000 bytes. The end result is leaner, but I think it's more succinct and to the point. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In the credits of the film, Cillian Murphy is credited as "Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow." It was disputed earlier that he didn't appear as The Scarecrow (and this is true), but he is still credited as such in the film's credits. I don't know if this should be changed in the article, but it's important to note. QValintyne (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that Vermont senator Patrick Leahy made an appearance as one of the chairmen of Wayne Enterprises... can this be added to the cameos? (User:e1foley) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E1foley (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to a reliable source that verifies that? DonQuixote (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

He is actually already listed in the cast list. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - Shooting in Aurora, Colorado subsection

The Shooting in Aurora, Colorado subsection clearly should be its own section, below the Release section. Having it stuck into the middle of the Release section, with three subsections talking about all the film's details and then one subsection talking about a mass murder, is extremely odd and illogical. Thanks. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that. I think we need more opinions as it has been the subject of debate when editing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's significant enough to include, but unless we find out there's more of a connection between the killer's motives and this particular movie, aside from wanting a crowded place, I think it's likely to be a bit of undue weight and coatracking. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh I think I see what the IP means. I don't think I'm averse to that actually. Just as long as it stays at that length. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Yes, I am not suggesting changing or shortening the text at all. I'm simply asking that it be moved to its own section, below the Release section. I think the content is not only absolutely warranted to be in this article, but it's necessary. The movie will forever be associated with the shooting, and vice versa. My suggestion for the section title would simply be the title of the related article, "2012 Aurora shooting". But I'm sure whatever title you guys decide on will be great. :) --76.189.114.243 (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Article is now under full protection. Marked as answered to get it off the requested edit list for semi-protected. If this change still needs to be made, then please use an {{edit protected}} request. RudolfRed (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I resubmitted the request here. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of GameSpy Quote

I question the relevance of the GameSpy quote in the reception section. GameSpy does not review films, and the citation is not to a film review. Nor does the source focus on The Dark Knight Rises. GameSpy's article is just a comparison between the entire Nolan trilogy and the most recent Batman videogame series. The alleged "plot holes" for which it is cited are not even an important part of the piece; they are mentioned in passing in one sentence without any elaboration. I'm not sure that GameSpy's stunning revelation of plot holes is a particularly relevant criticism--or if it is being given undue weight. An important question would be if supposed plotholes, or implausible plot points, are a major source of criticism for the movie, and--if so--if there are any actual film critics that could be cited for this claim instead.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Release date in Australia and New Zealand

Technically the movie was still released on the 20th local time, i.e. you can't see the movie on the 19th if you were in those two countries. Ken l lee (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I'm Australian and I saw the film at 4:00pm local time on the 19th. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I was mistaken. I just checked. Ken l lee (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - Shooting in Aurora, Colorado subsection (resumbitted as instructed)

Please see the original semi-protected request for this edit, where User:RudolfRed advised to resubmit as an "edit protected" request.

The Shooting in Aurora, Colorado subsection clearly should be its own section, below the Release section. Having it stuck into the middle of the Release section, with three subsections talking about all the film's details and then one subsection talking about a mass murder, is extremely odd and illogical. If you look at the original request, you'll see there's a current 3-0 consenus to make the change. Thanks. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2012

During a midnight showing of the film in Aurora, Colorado, a gunman opened fire inside the theater, 12 people and injuring 58 others, leading to international news coverage.

I believe a word or two may be missing in relation to the 12 people.

121.72.240.216 (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --CapitalR (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

misplaced modifier.

In the plot section, there is the following sentence:

While following a lead in the abduction of a congressional representative, Gordon's speech falls into the hands of the villain Bane, who discovers the truth about Dent.

It should read something like:

When Gordon is captured while following a lead in the abduction of a congressional representative, his speech falls into the hands of the villain Bane, who discovers the truth about Dent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.239.6 (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Another edit request

These sentences in the reception section have a number of problems:
The film failed to impress oscar judges for example Brret Easton Ellis said "There was zero love for The Dark Knight Rises at the packed screening." Another said "People were kind of disappointed", and "That there was nothing remarkable about the acting."

• "oscar judges"; Oscar should be capitalized and wikilinked.
• I'd lose "for example" personally, and make two sentences out of that one, but at the very least there should be a comma after judges and before "for example".
• The writer's correct name is Bret not Brret, and his actual tweet said ...there was zero love for The Dark Knight Rises at the packed academy screening..." with other verbiage both before and after the sentence fragment quoted above. Since he's named, he should also be wikilinked, to make it apparent why we should care what he says.
• The other two quotes were not made by the same person, as implied by the sentence structure above, and the word "that" was not included in the original quote as reported by the source document.

MeegsC (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Better description of banishment to the prison

Hi, I would like to add the 2nd sentence in this quote to the article, "In the following confrontation, Bane physically cripples Batman and places him in a foreign prison from which escape is virtually impossible. Bane tells him that he was a prisoner there, and he wishes to break Batman's spirit in the same way that the prison broke his own spirit." I hope you will consider doing it for me. SystemBuilder (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need the added motive. We already discuss the fact that Bane was a prison there. Everything else is just minor details. Readers can watch the film for that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 29 July (Box office)

As shown in the box office link on the article the amount has changed, and will continuing dramatically over the next few weeks. I suggest you guys keep an eye on these updates.

Not only so, but the information in the "box office" section will require changing and I for one do not feel like posting every single edit that is needed over-here while waiting for an admin to actually do the changes. Full-protection was not what the article needed right now. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Full protection was exactly what it needed while the topic is so popular. We're getting a lot of strong minded people here and that means a lot of edit wars. The fact that the box office section will not be updated everyday is not a bid deal. Wikipedia is not a news source. We're not here to be people's first direction for current events. If we're late by a week getting something on the page, then so be it. We're not going to lose readers just because we have not updated our box office information in a few days.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, but don't you think having the article in full-protection will defeat Wikipedia's purpose--a collaborative effort to create articles. One mustn't simply stop all editing because of edit wars; Wikipedia has talk pages for a reason and we must use them. If the talk pages don't work out, blocking is always a last resort, not full-protection. By having full-protection till November, you intend on letting all those "strong minded" people to calm down and stop checking this page thereby losing the essence of Wikipedia. Its not the box office section that only worries me, but many other editors who want to give their input or work may lose the motivation. The crux of the problem was never about losing readers, but editors. What makes this situation more unwiki-like is that there haven't been any discussion about full-protection; it was an impromptu move that wasn't discussed and in my opinion, not well thought-out. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, because the article will not remain in full protection forever. That is why full protections do not happen often. If you've been on the page, you've probably noticed that the article was already in semi-protection. Yet, because regular editors were having trouble "discussing" and kept wanting to revert each other we had to fully protect the page for a short period of time. Full protections do not always need to be "discussed" prior. Admins can notice when there is a serious war going on and take the necessary steps to stop it. If you look at the history you'll notice that leading up to that protection is was like watching soccer--back and forth and back and forth and nothing really happening. I don't believe that we'll lose editors either. I think you're attributing a level of inpatience to the average editor that does not exist. Does it suck that the page is fully protected and we cannot edit it, yes it does. Was it necessary, yes it was. It expires in a week and a half. Nothing of significance in the box office will happen between now and then that cannot wait for us to add it when the protection ends. And I do not believe that any editors that comes here is going to be so turned off by a fully protected page (which ends on Aug. 9) that they top editing Wikipedia. We have hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of editos.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If you scroll over the full-protection sign, it indicates that the protection will expire on November 26, 2012. When I checked the history, it was August 9. There was a mix-up. Say that the editors stay, when the protection expires won't the warfare start again, so what would you have solved? I hate puerile ways to clear up problems; if you want to solve a problem we have to discuss. BTW, I am full-aware that you don't need to discuss prior to requesting protection.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Full protection usually means that there are some admins that are monitoring the page now. The idea behind a full protection is that people will have to talk instead of edit. If they refuse to talk and resume their warring, then I imagine the admins will simply start blocking individuals for extended periods of time (which, IMO, deters people from editing more than a protected page). As for the dates, the November date was/is for the semi-protection. The August 9 date is for the full protection.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

One at a time

This is just an uninvolved admin comment here; if you want to make editprotected requests, do them one at a time. The current state of this page is a mess of text comparable only to talkpages like this, which is quite an achievement given most of the people here seem to be competent English speakers, and has no fewer than 3 requests. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

One at a time would be nice, but almost all of the requests are coming from first time (or relatively new) editors. Thus, the regular editors have no way of filtering such requests. This would be the pitfall of having a fully protected page on a highly publicized and popular film I would imagine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: 29 July 2012

According to this website: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/29/uk-boxoffice-idUKBRE86S0HA20120729 - the movie has grossed a total of $537 million. Just requesting for this to be put into the infobox. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC))

Plot summary ending

I think that the current ending here is wrong. I didn't notice it myself but where The Bat is flying extremely low, so much so that the bomb is dragging along the ground, he sets it into autopilot and jumps out. The direction of the film purposely leads you to believe he's been killed over the ocean. It is discussed in further detail at point 7 here. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.174.196 (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the ending to the movie written here in the plot summary is misleading, Batman definitely dies at the end. He is seen in The Bat five seconds before the bomb detonates, meaning it would be impossible for him to escape. He dies, and then Alfred sees him in the cafe in Florence because he wants to see him there, not because he is actually there.

