Talk:Iron Man (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Iron Man (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 11, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iron Man (film) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Resemblance?

Would it be something of note to mention that Downey Jr.'s Stark bears more than a passing resemblance to Al Pacino? 76.170.97.34 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Stark always had a goatee, so I would assume you're not familiar with the comics. Maybe one day we'll learn why Stan Lee and his colleagues gave the character that look years before Pacino became famous. Alientraveller (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

I suggest including some of the information from the first reviews that have been uploaded online. There are a number of links in Rotten tomatoes. Once the film has been officially released more information can, of course, be included.Franshu (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations to use

Some headlines that appear useful. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'll add this, which has useful stuff from Favreau about the film being inspired by Batman Begins's depth rather than its tone and his use of footage of Top Gun to teach ILM to keep the F-22 battle realistic. Alientraveller (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mandarin is an Indonesian terrorist?

I wonder if the quotation put on the article is a mistake on Alfred Gough when iFMagazine interviewed him. I honestly don't think a person with the name Mandarin would come from Indonesia. --Pboy2k5 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the quote is correct. They made the Mandarin Indonesian in that early script, as Mandarin doesn't just mean a Chinese language. Alientraveller (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Iron Monger

I'd have to agree with a couple of earlier editors about not referring to Stane's character as Iron Monger. Discounting the fact I've seen the film at two NY press screenings — since my word would be, justifiably, disallowed as original research — we do need a citation to support the claim that the character is called Iron Monger in the film. No Paramount production note or official cast list credit Stane's armored antagonist as "Iron Monger".

If that's not the name used in film (and in a couple of days everyone will see it's not), then we can't call the character Iron Monger any more than we could call the 1970s TV Hulk alter ego "Bruce Banner". On TV, he was "David Banner". Just because something is called one thing in one medium doesn't mean it's called that in another.

Sorry, your analogy fails. In the TV version he was David "Bruce" Banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.101.107 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Helluva film, by the way. As for the whole "Mandarin" thing above, the only allusion to it is that the terrorist group is a pan-Middle Eastern mishmash called &mash; in a single, wonderfully inside-nod instance — "The Ten Rings."--Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I guess it works fine in the effects section that we know the filmmakers called his armor Iron Monger. Alientraveller (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
And you bring up a good point -- it can't hurt to include a footnote confirming that was the unofficial name the SFX artists used. I've got the hard-copy notes in front of me, so I'll cite page #; I assume, but will check, that the online version matches. Good catch. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. I've linked to the online notes. The Mahan quote is on pp. 39-40 of the hard copy (which is from Paramount), but since the online notes' footnote is multiple-lettered, I couldn't find a way to break out Mahan without going back and for consistency giving page numbers for all the production-note cites. Online's just fine with me! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


The action figure is called Iron Monger: http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Movie-Action-Figure-Monger/dp/B00168B9X2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.57.206 (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is true the offical movie action figure is called the Iron Monger.CommanderWiki35 (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I sawthe movie, his name is reffernced but they donnot reffer to him by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.179.37 (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He calls himself and stark "Iron-Mongerer's" in the field of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.242.232 (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The character's title, within the comics, of 'Iron Monger', was a play on the term Iron Monger, which is an old adage for a war profiteer, so that's hardly indicative of anything, that the writers sought to include some sort of use of the phrase. Likewise, I expect to hear the word 'abomination' somewhere in the upcoming Hulk film, but not in a self-referential way referring to Blonsky's mutated form. That said, neither the credits nor the characters refer to it as Iron Monger. The designers of Blonsky's look no doubt used the term 'The Abomination' at times, and the writers acknowledge that he IS the Abomination, but that he will not be called that during the film because they feel it's ridiculous. They didn't say that they never refer to him as such when discussing production, simply that as far as they are concerned, within the context of the film, he's NOT "The Abomination". IN the same way, although we, the Out-of-Universe audience 'know' that that's the Iron Monger, the In-Universe part of explaining the cast of characters precludes us incorporating it to the cast list. However, if a citation for the behind the scenes use of the Iron Monger term can be found, it can be incorporated freely into the design and production sections appropriately. ThuranX (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The end credits do identify the character as Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger Mechasaprophyte (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They identify him as Stane. In the comics, Stane was the Monger. avoid Synth. ThuranX (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hm, perhaps I misread it then; can someone else corroborate this? (FWIW, both imdb and Marvel Studios list him as such. [1]) Mechasaprophyte (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel that since the character's name was Obadiah Stane and his alter ego was called Iron Monger in the comics, the movie should be the same since Obadiah Stane is in the movie. --CommanderWiki35 (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He was obviously the Iron Monger. Splitting hairs doesn't make for a better encyclopedia. 69.245.80.218 (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but if it's not verifiable by a production source that they named the armor "Iron Monger", then it's speculation. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 07:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Avengers

