Talk:Iron Man (film)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Mandarin revisited

From what I vaguely recall, The Mandarin will not be a primary villain in this film and may be held off until a sequel. The article is currently written to say that the Mandarin has yet to be cast, even though filming is complete. Do we have any sources to clear up this matter about the villain? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Such facts weren't given by reliable sources. However, when the film comes, we'll learn more of the change from Mandarin to Stane. Alientraveller 14:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Comic-Con will offer up something. There should be plenty of news abound from this coming weekend... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Alien, did the new issue of Empire happen to mention the Mandarin at all? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, they didn't discuss the switch at all. Alientraveller 18:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we'll see what news comes from Comic-Con. I've got my hands full with Cloverfield... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, the guy in the trailer who says "Now you work for me" seems like the Mandarian. And the Iron Monger article says he's the primary villian over the Mandarian.--71.196.158.157 (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the Mandarin, probably some other guy who works for him, like Stane. Favreau confirmed Mandarin doesn't actually appear in the film. Alientraveller (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing (1)

I added information about Audi's cars being in the film in exchange for financing the marketing campaign. There was some more information about the deal at the citation, but I don't know if it's appropriate to work in the finer details. Feel free to take a look and see if anything else can be extracted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

SDCC 07: Iron Man's Mark I by IGN. Just mentions that there is currently a box containing the Mark I armor at Comic-Con. Not sure if this is really long-lasting reporting, so I've placed it here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
More: Iron Man Footage at Comic-Con! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headlines

Not sure if some or all of these have been incorporated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Right, Wizard destroyed many of their articles in a makeover, and they only saved the set visit. Alientraveller (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teaser Trailer

Are we allowed to post details of things that happen in the trailer? Since I've actually seen the trailer I'd know what to put down. Defunct Lies 15:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, there'd be no point. Just linking the trailer when it's released will be ok. Alientraveller 15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Man Flying

According to Variety, the scene from the teaser trailer in which Iron Man flies would not be in the film, but according to SuperHeroHype.com, Favreau said on his Myspace blog that the scene will be in the film. Not sure if this little fiasco is worth mentioning in the article, but the headlines are here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, me thinks it'll be like Neo in the first film. And films following will have more flying?
I spoke with Adi at a recent comic convention - I do believe the flying sequence will be in the film. The sequence was specially commissioned from a sketch Adi made. Also, and I have no references (other than word of mouth from the man himself), but Adi and Jon Favreau will be releasing a book to coincide with the film release. It's a 50/50 split of Adi's art and words from Jon (no idea whether it's a graphic novel, or film notes, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.99.222 (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The film was shot entirely in California,[33]... Filming concluded on June 25, 2007 at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada. Which of these is correct? Mad031683 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Both are, sort of. The cite for 'entirely' was from february, before filming wrapped, meanign it's entirely possible he was unaware of the scenes, or plans changed, as they often do. Alternately, he might've forgotten, or simply said to the reporter somethign like, 'we're filming it all here', meaning this area/close by, and the reporter took 'caliornia', or he said, 'well, we're shoting this in california, so I can commute', and the reporter extrapolated 'entirely' from the fact no other mention of scenes and footage was made. The other citations are more recent, and include Favreau's own blogging about the LV shoots, so they're also correct for when they were reported. The issue has been fixed in article by using 'primarily' instead of 'entirely', a reasonable compromise for the two citations. Hope this helps, and shows why 'verifiability' isn't 00% perfect on it's own. ThuranX 23:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark I Armor

Here's a concept picture of the Mark I Armor, I came across. If someone wants to put it up here it is. [1]76.205.64.173 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's nice, but i'm not sure there's a palce to use it yet. Thanks for the link. When/if we find a place, hopefully we can use it. There are Fair Use issues with excessive promo shots though. ThuranX (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing (2)

Would articles about duvets and dinnerware be counted? As the section's been re-written, I didn't wanna add something as the sections just been neatened up, and have it out of place at the same time... -- Harish - 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that would be too promotional and not really appropriate for the encyclopedic context of this film article. With most big-budget films, there's a lot of merchandise sold, so I think it's only worth getting a general overview (like the studio spends $30 million on marketing or contracts thirty companies to make merchandise). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's a good way to put it actually. -- Harish - 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries, this is a pretty new phenomenon for film articles. You may want to look at WT:FILM#Marketing for some discussion if you haven't already. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Harish - 12:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comma/No comma