50.29.204.14 (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference of some kind to explain that? Something along the lines of Christopher Nolan describing it? Otherwise, it's just personal speculation as to the ending. There is no evidence within the film to suggest that Alfred sees Bruce in the cafe because he chooses to see him there. There is more evidence that Bruce Wayne staged his death and then went to the cafe because he knew Alfred would go there, and he wanted to let Alfred know that he was alive. After all, why would Alfred imagine Bruce Wayne there with Selina Kyle when in the past it was always some nameless, faceless woman? Although Alfred did meet Selina briefly, he had no reason to believe her to be anything but a maid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In the lead up to Batman flying off with the fusion core to detonate he tells Selina 'The Bat' does not have auto-pilot.

Later, after it is assumed Batman perished in the nuclear expolosion, Lucious Fox's final scene sees him checking 'The Bat' with a mechanic and asking him to fix the autopilot.

The mechanic replies that it is already working and according to the logs it was done 6 months ago by Bruce Wayne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.164.175 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, he isn't in France at the end, he's in Italy. Alfred earlier spoke about taking his holidays in Florence, going to a café on the banks of the Arno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.164.192 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

None of that supports the idea that Alfred chooses to believe theat Bruce Wayne is alive after his apparent death. If anything, it simply supports the idea that Bruce Wayne had no idea what Selina Kyle was going to do after he staged his own death, and so saw no reason to tell her that he had a plan to escape. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, if I remember correctly, there were others (Gordon I believe) around at the time, so he wouldn't want them to know he could survive. He needed a plausible story for his death so he could move on.

There was also a lot more than 5 seconds between the last shot of him in The Bat and the detonation, plenty of time for him to eject. We know that the bomb has a kill radius of 6 miles, and here comes some dodgy calculations: The top speed of an Apache helicopter (according to Wikipedia) is 153 knots, or 176mph. We know The Bat travels faster than that, as it can outrun missiles. Let's say it can go about 2.5 times that speed (not beyond imagination), which puts it at taking 1 minute to move 6 miles. The sequence itself shows it leaving Gotham and detonating in the distance, with no major aftershock hitting the city, and in less than a minute. This shows that it's gone much further out than 6 miles, and results in one of two possibilities: The Bat was going faster than I've just calculated, or the sequence was shortened. The scene before shows the timer on the side of the core, and I believe it showed 1 minute something, so it's more likely that The Bat goes faster than I've given it credit for. Either way, there is time for Batman to eject and get to safety. drewmunn (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember that this is movie physics where people can outrun explosions on motorcycles. DonQuixote (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above posters. The plot summary should be revised to indicate that Bruce Wayne's death is left open-ended, and he could be interpreted to have died. There's lots of evidence to support this, such as Alfred's nonchalant expression at seeing Bruce at the cafe in Italy. 69.84.113.9 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The plot summary has been written as ambiguously as the scene it describes is depicted, that is, the line just describes what's shown on the screen and nothing else is said. And Alfred's nonchalant expression is explained in a previous scene. Besides, saying anything about that scene, other than just describing it, is original research and needs the citation of a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say the plot summary is extremely well articulated. Too many Christopher Nolan fans here in the Talk section are invoking his ending to "Inception" with this plot. The ending of the film is clearly saying Bruce Wayne is alive and has chosen to take Alfred's advice throughout not only this film, but the trilogy in general, to move on past his demons. In the last few minutes Gordon finds the Bat-signal repaired and seems to rejoice and look around. Lucious discovers the B.A.T.'s autopilot was repaired six months prior -this despite several mentions by Wayne/Batman that the autopilot was "not-working." — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithLD (talk • contribs) 07:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think is hard to discuss about the Batman destiny as long as he was able to provide a fix for the automatic pilot of the Bat. If he brought the solution he could probably decided to feign his death by leading the bomb to explode outside the bay and then going straight to Europe. But the most interesting point, the Bat was recovered by Lucius Fox, if the Bat was near the explosion it could probably had been completely lost (with the Batman) or at least with enough radiation to obligate Fox and his employees to wear radiation suits, both scenarios are not happening. Probably, Batman save himself by leaving the bomb in a correct place and then going away. How the bat got into the hands of Fox?

Another point is that Wayne has very few time to arrive to Gotham City after he left the pit. How he can do that? He has no money and nothing in his hands except for some provisions and he was on another part of the world. Did he has the keys of the Bat to bring him to Gotham unnoticed? Did that explained why the Bat was outside the batcave when Lucius asked him where he parked the Bat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.99.166.84 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How do we know the bat in hands of Lucius at the end isn't another one? There were many tumblers, so there could be more than one bat as well, and Bruce Wayne could have simply logged his autopilot repair to all of them in some main database. As for Bruce Wayne not having enough time to get to Gotham, he escapes the prison around the time they mentioned 23 days were remaining for the bomb to go off, and he makes it there and becomes the Batman when there is about 18 hours left. After all he is/was a billionaire, and he could have friends worldwide. Remember the guy at Wayne Enterprises saying he tried to keep Bruce's car from being taken away? Robin also comes later and picks him up and drives him to Selena Kyle's apartment, same thing could have happened with someone, somewhere in Europe or Asia to help him on his way back to the states. For the people arguing Batman is dead, surely Batman might be as in he will never be spotted again, but Bruce is alive and well no doubt. So Batman kept telling everyone the autopilot doesn't work? It was probably part of his master plan to be able to kill Batman and Bruce Wayne to the few who knew he was Batman, and then probably perform a clean slate of himself and Selena Kyle and disappear with her. Then after the funeral is done, and the Batman statue is presented, he goes on to fix the bat signal, Lucius finds out about the autopilot being fixed, and hey, what about Robin? How did he get GPS coordinates to the batcave? I assume Bruce himself had to talk to him directly before leaving and performing his clean slate. We are assuming and deducting a lot of stuff here, but the thing is, he survived, period. Batman is about theatrics, and he took it to the next level by faking his death. Israeljamesbond (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Commentary"

Is it really giving due weight to even mention Limbaugh's comments in this article? It's widely speculated that Bane is an Occupier, but to include a reference to Rush Limbaugh's comments in the same section seems a bit ... odd. He says a whole lot of stuff on his show that no sane person would pay attention to, and this is just one example. elvenscout742 (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is giving undue weight indeed, someone saying stupid things is not notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that he actually was claiming that there were going to be comparisons by the Democrat Party and the news media, not that he was claiming it was an attack by the movie (Source: Transcript of the show from the day in question. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/17/the_batman_campaign . You can also listen to the segment of the program.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.155.10 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Box office

This issue must be resolved. There will probably be repetitive requests to change the box office numbers which are over $200 million less than they should be. The current gross is $543,513,000, not $337,108,998. I really think that fully protecting a popular page like this will invariably lead to controversy among the Wikipedians. It should expire sooner than November 26th. By that time, this film will be lucky if it is still in that many theaters, as it will be on its way to Blu-ray and DVD. Please keep the box office numbers up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewOne (talk • contribs) 18:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated before, the November protection is for the semi-protection, not the FULL protection. The FULL protection ends on August 9.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot

There are some slight errors in the last paragraph of the plot section:

"Batman is later praised as a hero, while Bruce is presumed killed in the riots. After Bruce's funeral, Blake wants to reveal Batman's identity to the world as a tribute to Bruce, but Gordon reminds him that it is best left as a mystery to the uninformed. Gordon later finds that the Bat-Signal has been repaired. The Wayne estate is divided up to cover any debts, with the manor left in the city's possession to become an orphanage and the rest going to Alfred Pennyworth. Fox discovers that Bruce programmed the autopilot on the aircraft six months ago. Alfred witnesses Bruce and Selina alive together at a café in Italy, while Blake inherits the Batcave."