After the credits role, we're shown a scene after Stark's press conference(which I won't tell what its about to not spoil most of you) where he was greeted by Fury[Samuel L Jackson] after a few exchanges he was asked if he would want to be part of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the newly formed(?) Avengers. Does this hint that we'll see an Avenger forming already and be part of The Incredible Hulk and Thor movies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arias2141 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC) --Arias2141 (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Saw the film earlier today (got to love free previews), and yes - Jackson is in it. I changed the article to reflect this (and the possibility of upcoming films), but added the note that it *does* really need a citation. Given the nature of the cameo, I'm certain "crystal ball" doesn't apply to this. - Goldenboy (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan?

I was thinking that as Favreau played the part of Happy, it'd be worth mentioning it in the first paragraph of the article. What do you think? Rsreston (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paltrow and her husband's Iron Man comics.

Couldn't cram this in the comment for my edit in the main page, but basically I removed the following line from the cast section: "Paltrow read many of the Iron Man comics owned by her husband Chris Martin (who is a major comics fan), to prepare for the part." She denied this in an interview with SHH! by saying "That is totally fabricated! I don't know where that's from. So many people have asked me this question, and I'm like, "No…" I have no idea where that's from. That's very weird."[2] --81.107.101.143 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pepper's first name is "Deborah" in the film

Or so my ears told me when Stane referred to her by that name when the two were in Tony's office. The marketing material still refers to her as Virginia. Can someone else pay attention to that scene when they see the movie next and check to make sure that he really calls her Deborah? Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure he just says 'Pepper'. Planewalker Dave (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Maybe me and this guy: [3] should form a support group for people who see and hear imaginary things in movies. - Richfife (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I heard 'Deborah' too, I have no idea why though. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Another vote for Deborah: [4] - Richfife (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It's Pepper. Daniels sighs as he speaks, leaving a bit of ambiguity, but Parsimony says it's more likely that they use the character's name, and the actor's style makes it mildly unclear to a small minority, than that they have such a trivial fact thrown in in such an odd manner. ThuranX (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

Should we add some spoiler warnings in these article? because they give alot of plot points away,big time!Sochwa (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Individual editor opinion is split on that, but current Wikipedia-wide policy is not to use spoiler warnings. Steve T • C 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You can add a spoiler warning to the article, but the editor Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival will remove it. --Pixelface (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fury cameo in plot section

There's been a lot of back-and-forth editing over this, so I'd like to get some consensus. Nick Fury is not actually relevant to the plot of the film itself, and is just one example of SHIELD's minor presence in the story. That's why it's placed in the cast section. Alientraveller (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think i've edited that in the plot a couple times, but I'd just as soon see it out. However, with the number of new IP editors trying out wikipedia on this article on the opening weekend, it may be better to let it sit a week or two more, then remove it. ThuranX (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a scene from the film. Why wouldn't it belong in the plot section? It sets up future films in the series. --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
But we don't include every scene from the film in plot sections (though I know we don't always meet this ideal), just those which are necessary to give an understanding of the story. The Fury appearance, as you say, sets up the sequel/spin-off, so it should either go in the #Sequel section, or maybe the #Cast section. Otherwise we're just repeating ourselves. Steve T • C 07:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pacemaker?