There's a tag next to Downey's name that says there is a press release regarding his lack of a comma. Whoever has that reference, can you post it here, or head on over to his page and correct it there? If there IS no reference, then we should change this page for conformity's sake. QuasiAbstract (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick google finds a number of interviews with him have his name listed without the comma, and such things are often conditions of articles. Here's one for this article: http://movies.about.com/od/ironman/a/ironmanrd072807.htm . hope that helps. ThuranX (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Favreau and The Avengers film

In the 'Sequel' section, it states "Favreau might also direct Downey as the character in an Avengers movie." It kinda doesn't makes sense to me, and I certainly didn't get that impression from the article. If we were to talk about him directing the film, doesn't the article simply suggest that Favreau is kinda interested in directing it, as oppose to actually being considered? It kinda appears misleading. Don't wanna edit war my opinion, so I figured I'd ask. -- Harish - 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been changed. Let's avoid making too much of this one comment. We know Marvel's sniffing around an Avengers movie, but they also sniffed around Iron Fist and Luke Cage. I think taht in all the Marvel comic film pages, we should be circumspect and conservative about this. Consider the fate of the Justice League film from DC. It's been so roundly thumped in the fan-press, in the movie press, and by the Aussie government, that it might never happen, and all we're left with is a half-dozen citations that amount to little more than 'they're thinking about it'. I've seen one name repeatedly associated with casting, and it's a lousy choice, and beyond that, nothing. A movie on that paperwork scale needs our patience before covering in depth. ThuranX (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Though I'm still not sure about about the possibility of him simply directing Downey in the film, you've made a very good point. Nicely done. -- Harish - 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On another note, please do not keep adding 'sequel' to this page, regarding Incredible Hulk. That Marvel is now trying out a 'shared universe' concept due to it's centralized control of properties is a fairly new event, and I think that since both films are likely to have true sequels should they do well, we're better off representing continuity in that manner. At this point, it's absolutely unclear as to which order the two stories occur in. If Stark's selling arms to the US Army, it might be 'pre'IM, or it might be post. Until the film is out, we can't be sure, and even after that, I think it's still better to give a section about the interconnected nature of upcoming Marvel films, rather than rely on the infobox, which should instead be for Iron Man 1 and 2, Hulk 1 and 2 (whatever the titles may actually become). We can instead explain the complex continuity in the article for those looking for hte larger marvel view. INfobox should guide those specifically interested in IM. ThuranX (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX. As I was telling Alientraveller earlier, there is no major sequential order for Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. The production of both films did not rely on each other and instead came up with cameo scenes that fit each other. You don't have to see one to understand the other. It's better to explain it in more detail in the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
All fair points guys! Truly, Marvel is the House of Ideas. Alientraveller (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Trailer

I wanted to put a citation for the hidden trailer but I dont know how to write a citation. If anyone else wants to do this, that would be great. My source for that information was the single-disc widescreen version of Transformers (2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.135.36 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the trailer being hidden on another film's DVD really belongs in an encyclopedic article. Others? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Eh, cross-marketing isn't that novel. I'd say no. Now, if there were a crosspromotional outtake, like the spiderman gag on Xmen, or Mister Fantastic lookin like Logan, or if there are others... maybe, because it's interaction with the actors on another film, it could be notable. But advertising isn't. ThuranX (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Iron Man poster

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/3588299.156.3.3 (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a cool poster, but the quality isn't that good (in my opinion). I know we should have low resolution, but should we have low quality as well? Is it possible to revert to the older one until a better quality version of the poster is released, please? Not a stab at the person above by the way, this is just a general comment. -- Harish - 15:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a higher quality version with low resolution: [2] (source). I tried replacing the image myself using the 'Upload a new version of this file' feature, but for some reason the page kept coming up as an error. By the way, some people may not see the diff, but I do. -- Harish - 12:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How is Mandarin a metaphor for communism?

Explain it if you want to post it in the article.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Favreau says so, and that's why he finds the character dated. Alientraveller (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Query on a line from the lead

"Downey is also reprising his role in The Incredible Hulk, as Marvel has plans for a film adaptation of The Avengers."

Is it just me, or is that a) somewhat irrelevant to the article, and b) awkwardly worded? Iron Man's appearance in another movie doesn't automatically suggest to the reader why this is significant to the adaptation of the Avengers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I'd say that hte cross-pollination is notable, but not the speculation regarding avengers. ThuranX (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I shortened it. If anyone else wants to take a stab and mold it into something better, fine by me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)