1) The Wayne mansion was left to Alfred, but the contents of the mansion were sold of to pay any remaining debts. 2) The Wayne estates in the city limits were left to the city(Gotham) with the condition that they be not altered or demolished, and they become the site for orphaned children. 3) Alfred went to France not Italy, as he stated he did yearly before Bruce Wayne came back earlier in the film. 4) Blake did not technically inherit the Batcave, he was only given instructions on how to find/get to it. The area/land the batcave is in still technically belongs to Alfred. 5) It may also be good to add that a statue of Batman was commemorated, I am guessing in the city halls/halls of justice in gotham, in the aftermath.

Minor details that can be corrected when the page is unprotected. The only thing that should be changed is "Wayne Mansion" to "Wayne Estates", we don't need to go into such technical details for a plot summary. People can watch the movie for that. Blake inherits can be changed to "Blake received directions/coordinates (whichever) to the Batcave". The statue is irrelevant. It's already stated that Batman is praised as a hero. If it was France and not Italy then that can be changed. Other than that, we don't need such details added for what amounts to 5 minutes worth of screen time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The statue is unnecessary, but Blakes real name being revealed to be Robin should be included.Kelzorro (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

See above for other discussions as to why it should not be included.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

box office

according to bo mojo the correct box office collections are $536,051,000

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm

please correct this error on your page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivo88 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just reiterating that the article needs to reflect the updated figures for The Dark Knight Rises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.232.231 (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The box office takings are now $543,513,000. If the page is locked, the people able to edit should at least take note, the box office takings on the page are far behind.http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRatz (talk • contribs) 16:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012

In the first paragraph of the plot summary, it says "Gordon's speech falls into the hands of the villain Bane", but this is the first time the speech is mentioned. I think this could be address with an edit akin to: "Gordon feels guilty about the cover-up of Harvey Dent's crimes and writes a confession speech, but decides that the city is not ready to hear the truth." Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Requests above and below mine have been answered...is that a "no"?

Merger proposal

The article of the novel adaptation, The Dark Knight Rises (novel), should be merged to the movie's, due to it is unnecessary and repeating the same information of the movie.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't even need discussing, just do it. It's just this article but worse. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would merge it, if the main article hasn't been protected.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well really it just needs a redirect, it seems to have been created purely because it has a briefm ention of the Joker in it, beyond that it isn't saying anything else so there is nothing to merge. The book tiself is mentioned in the marketing section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oaky dooky. Thanks for the advice.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Done.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012

Bruce doesn't fix a problem with the autopilot, he fixes a problem with the stabilisation program. The autopilot works perfectly but is disabled because they needed a part from it to jam the transmitter signal that would detonate the bomb.

"Fox discovers that Bruce programmed the autopilot on the aircraft six months before he left to face Bane and Talia." should be changed to "Fox discovers that Bruce fixed the problem with the aircraft's stabilisation software six months before he left to face Bane and Talia."

I can't be sure, but I am pretty certain that the issue was with the autopilot. This was referenced before the removal of the equipment used to block the signal, and remained a Chekov's gun throughout the entire film. At the point where Batman is preparing to fly the bomb out, he says' "No autopilot", and when Lucius checks The Bat later, the engineer states that the autopilot was fixed by a software patch six months ago. The removal of the equipment may have disabled the stability systems, but the autopilot was already broken when Bruce was introduced to it. In fact, the imperfect autopilot system was the reason given for it not entering military service. As such, I believe that the article is correct in its current form. drewmunn (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done this can be discussed and can wait till after protection is removed. Calmer Waters 22:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - remove "leading to international news coverage"

Someone just changed to the current version today, but the last part of the sentence is completely unnecessary. It should be removed. Of course it received international news coverage. Every mass murder that's ever happened has obviously received international news coverage. It goes without saying.

CURRENT: During a midnight showing of the film in Aurora, Colorado, a gunman opened fire inside the theater, killing 12 people and injuring 58 others, leading to international news coverage.

CHANGE TO: During a midnight showing of the film in Aurora, Colorado, a gunman opened fire inside the theater, killing 12 people and injuring 58 others.

Thanks. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but only edits that can be considered completely noncontroversial can be changed during full protection. This can wait until the protection is lifted. Calmer Waters 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding HotCat Category:Films produced by Christopher Nolan

Hi, I would like to add a category Category:Films produced by Christopher Nolan on The Dark Knight Rises. Thank you.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Calmer Waters 22:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 July 2012

I would like to change the total box office gross of The Dark Knight Rises to $537,286,000, based off of Box Office Mojo. Lacon432 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Lacon432 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Dontreadalone (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Calmer Waters 21:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Update

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

With the budget being $250,000,000 and the gross being $289,086,000. That should make the box office total about $537 million (72.219.42.115 (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2180879/The-Dark-Knight-Rises-tops-box-office-charts-second-week-running.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

according to box office mojo, total box office is indeed $537 million but box office is not budget+gross so I don't know why you mentioned them.--Krystaleen 09:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The box office number needs to be changed in the infobox for one thing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Calmer Waters 21:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012

Total box office is $535,312,810

K Brayan (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Calmer Waters 21:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Spelling correction

Admins, please make the following edit: In the Development section, "Nolan claimed he never even thought a third film was possible in the foreward for his book The Art and Making of the Dark Knight Trilogy," the spelling is incorrect. For the section at the beginning of a book, the correct spelling is "foreword", not "forward". --Albany NY (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it has already been corrected. Calmer Waters 21:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for August 1, 2012

Administrators, can you please update the worldwide box office gross in the infobox to $543,472,856 per Box Office Mojo? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Calmer Waters 21:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for August 1, 2012

Please update the reception section to include the latest box office information, and update the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores as well. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done I updated the Rotten Tomatoes and metacritic information; however, I am sure of what you mean as far as the latest box office information. I can not introduce new content into the article, such as particular reviews, while the article is protected. Calmer Waters 22:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012- Repeating request, previous attempt archived without response

In the first paragraph of the plot summary, it says "Gordon's speech falls into the hands of the villain Bane", but this is the first time the speech is mentioned. I think this could be address with an edit akin to: "Gordon feels guilty about the cover-up of Harvey Dent's crimes and writes a confession speech, but decides that the city is not ready to hear the truth." Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for August 1, 2012

The film failed to impress oscar judges for example Brret Easton Ellis said "There was zero love for The Dark Knight Rises at the packed screening." Another said "People were kind of disappointed", and "That there was nothing remarkable about the acting."

Can this nothing material go from Reception? Negative critiques are given from actually notable film critics. Just another guy in a suit (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for August 2, 2012

Just as Miranda Tate's description in Characters mentions Talia Al Ghul, can John Blake's one do the same - if only "The film reveals his legal name is Robin John Blake, referencing Batman's sidekick Robin." ? (there's even a possible ref) igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for August 2, 2012

Should Josh Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Stewart) be added to the other cast section as the Bane mercenary Barsad ? He has more screentime than some other actor mentionned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.211.197 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for August 2, 2012

The plot summary is very well written. I understand the need to shorten it to around 700 words but the following is poor summary structure and I think needs clarification:

While following a lead in the abduction of a congressional representative, Gordon's speech falls into the hands of the villain Bane, who discovers the truth about Dent. Gordon is shot in the process of escaping and promotes patrol officer John Blake to detective, allowing Blake to report directly to him in the hospital.

This fails to mention Gordon being abducted and thus why the speech fell into Bane's hands. It just says, "While following a lead..." and then "Gordon is shot in the process of escaping..." Granted, if you've seen the film you'd know what happened. But the summary should reflect a thorough summary of the film that can be understood by those who haven't seen the film. I suggest adding changes in italics something like:

"While following a lead in the abduction of a congressional representative, Gordon is abducted by men working for the villain Bane and Gordon's speech (about the truth of Harvey Dent) falls into the hands of Bane. Gordon is then shot in the process of escaping and..."