"and builds a more powerful and reliable arc reactor, both to power his pacemaker and the suit." The arc reactor does not power a pacemaker, it simply powers an electromagnet that keeps the shrapnel concentrated in one place.

Name: AlbertOvadia Date: 050508

[edit] Who took down Canada?

After the premier in Canada (same time and release as the United States) I went ahead and place the Canadian Flag and release date, then they were removed?? WHY!? Canada premiered it the SAME day as the United States. This is very common! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleeproject (talk • contribs) 18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Naturalistic" vs. "Realistic"

Hoping to avert an edit war on this, I'm initiating a dialog over what would seem to be a non-controversial issue. The term naturalism is used to discuss art — from literature to film and everything in between — that strives to replicate reality, and takes into consideration that film, even documentary film, cannot be exact reality, but only a convincing approximation of it. This has been accepted aesthetic theory for years and years, so I'm not sure what the philosophical or practical basis is for using the term "realistic", which is inaccurate, or, to be generous, colloquial. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

With the wikilink, as you've done I see no particular problem, although the statement is only mildly supported in the filming section. I think your choice of vocabulary ,supported by link, is more precise, but I also think that it might need a bit of supporting throughout the article, because of the general unfamiliarity with the meaning. ThuranX (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Guess it can't hurt, and you gots it! As always, TX, it's good working with you! -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uniform Positive Critical Reception

Perhaps there is an allowance for the genre, but I walked out after less than 30 minutes. May see remainder when it comes out on redbox, maybe not. At least quoting one "out of genre" review seems called for, and the New Yorker's comment that the film had a "depresssed" atmosphere is a candidate. Lycurgus (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with stating that the NY said it had a depressed atmosphere, just cite it, and incorporate it in a way which doesn't reflect your personal distaste. ThuranX (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal feelings aside, 'near-universal acclaim' seems a little fawning - 78-80% from metacritic and movietab is good, not great. And having 91% positive reviews is not the same thing as giving the film 91/100, it just means that 90% thought the film was above average. If no one objects, I've tempered the intro accordingly. Silent Badger 01 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if it has near universal exclaim, there is no harm in adding a summary of an extremely negative review from a notable film critic. It adds interest to the article to see what the harshest words spoken about it were, whether the majority of other reviewers disagreed with those words or not. Besides, having only positive statements is unbalanced. JayKeaton (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning?

Given that this is a brand-new movie, shouldn't there be a spoiler warning before the section that pretty much spells out the ENTIRE plot of the film??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.218.36 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


No. As this is Wikipedia. If you're looking up the movie on Wikipedia and go to the Plot category, you're probably expecting to see the plot. 204.111.231.130 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. RC-0722 247.5/1 04:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technology

Although a lot of the technology in the movie is a result of Special Effects, is it possible for an expert to maybe add a section to the Wiki that comments on the technology used in the movie - especially the level of AI and the screens used for Tony's computers?

AI? How can a scripted movie demonstrate artificial intelligence as a technology? JayKeaton (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the movie? He spends much of it talking to his robots. --P3d0 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
So those were AI computers playing AI Computers? Or just remote controlled devices, manned by humans offscreen? ThuranX (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    While pretending to do so over the next three months, needs to be written with a little more detail. The sentence a move which his business partner, Obadiah Stane, tells him is blocked by the board members shortly after, needs to be written a little better; I understand what the sentence is talking about, but any other individual who reads the article might have a hard time understanding what the sentence is exactly talking about. Again, However, he instead makes his identity public, the sentence needs to explain what identity he made public about.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The cameo appearances by Tom Morello, Clark Gregg, and Jim Cramer do need a source.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Stark barely makes it out alive, better for the sentence to be re-written.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The article reads well, the only thing holding the article is if these comments can be met. Once they are completed, the article would be turned into a Good article. Good luck and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Zenlax T C S 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened to the original nominator, but I have taken the liberty of resolving these issues. It was a great film. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
How long do we get to fix this up before the reviewer comes back? --81.107.101.143 (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't particularly matter, they've been handled. ThuranX (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAREVIEW2

  1. Well written: Pass. Everything seems rather clear and understandable. I'm not sure it is truly engaging just yet, but that's for the FA reviewer to handle.
  2. Factually accurate: Pass. I think a few more sources should be added in the lead, but all the facts are still verifiable.
  3. Broad in coverage: Pass. I couldn't find anything missing.
  4. Neutral: Pass. All POVs from the last GAN are rvtd.
  5. Stable: Pass. However, I'm not sure it should become an FA until the DVD edition released- just to ensure further stability.
  6. Illistrated: Marginal pass. I'd like to see a few more, but the two available are sufficient for GA.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Teh Rote (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK release date?