I've added parenthesis the part that may be unnecessary to add. But you may want to move the information about what Gordon's speech entails, which is later in the plot, to this section and then later just reiterate, "Bane reveals the truth about Harvey Dent" to the later section since the information about how Bane attained this knowledge would've already been explained. Just my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithLD (talk • contribs) 08:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for August 3, 2012

With regards to "Bane's chant", I would like to add the following details for more specificity to the "Music" section: (new material is in bold with rewording of the following sentence as well)

The film features a recurring Moroccan Arabic chant of the phrase "deshi, deshi, basara, basara" (تيجي بسرعة), which translates to "he is coming fast" (or rising). The two-word chant alludes to Ra's al Ghul's possible Arabian ethnicity, as well as coinciding with the title of the film, The Dark Knight Rises.[111][112]

Thanks,  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012

Add cat "2010s adventure films"

201.27.172.124 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, seriously? This is Talk:The Hunger Games (film)#Adventure genre all over again, presumably with the same IP-hopping editor, only this time with even less basis in reality. What "exotic location" are you going to claim makes TDKR an adventure this time? Happy‑melon 11:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok duh, then the day you come up with the "action scenes" of hunger games, I'll give up, if there is any action scenes and it lasts over 30 seconds, I'll be wanting to watch it lol. 189.46.191.91 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Bane

Under Commentary, it mentions Rush Limbaugh claiming that the Bane character was a swipe at Romney. The article quotes the responses of the film makers, but should point out to readers that Bane was not made up for this film and has been an established character in the Batman univers for decades, starting with the comic "Batman: Vengeance of Bane #1"(January 1993). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SemDem (talk • contribs) 02:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bane is wikilinked to his article where all that is mentioned. DonQuixote (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Box Office

Sources say that The Dark Knight is now past $733.038 million.

http://www.altfg.com/blog/movie/the-dark-knight-rises-box-office-worldwide-bane/

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm

(SuperCell3000 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC))

The Chant

In the music section, (Arabic: تيجي بسرعة) should be written next to deshi basara to show how it is written in Moroccan Arabic, like the article says. This is also included in the soundtrack article of the Dark Knight Rises and Ra's al Ghul's article. Osh33m (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Lazarus Pit

In The Dark Knight Rises, the prison is not referred to as a Lazarus Pit. I tried to remove the link to Lazarus Pit from the Bane in other media article but was reverted. Now I see a similar link in this article. What do others think? GoingBatty (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. The prison is obviously a reference to Pena Duro, the prison Bane was born inside in the comics. It was not referred to as anything more than "The Pit" in the film and was in no way similar to the Lazarus Pits of the comics. 74.136.202.25 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If the prison was a reference to Pena Duro, not only should the chant be in Spanish (which it's not, it is in Arabic) then Talia would not be the one who escapes it; it would be Bane. If you need further proof, Ra's al Ghul appeared there talking more about immortality. All the connections are drawn to the Lazarus Pit. Osh33m (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the chant in the film, though reported to be Moroccan Arabic, is not Moroccan Arabic or standard Arabic. Moroccan Arabic is called Darija and the chant is not Darija. Moroccan friends of mine laughed when I told them that the chant is supposed to Moroccan Arabic. The word for Rise in Arabic and Moroccan Arabic (Darija) is entirely different. It has been suggested that the pronunciation of the chant was corrupted by English speakers. (Abe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.215.164 (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing directly calls it the Lazarus Pit, or Pena Duro. There has been no reliable source confirming that, so neither should be mentioned. We're not here to try and interpret some intentional or imaginary reference to the comic books. We're here to report on what was actually shown.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the tumbler should not be linked to the batmobile, the bat should not be linked to to the batwing, john daggett should not be linked to roland daggett, and the batpod should not be linked to the batcycle because none of these are referred to the batmobile/batwing/roland/batcycle in any of the films. do not take this the wrong way but it is not a matter of intentional or imaginary references, it is a matter of common sense.

bruce wayne is brought to this... pit, an underground jail where the inmates are speaking in arabic, the language that translates ra's al ghul's name to head of the demon. it is not just any random jail cell, and not just anyone brought bruce there, it was the league of shadows, and it seems like not many others in the outside world know about this prison, except for the league. Farhadpersia (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely different. The Tumbler has been identified by Nolan and the designer as their interpretation of the Batmobile. "The Pit" has not been identified as anything other than a prison. That is the difference. You're stretching your interpretation and assumptions into references that have not been verified or even insinuated by anyone that made the film. As far as "in film" goes, more than the League of Shadows knows about this prison. If you listened to the story, the King whose daughter that Ra's was in love with used that prison as punishment. The "League" did not come to the prison till after Ra's child escaped. So, they were the "only" people to know about the prison. Even Alfred relayed a story about the prison to Bruce. So it isn't some hidden prison. Either way, nothing in the film says that it is the Lazarus Pit or Pena Duro. No one from the film has identified it as such in interviews either. Thus, linking it to either of those places would be considered original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What about the foreign language the prisoners speak and the chant? One last thing too, if the prison is indeed referred to as "the pit" instead of a no name random foreign jail then I think that is enough to link it to the Lazarus PIT. Farhadpersia (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a leap to say that because the prisoners speak a language, which is not actually identified in the film, that Ra's speaks that it must be the Lazarus Pit. Given that the history in the film shows that Ra's was there from the beginning, it makes sense that they would speak a language that he does. It is inappropriate to pipe a link like an easter egg based on original research. They call it "The Pit" because it is a giant pit. The Lazarus Pit is not an actual pit, it's a pool. Even if Nolan was just playing on the name "Pit", it would still be inappropriate to link it to the Lazarus Pit because that would give the reader the impression that they are one in the same in the film. Nothing in the film (or outside of the film) has indicated that they are actually the same beyond a shared name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is with merit, but I think the connections here are more obvious and less original research. Yes the actual language is not identified, but it should be clear to everyone by now that it is Moroccan. Additionally, articles about that mention the Pit have even regarded it as the Lazarus Pit, without drawing doubts or skepticism. That should mean something. As well, I understand that this Pit is not somewhere that Ra's went to rejuvenate himself, but the wiki article even calls this Pit a "revised conception" of the Lazarus pit. Farhadpersia (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To everyone? I did not know that. I don't speak it and would not recognize it if I heard it again. I imagine that the average reader would not know what it was either. We cannot cite ourselves as verification for what we're arguing. What you are trying to do is create a synthesis. You're taking 2 points and trying to claim that when together they create a 3rd point. In this case, you're taking information from the comics and adding that to the use of the word "Pit" and your perception of the language spoken in the film and drawing the conclusion that Bruce and Bane were actually at the Lazarus Pit. Synthesis is good for thesis papers, but as far as Wiki is concerned (if you read the article I linked) it's a form of original research. This isn't like saying the Earth is round, or that 3+3=6, neither of which we need a source for. If the average reader could not draw the logical conclusion that you came to, then it's original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to everyone, or anyone who doesn't know and is still wondering. Yes, perhaps the average reader would not know, but that's why we have wikipedia and its sources, no? Anyways, I'll try to break down all the evidence one more time, and then I would request that we vote on this.

-It is known simply as "The Pit."

-Talia is the one who is born in it and escapes it, not Bane.

-The League of Shadows is what brought Bruce to the Pit in the first place.

-The League also seems to be the only thing from the outside world that knows the Pit's location.

-Not to mention, when Bruce was first in the Pit, he was there as a paraplegic but in 5 months when he leaves he is fully "healed," albeit not supernaturally.

-In the comics, Talia's mother died in a Lazarus Pit. I am told that in the film, Talia says her mother died in the Pit.

-Lastly, let's first agree that the Pit is, a significant setting for the film. Yes? In that case, are we to believe that Chris Nolan included this Pit in the film completely out of his own original creation, or could all the points that I mentioned mean that the setting was inspired by the Lazarus Pit?

Farhadpersia (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is known as the "The Pit". As far as the comics go, Talia was not born there. The League takes Bruce there on Bane's orders, and Bane is there when Bruce is dropped off. That does not imply that the League knows where it is, just that Bane knows where it is. The same is true for Ra's. The flashback shows that Ra's knows where it is (which we know because he was originally supposed to be sentenced to the prison), not that the League itself knows. As for "no one from the outside world", we know from the film that the prison was used regularly by the King of that land, so obviously someone other than Ra's, Talia, Bane, and the League members at present knew about the prison. It's even stated in the film that it is "Bane's Prison now". You're leaping with the Bruce being "fully healed" analogy. He was there for 5 months, had to have his back reset, and then had to physically train himself back into shape. He also was not a "paraplegic". Having a broken back and being paralyzed are not the same thing. Trust me, I know from personal experience. I have never heard that Talia's mother died in the Pit in the comics. That is news to me, as her death has been multiple things but none that I'm aware of include the Pit. Do I think that Nolan probably used the name "The Pit" as a reference to the Lazarus Pit, most likely. Is there actual verifiable sources that say that it was his intention to do more than just use a portion of the name (as opposed to the prison actually being his version of the Lazarus Pit)? No, there are no sources. Wikipedia's purpose is to report what we can verify, not what we can make up our own conclusions to. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research/thesis paper. Without sources stating that it was supposed to be the Lazarus Pit, including links to it would be original research no matter how obvious it is to you or me or anyone else for that matter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether you realize it or not, we do agree, because I am not trying to say The Pit literally = a Lazarus Pit, but rather that it's been inspired by and is a reference to it. And that's all it says as a link, on the lazarus pit wiki. I wasn't trying to say Talia was born in the Pit in the comics, but highlighting the fact that in the film she, the daughter of Ra's al Ghul is the one born in the prison, not Bane. And I trust what you said about the broken back. You said Talia's mother dying in the Pit in the comics is news to you, so here is a link to that page from Vengeance of Bane. Can we make that vote on this now? Farhadpersia (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it's synthesis and original research. If you can cite a reliable source that says the above, then we can include it in the article. Otherwise, thank you for your original research, but we can't include it in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well okay, I can't argue with you there except to say that "original research" seems more credible to me than others put it out to be because it looks very useful. I'm not the only one in the world making these connections, and I'm sure there are a good number of others and that is saying something. Anyways, that page from Vengeance of Bane is not evidence enough? BIGNOLE said it was news to him/her. Farhadpersia (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's evidence enough for me, but not enough for wikipedia. The purpose of wikipedia is to collate what reliable sources have to say on the subject, not what we, the editors, have to say. DonQuixote (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I never understood why other editors say this. If it is evidence enough for you, me, and possibly anyone else who looks at and analyzes all the data, then it should be enough for Wikipedia. It is we, the people who use encyclopedias, wikipedia being the most convenient of them all. And it is we, the editors that can put the link directly on Wikipedia, saving the trouble of other readers who may start to make these connections. So I still think the subject merits a vote. Farhadpersia (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Providing direct links like that is the goal of a generic webpage. Wikipedia's goal is to collate what reliable sources have to say. Just look at at line right below the edit box that says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." DonQuixote (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that there are reliable articles that mention the Pit that have even regarded it as the Lazarus Pit, without drawing doubts or skepticism. Farhadpersia (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This will be the last I will say on the subject because I feel like we're going in circles. Seeing at the film never calls it the "Lazarus Pit", unless someone connected (not some loley key grip) to the film states that it was Nolan's version of the Lazarus Pit, then it would be original research no matter how you slice it. If you read the policy on original research, you'll see that what you're asking to do falls directly in line with it. That said, if anything I'm surprised you're not arguing that "The Pit" is actually a combiation of Pena Duro and the Lazarus Pit, given that it actually shares histories with both. Now, don't take this as my argument to state such a thing in the article, I'm merely talking out loud. Without reliable sources from the people that worked on the film, we cannot link to the Lazarus Pit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Farhadpersia: Then you should have no problem citing the reliable articles. Please cite them so that we can include it here. DonQuixote (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@BIGNOLE yes indeed we are going in circles and that is why I am asking for the third time that we vote on this. I do not care if this is "original research," perhaps wikipedia is simply not up to date with the times then. Because you admit that this is evidence enough for you, and so have countless others. And whoever does not know about the connections who try to draw up upon will undoubtedly find them. So the fact that wikipedia does not include this tidbit makes it fall behind. counter progessive, counter productive.

@DonQuixote here and here. Farhadpersia (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The first article is a little weak, so we might need more articles like it. However, the second article doesn't say anything about the Lazarus Pit. Find more articles like, or better than, the first one, and we'll be on the right track. DonQuixote (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes okay, here's another article.

With all due respect DonQuixote, the dogmatism towards wikipedia's guidelines is seriously hindering its progress. I like wikipedia and I want to continue contributing like the way I have, but I don't think everything has to come straight from the horse's mouth in order to make it verifiable. I'll let the Batmobile slide since BIGNOLE debunked it, but not the rest. Did Nolan ever actually come out and say that that the batpod is the batcycle? That the bat is the batwing? That john daggett is roland daggett? That the league of shadows is the league of assassins? No. So why are all of these wiki articles linked to one another? Or could it be that Nolan found it unnecessary, since viewers of the films could come to those conclusions themselves...? Uh oh, does that sound like original research? Then I guess original research is what it takes sometimes to explain what is inevitably present.

Please do not say that the cases I have mentioned are different, because they aren't. You know it, I know it. Those links, as well as the Pit/Lazarus Pit connection, have all been drawn from observation from reviewers of the films, like I have shown you, and "original researchers" like myself, and dozens of others. So we're not waiting for Nolan to come out and say that the Pit is a reference to the Lazarus Pit. He left enough tracks in the film to draw that conclusion. So please, without further ado, however it is that we vote on these things, can we do it now? Farhadpersia (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That article is a little weak too. Still need more sources (or a better source) before we can honestly add it.

Anyway, it's not about "dogmatism" or the "horse's mouth", rather it's about trying to avoid publishing original ideas in an encyclopedia. The guidelines are there to summarise this. An encyclopedia is not a place to get new ideas from. Yes, Nolan probably did leave enough tracks in the film to draw conclusions, but it's not an encyclopedia's place to draw conclusions. And wikipedia, for all its faults, is trying to be an encyclopedia.

Finally, I concur that the bat probably isn't the batwing and john daggett probably isn't roland daggett and these probably need to cite reliable sources too. DonQuixote (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what else you want; what makes those articles weak besides your good word? And I didn't just mention the Batwing and Roland Daggett, I also mentioned the Batcycle and the League of Assassins. They're believed to be the Batpod and the League of Shadows in the same manner that the Pit is believed to be the Lazarus Pit. Are you going to say they need citations too?

By the way, if Nolan made the Pit out to be a completely "original idea" like you said, then we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. The fact that Nolan trailed the Pit out with these references is the isthmus of the link.

The quickest, most efficient way to resolve this is a vote, my fellow editor. Farhadpersia (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

They're "weak" in that they just make off-hand comments and I wouldn't stake my reputation on just those two articles. As for the batpod, I admit that "it's a motorcycle" is a weak argument so I'm not going to defend it that much. As for the League, if I remember correctly, there was an article on how the film makers changed it from Assassins to Shadows for thematic reason, but I won't defend that one until I can find the article.

Anyway, "Nolan trailed the Pit out with these references is the isthmus of the link" is your analysis and interpretation, which is original research. Thanks for that, but wikipedia is not a place to publish your personal observations. Please cite a reliable source that verifies this or publish your original observation in a reliable source so that we can cite you.

And as for a "vote", use WP:RFC. DonQuixote (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not just my analysis. And you don't have to go and try to debunk the rest of the links I mentioned. It was not my intention to make you go and do more work than you have to. I just wanted you to see my point, and you do, don't you?

The Pit as the Lazarus Pit in DKR has been and will continue to be all over the internet, so it's time wikipedia gets up to date. As I stated before, we can agree that the Pit is a significant setting in the film. Yes? So before I continue any further, let me show you this. It's a screenshot of what describes the Pit's role in the film. What is so wrong with that? It's informative, and in no way a misdirection. If there's one thing Nolan has always said about these films, it's that he wants to ground them in reality, and that's what the first sentence of the section says, a "revised conception" of the Lazarus Pit. And we agree that the Pit is a significant setting in the film? So if there is going to be any tidbit about the Pit on wikipedia, it's there.

I'm also quite confused about the WP:RFC. I'm just not sure how to go about it. If you could instruct me? Farhadpersia (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Lazarus Pit (or Pits) of the comics are restorative chemical pools that Ra's uses for their abilities to heal those at death's door. There were no such pools in the movie, so I think linking to Lazarus Pit would be misleading. The prison is a significant setting in the film, and referring to those characters who rise out of "The Pit" is important. If you have a source stating Nolan was inspired by the Lazarus Pit and/or Peña Dura and/or Santa Prisca (DC Comics), and what elements of each he chose for the movie and why, that would be great to put in the Development section of the article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