Uhm, I don't wanna get into a edit war as it's typical of IPs so I'm just gonna ask - why do we have a separate release date? The film released here on the 2nd May (not the 9th), with preview screening being the 30th April. I should know, I live here. But is it written officially elsewhere or something? --81.107.101.143 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone lied, I corrected it. Alientraveller (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. --81.107.101.143 (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Racist and Sexist Undertones

It's not hard to find bloggers who bemoan the sexist and racist undertones of this movie. Can this be included under reviews or reception? Can we cite bloggers? 201.134.234.171 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, per WP:RS. Thank God. Alientraveller (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
How about this one? It's a blog, but it's editted. What's to distinguish a blog from a reputable news source? These sources also come from blogs, but they don't seem to infringe on WP:RS to me... I'm sure if we wait long enough for Ms Magazine to bring out another issue, we'll see articles about this there too. Maybe we just need to wait for these thoughts to make it to paper sources? Swap (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well as long as someone writes up a balanced analysis section and not some agenda-ridden "criticism" section, I won't mind. Alientraveller (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd mind. A bunch if idiot leftist blogs hardly constitutes reliable journalism. Use better stuff. At best, this can be used to support '...although a handful of blogs criticized the characterization of Pepper Potts and Rhodes.' and not much more. But there's always someone out to rain on parades. ThuranX (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jen Yamato

Is there a reason the following sentence keeps getting removed from the article?

Jen Yamato of Rotten Tomatoes reported that Iron Man was the best-reviewed film of the year so far and "also potentially one of the highest-rated superhero movies of all time."[5]

I think the sentence belongs in the article, but if someone thinks it should be removed, I would like to know why. --Pixelface (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who Yamato is, but what's important is the site reporting on the critical consensus, considering it's read them all. Alientraveller (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Jen Yamato is not "The website." Jen Yamato wrote that quote, so why not just attribute that quote to her? --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's circular for one. Aren't WE also just 'reporting the highly positive reviews of the film'? and isn't 'might be' just so much hypothetical hype? ThuranX (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
What is circular? If someone wrote that the film was the best-reviewed film of the year so far, that's a citable claim. And I don't think the second part is hype. We're just repeating what's been said by other people. --Pixelface (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starcraft 2 trailer - Iron man suit up similarities

The similarities between the SC2 Trailer released and the iron man suit up should be addressed at some point. it is obvious that somewhere along the line artists from either blizzard or the animation studio in charge of iron man decided to pay homage to one or the other - or infringe on copy right. I think it might have been blizzard actually paying homage to the movie like they do with many of there other games with references to pop culture. Someone should probably investigate this if only for a referance on impact of pop culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.152.251 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's a big pile of WP:OR violations. Let's avoid including that sort of thign at all, unless you've got a clear source for it. ThuranX (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with ThuranX. Investigations should not be done by Wikipedian editors. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 12:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mandarin as Communist metaphor?

I've put a citation tag on this because it seems odd to me; the Mandarin, as his name suggests, has his roots in pre-Communist China, and lost his status during the Cultural Revolution. Parveau's interview doesn't exactly call him a metaphor for Communism either, he says some aspects of the original stories are dated, mentions Communism and metaphors as an example, and then says the Mandarin is "incredibly challenging" as another example. Daibhid C (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Resemblance between arc reactor and fusion reactor