GoingBatty, our argument is not that the Pit is a literal interpretation of the Lazarus Pit but rather a reimagination of it. here's another article illustrating what we mean. Farhadpersia (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The Sports Hero article is interesting and entertaining, but it appears to be just fan speculation written before the movie was released. It doesn't appear to be a reliable source explaining what is actually in the film, or the thought process used by the filmmakers to create the film. GoingBatty (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, it appears that consensus is pointing in favor of not including the link because of a lack of verifiable sources that actually identify "The Pit" as any form of reference to "The Lazarus Pit".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus of the few of us on wikipedia maybe, but not the sovereignty of the internet. As much as anyone tries to deny it, the Pit most closely fits in with the Lazarus Pit in Nolan's realistic version of the Batman lore, not at all with Pena Duro, and I've already explained why. When viewers of the film search "Lazarus Pit in DKR" or even just "Pit in DKR" they will immediately be brought to all the things that I have been trying to tell you. So do you mean to tell me that when they come to wikipedia and see that there's nothing on it in the Lazarus Pit wiki article film section, they will think to themselves, " Oh this all just has to be false now because wikipedia has nothing on it even though the rest of the internet says so " ? I'm telling you fellow editors, it's time for wikipedia to be up to date, and I'm not just talking about DKR. Farhadpersia (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Are any of those sites reliable sources that we could add to the article? GoingBatty (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately my fellow editor, that is subjective. The sources are reliable to me, but not to others. Farhadpersia (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources may be helpful. Besides The Sports Hero article, care to share any other sources that you have found? GoingBatty (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, GoingBatty, the three articles I've posted here are the only ones I have found. But we have established that the Pit is a significant setting in the film and deserves a tidbit on wikipedia, so if this paragraph will not be an inclusion in the Lazarus Pit article, then where will it be placed? Farhadpersia (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the inclusion of that paragraph in the Lazarus Pit article. Saying "the Pit" of the film has restorative powers that healed Bruce's back (but not Bane's face) is just speculation. There was a scene in the film that showed (via movie fiction logic) how another inmate helped fix Bruce's back. GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well GoingBatty, you didn't answer my question. We agree that the Pit is a significant setting for the film and deserves a tidbit on wikipedia but you don't believe that it belongs in the Lazarus Pit article. So I ask again, where then? Farhadpersia (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere, its a film location. Don't indulge this anymore, it isn't a Lazarus pit, its a prison designed to mimic Batman's fall into the well on the Wayne estate as a child. Don't waste your time continuing to pursue this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

GoingBatty already agreed that the Pit is a significant setting and deserves a tidbit on wikipedia. More importantly, I was asking GoingBatty, not you. Don't presume to tell me what to do with my time. It's quite clear you did not read much of anything I wrote, so I'll repeat. I have not been saying that that the Pit=the Lazarus Pit, but rather Nolan's re-imagining of it in his grounded reality, much like how this paragraph calls it "a revised conception" which is anything but misleading. Additionally, you calling this location "a design to mimic Batman's fall into the well on the Wayne estate as a child" is just as much original research as all the information pointing to the Pit being a reference to the Lazarus Pit. Farhadpersia (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How is saying that it is Nolan's reimagining of a Lazarus Pit NOT saying it is a Lazarus Pit? And yes it is original research. Which is why it does not belong here or in the Lazarus Pit article. My confusion is in how this discussion has managed to go on so long and take up so much space. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying Nolan's take on the Pit is not the Lazarus Pit is because like I said, Nolan likes to ground all aspects of these films in reality. So just like how he didn't actually make Ra's al Ghul immortal (but alluded to it by having Ra's discuss immortality in BB and DKR), he did not actually make the Pit the literal Lazarus Pit pool of rejuvenation (but alluded to it by first, calling it the "Pit" and second, by having Bruce enter it with a broken back and leaving it fully healed and third, having the inmates chant and speak in a language that is Ra's al Ghul's native tongue and fourth, having Ra's appear in the Pit discussing immortality and fifth, showing Talia's mother die in the Pit just like how she died in a Lazarus Pit in the comics). And I'll say again, GoingBatty has agreed that the Pit is a significant setting in the film and deserves a tidbit on wikipedia. But since we have not come to a consensus as to where this paragraph belongs, it is the reason why "this discussion has managed to go on so long and take up so much space." I hope I cleared up that confusion for you. Farhadpersia (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis above. But it still falls under original research. Please publish it in a reliable source so that we can cite you in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, but as I have explained to others before in this discussion, if the Pit being the Lazarus Pit is original research, then so are the following:

-The League of Shadows as the League of Assassins

-The Batpod as the Batcycle

-The Bat as the Batwing

-John Daggett as Roland Daggett

Nolan never had to come out and say that this was that and etc., the reviewers and observers of the film deduced it for themselves, much like how we have deduced the fact that the Pit is Nolan's take on the Lazarus Pit. But that seems like what you are asking for; Nolan to come out and say that the Pit was his re-imagining of the Lazarus Pit. Well, he never did that for all those other examples, so why are they linked to one another on wikipedia? Farhadpersia (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting those. Feel free to mark them with {{citation needed}} or just edit out the original research that you spotted. DonQuixote (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome again, but you're missing the point. Which is, I do not think Nolan is going to come out and confirm every unconfirmed thing about these films just for the sake of credibility to them. Perhaps he feels that he left enough trails in the films for viewers to figure things out themselves (...does that come down to original research?).

I find that these links are noteworthy, and that the Pit is in line with them. I do not care if it falls under the category of "original research" but I do care about wikipedia, and I am here to help. However, the dogmatism to the guidelines is hindering its progress. Sometimes "original research" is what it takes to get the job done. I just think that since the very nature of wikipedia and its vulnerability to opinions and vandalism that "original research" has been tagged with such a bad reputation. Farhadpersia (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And you're missing the point that an encyclopedia is not a publisher of original thought. Yes, original research is great and all, but there are appropriate places to publish them. This isn't one of them. If you want your original observations mentioned here, please publish them in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not missing anything. I addressed that point by saying I do not to care, but I do care about wikipedia and it needs some changing. And here we go with another full circle of this "publisher of original thought." Must I mention again that the League of Shadows as the League of Assassins, John Daggett as Roland Daggett, the Batpod as the Batcycle, and the Bat as the Batwing fall right in line with the Pit as the Lazarus Pit since it did not come straight from the horse's mouth which seems like what you are asking for (i.e. Nolan never directly pointed these out)? So if those examples have links to one another on wikipedia, then so should the Pit as the Lazarus Pit. I'll continue on again by saying that GoingBatty admitted that the Pit is a significant setting in the film and deserves a tidbit on wikipedia, and I believe the most logical place to put it is where it already is, this paragraph. Farhadpersia (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Farhad, this is the same exact line of editing you're making on the Bane articles. You've had editor after editor explain policy to you, and yet still, you're right and everyone else is wrong. Amazing how far you've come after less than a week here.--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

William, I am not the only one who is right, because if you look up, DonQuixote did in fact say that the evidence I showed him/her is enough for him/her, but not enough for wikipedia. I reply by telling how I feel about the policy, and Wikipedia. What does the Bane article have to do with this? I was the one who created the Bane in other media article, explained my reasoning of the film section, and I thought we came to consensus/compromise about that. Farhadpersia (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(edict conflict) Yes, those things are original research. Don't compound the problem by adding more original research. Feel free to mark them as original research or edit them so as to eliminate original research. And, yes, Nolan probably won't directly say all this stuff, but that's irrelevant to the point. The point is that you're saying all this stuff. We'll gladly accept your original research as long as you publish it in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

DonQuixote, my fellow editor, can you not see that I do not find those links to be a problem but mere evidence on wikipedia itself that original research has some merit? And no, it is not irrelevant to the point, because my point is all those links including the Pit as the Lazarus Pit have enough evidence for the viewer to identify the connections. The point is, I am not the onlt one saying all this stuff, because the rest of the internet also is, so wikipedia should as well. You should gladly accept my original research, since you have gladly accepted the research of those other links for years. We are on the same side here, we are both trying to improve wikipedia, no? Farhadpersia (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Any consensus on the matter is entirely imagined on your part. You didn't discuss anything on the matter; you ignored my objections, reverted my edits and moved an entire section to a new article without discussion. Your entire argument, here and elsewhere, is that since something already exists on wikipedia you can add more of it. There are misspellings, so feel free to make up your own words. Again, once you've lost interest in the project and moved on I'll clean up the mess you've made. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry then, I guess that huge paragraph I wrote to you on that dispute page was invisible to you, because it was a response to the objections and reverts you were making. My reasoning for moving an entire section was because it was said that that article was becoming too long. And what makes you think I wrote that entire section? Because I didn't, and I didn't make any mess or lose interest in any project. You've nothing to clean up, but I'm still willing to hear what you have to say. Farhadpersia (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

League of Assassins = League of Shadows: A group of highly trained individuals led by Ra's al Ghul to advance his goals of destroying modern civilization.

Batcycle = Batpod: It's a motorcycle Batman rides when the Batmobile/Tumbler can't get the job done.

Roland Dagett = John Dagett: A corrupt businessman, rival to Bruce Wayne's company, who isn't above using criminal means to get his way.

Batwing = The Bat: Flying vehicle Batman uses for greater mobility that is seemingly part plane and part helicopter.

Lazarus Pit/Pena Duro = The Pit: Both characters (Bane and Talia) had their respective mothers killed in their respective Pits once upon a time. Both characters from the Nolan films are born and raised here. Batman is sent here to heal from his injuries. Bane is in control of the facility after taking his freedom from it, also receiving his trademark drugs while incarcerated.

Just a few connections for the very obvious ones and a two-sided argument for The Pit. As before, I support The Pit as Pena Duro, as it simply shares more similarities to it over the Lazarus. It's probable that Nolan used both to create The Pit, but if we were forced to nail down a single location it is most like, it would obviously be Pena Duro: It is an actual prison, Bane is in control of it after the original warden/ruler of it was taken from power, it relates to his interactions with Batman, and there was only one person famed to ever escape from it (ignore who it was and just take in that point by itself).

Also, just arguing pro-tip to everyone: Saying something a lot doesn't make it right. Just because lots of other places say The Pit is the Lazarus doesn't mean we should just give in and go with the crowd. There's at least an equal amount who think the opposite. 74.136.202.25 (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree because like I have said time and time again that the Pit has little to nothing to do with Pena Duro other than the fact that Bane was incarcerated there at one point in time. Never in the film is it said that his mother was there with him and died, so Talia is the one who is born and raised there with her mother dying in the Pit. And a lot of other places say that:

"League of Assassins = League of Shadows: A group of highly trained individuals led by Ra's al Ghul to advance his goals of destroying modern civilization.

Batcycle = Batpod: It's a motorcycle Batman rides when the Batmobile/Tumbler can't get the job done.

Roland Dagett = John Dagett: A corrupt businessman, rival to Bruce Wayne's company, who isn't above using criminal means to get his way.

Batwing = The Bat: Flying vehicle Batman uses for greater mobility that is seemingly part plane and part helicopter."

But Nolan never did, and that's the same argument being used for not using all the evidence for the Pit as the Lazarus Pit. So if a lot of other places say all those other things including wikipedia, I don't see why wikipedia can't include the Pit as the Lazarus Pit. Farhadpersia (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Deadshot

Was Deadshot in The Dark Knight Rises? There is one character who works for the League of Shadows and is seen sniping at police officers with a chain of bullets across his chest. He later goes across the bridge to tell the army not to let anyone cross. I cannot seem to find any verifiable sources for this, and thus obviously cannot include it in the article. However, I was wondering if anyone else had the same thought and had perhaps researched it a little more thoroughly than I have. TempDog123 (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read IMDb posters mentioning this as well. Do you spotted any other similarities that might give a little more validity to this theory? Geeky Randy (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

More accurately, can you provide any reliable sources that verify this theory? DonQuixote (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What? As if it is going to be posted in this article? All editing has been blocked; not to mention, the article is still a pathetic mess even with Wikipedia's precious narrow-minded policies of notability and "reliable" sources. Have you even read the reception category in this article? Why is there a GameSpot review of this film that misuses the term "plot hole"? Reliable or not, no information is going to be added to the article for a while. This will be a nice little break from people cramming rules down our throats when we want to discuss unverified interpretations. Geeky Randy (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's going to be added if a reliable source is cited once the protection has been lifted (which is next week). And the Gamespot review will also be corrected as well. Also, as per discussing unverified interpretations, please remember that this is not a forum. DonQuixote (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the exact same thing. Maybe he was based on the Deadshot character, the same way Jen was based on the character of Holly Robinson (although some say Jen IS Holly Robinson; Jen is just her alter ego). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemyDavis (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2012

the gross should be changed to $732,335,094 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Aradhana/261585757269323 07:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You're using facebook as your source? --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor spelling error

Hello :)

Just spotted a minor spelling error here: "Alfred is unable to accep Bruce's...". It should be accepT. Please change it, much thanks. I'll keep an eye out for more. I would edit it myself (it's not even a big deal) but the article is locked :/

Love that you guys updated this article today <3 Great work, keep it up!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.99.137.80 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Aurora, Colorado

The heading currently says Aurora, Canada which is incorrect as it actually took place in the state of Colorado

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollyx3 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Edit Request for August 4, 2012

Liam Neeson should be added to the opening paragraph as a returning cast member. Ra's al Ghul is arguably more of a significant returning character than Cillian Murphy's character, particularly in the context of his appearance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.199.145 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Edit request for August 7, 2012

In 6.2 Reception, second paragraph, last sentence, the quote should be

that "there was nothing remarkable about the acting."

instead of

"That there was nothing remarkable about the acting."

to accurately cite the source, which says, verbatim:

"There was nothing remarkable about the acting," said another academy member.

Thanks,

--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done DonQuixote (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2012- Repeating request, previous attempt archived without response

In the first paragraph of the plot summary, it says "Gordon's speech falls into the hands of the villain Bane", but this is the first time the speech is mentioned. I think this could be address with an edit akin to: "Gordon feels guilty about the cover-up of Harvey Dent's crimes and writes a confession speech, but decides that the city is not ready to hear the truth." Argento Surfer (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified it in the article. drewmunn (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2012

Box Office worldwide receipts has increased to $737,060,592 per information from http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm Albertdadze (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits required

The plot summary could use a complete reworking. Information is presented out-of-sequence, and is missing major plot points. For example, the article states simply that Bane attacks the Stock Exchange and bankrupts Bruce Wayne, with absolutely no reference to the events that proceeded that (Selina Kyle stealing Wayne's fingerprints, which was a crucial element in the plan to ruin Wayne). It states that that Batman locates Bane by following the trail of Catwoman without providing the reader with any context for Catwoman's appearance in the film. Batman didn't follow the trail of Catwoman, rather he asked for her help to locate Bane, and she led him to Bane, and betrayed Batman. The plot as presented here is riddled with gaps too numerous to list, and is poorly written in general. For instance, "While following a lead in the abduction of a congressional representative, Gordon's speech falls into the hands of the villain Bane..." This implies that Gordon's speech was had somehow come to life and was following a lead in the abduction.

It may need a rewrite, however the guidelines of this site do not require events to be told in sequence and its only aim is to convey major events necessary for understanding in 700 words or less. So no, Kyle stealing hsi fingerprints are not particularly important and its definitely not required to understand that Bane attacks Wall Street and bankrupts Bruce Wayne. How he does it doesn't matter, noone is reading and questioning the logic of a supervillain attacking wall street and bankrupting someone. But we have conveyed that he does it. The purpose of the plot section is not to retell the film event for event. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of providing a plot section should be to provide a clear, concise account of the major events of the film. If sequence of events isn't important in achieving this, it may as well start with,"Batman attaches a cable from The Bat to a fusion bomb and flies it out over the harbor, where the bomb detonates, apparently killing Batman".Someone reading this plot summary as written would definitely have more questions than answers. As written, it's confusing, and in some instances, misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.164.4 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The sequence of events isn't important in the sense that we don't have to reproduce the interweaving plot threads. Yes, some of the minor details are out of sequence, but they're described in terms of the major plot points which are in sequence. DonQuixote (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Chris Ellis as priest

If you look at the TDKR online screenplay, Father Reilly is the one who oversees the orphans' home, and the guy who John Blake talks to in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoDaFoo (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Trail left by Selina Kyle

I think the quote "Following a trail left by cat burglar Selina Kyle," should be removed. At no point in the movie does Selina leave a trail for Batman to follow. Infact, she takes Batman to Bane's lair herself, where he is trapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemyDavis (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be reworded, because I believe that the original intention was to say that the trail led to her, and then she led Batman to Bane. The way it reads, you're right, it's like the trail led to Bane.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Bignole. However at no point in the film do we see Batman following a trail TO Selina in the subway. We see Bruce Wayne asking Selina to meet with his "powerful friend" and then when the scene opens, we see Selina in her outfit waiting for Batman. Presumably they arranged for a place to meet, even if we didn't see it onscreen. Though my point still stands that Selina did not leave a trail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemyDavis (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been removed anyway, but the "trail" would have been the tracking device on the necklace which led him to a location in the city. From there, he used the location to run a trace and picked up her criminal record, thus learning who she was. Then he went to her as Bruce Wayne, and later Batman. Either way, it's been removed so it doesn't matter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2012

Alternatively, politically conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, in response to news reports of forthcoming Democratic Party election strategy, alleged that the film was biased against 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney due to Bane's name being a homophone for Bain Capital, the financial service company Romney used to head.[200][201][202] Nstew49702 (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Clean Energy Project

The article is currently misleading with regards the clean energy project, but I'm unsure of how to change it and retain the necessary details whilst keeping it succinct. The energy project was Wayne's, not Tate's, but Tate provided much of the funding for it. My dilemma is that changing it to read "Wayne's clean energy project" removes the necessary information on Tate knowing of the project. Thanks drewmunn (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012 - RUsh limbaugh 'Accusing movie of promoting anti conservative agenda"

Rush Limbaugh did not make any accusation toward the movie creators' motives regarding a political agenda. He commented on some members of the political left that were using, or accused of using the name of the antagonist 'Bane' and linking it to 'Bain' capital. The current text suggests that Limbaugh directed this criticism toward the movie; he directed it toward Romney's political opposition.