The arc reactor powering the Stark industries factory in the film has such a striking resemblance to the internal view of the JET, the Joint European Torus, that I thought: why should this hint of the creative team behind the movie not be pointed out in this article? I know that it is pointed out in the article via the arc reactor link in the plot description, but it seems to me that the connection of the movie theme: hope in man's wit mastering a new potentially not harmful energy technology - with the hope in projects like ITER and fusion power in general can't be caught by people who don't know about fusion power in the first place. I thought of a Trivia section like: "The larger arc reactor, which can be seen in the film to power the factory of Stark Industries, appears to be a visual imitation of a Tokamak fusion reactor, especially the JET." Or does an assumption like this have to confirmed by someone of the official team? I think it's a vital point to any interpretation of the film. Thanks for your answers! --84.159.115.250 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nod to other films

When Obadiah goes to Stark's home to break to him the news that the stockholders are unhappy with him, the scene begins with stark coming up the stairs and we see obadiah playing the piano. The piano playing is a nod to Jeff Bridges' character Jack Baker, one half of the piano playing duo in academy award acclaimed movie The Fabulous Baker Boys. Killeroid (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. You'd need citation that it's a deliberate tribute, instead of simple coincidence that in all Bridges' roles, he might play two characters who at some point int he film play on a piano. Otherwise, every movie in which Stallone punches someone is a nod to Rocky, every role in which he kills an enemy is a nod to First Blood, and any movie where John Travolta says, well, anything, is a nod to Saturday Night Fever. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You would need to cite a "nod" like that since it's not an immediately obvious connection, but even so, I'm not sure if such a detail would be very relevant to the overall encyclopedic nature of this Wikipedia article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foreshadowing?

The "Ten Rings" Terrorist group (they're NOT taliban, as the movie goes so far to tell you) might refer to the rings of power held by [The Mandarin], one of Iron Man (Comic)'s earliest nemeses. --24.44.81.211 (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article. ThuranX (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with comic book

As someone who has never read the Iron Man comics, I'd be interested to know what parts of the movie came from the comics, and which part were original inventions. Would that make an appropriate section in this article? Any takers? --P3d0 (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is in there. There are parts of the article in which the makers discuss their inspirations. If you mean shot for shot correlations, I doubt you'd find much at all, beyond the look and feel of certain scenes which an be attributed to Adi Granov's involvement with both the comic and film, which is also already included. ThuranX (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I guess it's mostly in there already in the description of the characters. Thanks. --P3d0 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Favreau's hopes, dreams and wants for the future

This is all interesting stuff, but it's movie-magazine newsiness, not encyclopedic. What Favreau considers to be the second movie ro the third movie is irrelevant; he's not the arbiter. The only thing we can include is the actual, concrete facts. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff. I think it's not right though to ignore this controversy: Marvel set a schedule without consent of the production team, and the film may well be pushed back. Secondly, the reader learns about The Avengers, so they'll wonder, what about Iron Man 3? Well, for the filmmakers, it is the same film. Alientraveller (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is interesting, but it's all speculation: What may happen in the future ("the film may well be pushed back") falls squarely under WP:CRYSTAL. And the film, and the article, is bigger than Favreau. It belongs to the studio, it belongs to Marvel, and as much as I loved the film and respect Favreau's talent, his opinion about what be considers the third film or second film or whatever to be is irrelevant opinion, and so has no place in an encyclopedia. That he's not signed for the sequel is a relevant, verifiable, concrete fact. All the other material is speculation about what may or may not happen in the future. We're not on a deadline, so why not wait until something concrete happens or is announced? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
So when he signs on, the info will return? OK. Alientraveller (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Yeah, no question -- when Favreau signs on for a new film involving Iron Man, I'd certainly imagine any observer would consider that a weighty fact. At that point, his general plan for the film become relevant, because it's actual production work and not amorphous "gee-I'd-like-to-do-this" wishfulness. (Whether he's considers it a third film or a second film still isn't his to say.) --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If so, I'll link Kevin Feige's reply here now over Favreau's concern for the production timetable. Alientraveller (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I follow, but no matter -- you do good work, and we'll cobble something together! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
If we're not adding this info because Favreau is not signed on, then I'm just putting cites here for me to use later. Such as; Favreau wanting Hulk to cameo. Alientraveller (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)