24.206.101.140 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable sources that say the above and we'll cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the transcript of the day in question. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/17/the_batman_campaign

Thanks for the transcript and your analysis of the transcript. Can you provide some reliable sources that verify your analysis so that we can avoid original research? DonQuixote (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, does it seem like the following is really subject to interpretation: "... You may think it's ridiculous, I'm just telling you this is the kind of stuff the Obama team is lining up. The kind of people who would draw this comparison are the kind of people that they are campaigning to. These are the kind of people that they are attempting to appeal to. " This is the final paragraph of the transcript on the Limbaugh site; I am curious as to where the sources are that lend support to the assertion in the original Wiki article that Limbaugh attacked the writers/producers/directors of the picture.

Additionally, your source citation 202 took an excerpt of the whole Limbaugh segment (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/17/the_batman_campaign) to promote the narrative that he attacked the movie for an Anti-Romney bent; but if one simply read the article beginning to end......or in this case, just read the end paragraph, it's more than clear that the target of Limbaugh's comments were political operatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.101.140 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your interpretation of the transcript. Please cite a reliable source that verifies your interpretation so that we can cite it. DonQuixote (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to make sure I have this right: You have the actual transcript from Rush Limbaugh's own site, written in the English language. The end paragraph states very clearly who is being referenced, yet you're acting like this is subject to interpretation? (Even your source [202] has in its own comments' section the readership is attacking the article's narrative.) What source do you require.......in addition to the actual, entire, printed transcript already in your hands....to best clarify this? Not to be offensive, but I can't believe you're being this obtuse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.9.10 (talk • contribs)

I read the same transcript that you did and got a completely different interpretation. Unfortunately, my interpretation is no better than your interpretation and so it won't make its way into this article. Please cite a reliable source that verifies your interpretation (and those of the above internet commentators) thereby making it much, much better than mine and citeable within this article.

Also, see the above/archived discussions about the Lazaraus Pit and Deadshot which deal with similar issues of WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I declare shenanigans. Where's my broom? Limbaugh has stated he is friendly with the writers. And no, I'm not going to include a reference which ONE PERSON (DonQuixote) somehow has given him/her/itself uncontested power to veto. Let's play this game. What reliable source can you produce DonQuixote that proves Limbaugh criticized the writers and not the politicization of the film's story? 76.73.210.228 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that "Limbaugh is friendly with the writers".

Also, I haven't written anything about this topic, so I don't need to provide reliable sources. However, I did peruse the section in question and the sources seem reliable enough for me. If others disagree, then they have the option to question the reliability of the source.

Finally, the bottom line is that the above is your interpretation and your analysis. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original ideas. Please cite a reliable source that verifies your ideas, or publish them in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the above link to the full transcript could be included as a reference, in case readers wished to examine the full text themselves? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That could probably be put under "References" or "External links". DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This edit request is spot on. Rush is being misquoted in the article; here are sources that should instead be used to show that this correlation between Bane and Bain was coming from Democratic strategists before the movie was released: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/16/picket-obama-camp-miscasts-batman-characters-romne/ http://voices.yahoo.com/to-save-obama-democrats-pin-their-hopes-bane-11576118.html?cat=9 http://washingtonexaminer.com/romneys-new-foe-batmans-bane/article/2502274#.UCVJIPZlTMc http://backwardsboy.blogspot.com/2012/07/comic-creator-of-bain-calls-bs-on-dems.html

Please provide a reliable source that states that Limbaugh was misquoted.

Also, thanks for pointing out other people drawing conclusions about Bain/Bane. The article has been amended to reflect that. Feel free to provide any other reliable sources discussing this. DonQuixote (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning (seeing as this is the Talk section) that the several cited sources are not reliable sources, DonQuixote. Defending the integrity of Wikipedia is one thing; simply declaring that every source provided is somehow unreliable presents the appearance of abuse. For example, how do you define what constitutes a reliable source about quotations? Would not a reasonable person conclude that a transcript of the speech is proper quotation, for example? You seem to be fishing for someone to say (somehow authoritatively) "by the powers vested in me as a quotation understander, Limbaugh was clearly misquoted. I find for the misquoted!" and bang the gavel. Or are you traveling down the ol' meaning of what the word "is" is rabbit hole? What possible logic do you employ in this case? 68.47.23.59 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Those sources don't say that he was misquoted, they just point out other people saying similar things and people's responses to them.

And yes, a transcript is a proper quotation, but him being misquoted is your interpretation. That falls under synthesis and POV. DonQuixote (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

DonQuixote, you're being ridiculous. Perhaps there are no "reliable sources" saying Rush wasn't attacking the filmakers, because no "reliable sources" took that to be the case. Because it's completely fabricated. Just, outright made up out of thin air. How do you respond with "reliable sources" to completely false accusations? With that outlook I can just make up whatever I want and find some whacked out blogger who agrees with me and change content on Wikipedia. Your absurd bias is showing. The transcript CLEARLY shows Rush was NOT talking about the filmakers. But that's not enough to overcome your biased nonsense. 209.46.116.20 (talk)

It's been documented that people, such as Nolan, had responded to Limbaugh's comments. That hasn't been made up out of thin air. However, if you think these were based on false accusations, then either cite a reliable source that verifies this or publish your analysis in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(Been a long time since I used Wikipedia, hope I follow all of the guidelines.) I don't think it needs to be said that he was misquoted. What probably should be mentioned is that Lehane spoke first, which then prompted Rush to speak (or was at least used as a lead up on his show). Right now, the sentence about Lehane is tacked on at the end. Putting Lehane first would more closely represent the chronology of the events and flow better overall. Also, is there a spot for Bane's creator talking about the comparisons? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/16/picket-obama-camp-miscasts-batman-characters-romne/)65.50.125.95 (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Aurora shooting mention in header?

Do you think it is warranted to mention the aurora shooting in the header paragraph? There is already a sectional mention in the article, while it is a very significant event its mention seems a little disjointed with the rest of the header and its relevance to the film.Duhon (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

it should be removed entirely from the page as it has nothing to do with the film itself; and could damage the franchise and place a stigma on DC's future endeavors with the character (24.250.31.224 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

The event itself shouldn't be covered in depth but considering most analysts thing that it has impacted the film's box office takings, perhaps forever undermining its true financial potential, it needs mentioning.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word 'trilogy'

Basically, the word 'trilogy' is used as equal and or similar to 'series' in this context, when it should only be 'series'. A trilogy is three stories that may all function as one. These three movies are part of Nolan's series, but they are not a trilogy. A good example of trilogy would be the first and second 'Star wars' trilogies. Basically, stories in their own right that are part of a great one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.106.250.187 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"trilogy |ˈtrɪlədʒi|, noun: a group of three related novels, plays, films, etc." The term trilogy is used here in the correct way, and also in the sense in which you define it, as it tells the story of Bruce Wayne. However you look at it, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises are a trilogy. drewmunn (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Batplane

Should The Bat say it is the film's Batplane? Isn't more the film's Batcopter? It's a rotorcraft isn't it, with that big helicopter sized propeller underneath. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

They've never identified it as such. It's based more around planes than helicopters, per the source. Either way, they basically say it is their version of the batwing, not the batcopter. So, we go with what they say, not what we believe it should be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Riddled with errors

If it's going to be locked at least sort the spelling and typos out. "show trails", "sentance" - come on! Anon-ish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.53.24 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

John Blake ending

I think the end of the Plot section should say he becomes a new hero because the Batman legend is over. That's what it hints at with the tagline. Also, Gotham believes that Batman is dead. It would take away from the identity of Batman. Sean (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We cannot put our own interpretations into the plot. We're only reporting what is actually shown, and in summary form.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

On that note then, it says "Batman is later praised as a hero, while Bruce is assumed killed in the riots." Why do we assume Bruce was killed in the riots?129.139.1.75 (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, I am not sure. It is clear that he is presumed dead (hence the reading of his will), I think someone probably added the "in the riots" part because it was the only logical place for them to believe he was killed. It can and probably should be removed to just say that Bruce is presumed dead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, saying Blake inherits the Batcave is better until we know how the story will progress. I think there should be more emphasis on Blake's appearance as a character though, as he clearly will be a main feature of whatever the future holds and has been primed as 'Robin'. Here, he doesn't even get a mention in the opening paragraph! FloreatAntiquaDomus 12:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, someone on ask.com made a good point that Batman is still alive, and the last sequences aren't just showing what his old friends want to see: Alfred didn't know that Bruce was in love with Selina Kyle, so that's an actual surprise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.109.200 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)