Talk:Iron Man 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Alcoholism

Hey i found here: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/03/iron-man-2-to-look-behind-the-armor-alcoholism-and-tim-robbins-not-featured/ that it will NOT feature the alcoholism. This was quoted from Robert Downey, Jr. Could someone edit this in please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.38.87 (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Premise and Characters

Would somebody please update the premise and the characters. In a recent issue of Entertainment Weekly and the SHH iron man 2 set preview both had the major plotlines and character descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.209.153 (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian Bale?

No reference. Removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.207.200 (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Roman numeral

Is there a source for the use of a Roman numeral (II)? All the sources I've seen give the Arabic numeral (2).--Marcus Brute (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The most recent logo [1]. Alientraveller (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an even more recent logo (2 June 2009) [2], and it uses the number "2", not the Roman numeral. Doktag (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

New Picture

Tried to add it myself, but turns out Admins only. AC-42 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well is the image needed? Alientraveller (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really needed, but it would be nice to have in since there is no images in the current article. AC-42 (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is not really needed, then it should not be included per the non-free content criteria. The article is early in its stage of development. By the time the sequel is released, it will look more like Iron Man (film), in terms of content and images. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unused References

I attempted to remove References 21 (Robert Downey Jr. reveals megawatt cast of Iron Man 2, and Iron Man 3 is on) & 23 (Twitter / Jon Favreau: Shooting a scene with John), which are cited in the article but have absolutely nothing to do with the statements to which they are attached. However, they were added back in. Is there a reason for this? 72.192.217.186 (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't bother to fully read them, nor bother to look back in the edit history. Both are applicable, just not where they were. Since you couldn't be bothered to do it, I've moved them back to the info they were at some earlier point attached to, or belong with now. Next time, try to improve the articles. And deleting citations often looks like vandalism. Try to correct intermediate edits, not blank. ThuranX (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Viral Clues

In the second paragraph under the Marketing section, the article states, "A set of viral clues to the plot of the film have also been released on the internet." There is no source. Aside from simply improving this article, a source would also benefit fans interested in the film. User:anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.155.7 (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Olivia Munn is NOT the Iron Maiden.

Whaty Favreau jokingly implies before saying you'll find out when the movie comes out is NOT what we should report. THe only sources that say ANYTHING about it all agree he's joking, and we don't need to cover every single joke made during promotion of the film. ThuranX (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If it's been confirmed since this comment was written, then fine. If not, based on the citation it is tied to, "an unspecified role" works. --99.186.108.193 (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Should list actors salaries in

As the price of the movie goes to $200 million, we should also include the actors salaries. I mean the main salaries are pulling $5 to $20 million on this film, we should list the salaries in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at any other film article, none has the budget explained or the salary given, some have the budget and another line for marketing but that's all, look at Film budgeting#Examples, and we actually don't have a reference to the official budget. --Exrain (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Budget and running time

Where did that info come from? If no reference is provided it should be removed. --Exrain (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This was done in this edit and this edit. I have removed both. Thanks. —Mike Allen 04:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Link to Superhero

Sure you want the prominent link? The target is pure embarrassment. Please see my thread here. Tony (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Embarrassment" according to who? Who asked for your input? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.235.28 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The big reveal at the end

I've gotten around to editing the big reveal at the end so that it will be ambiguous on here, but it seems that so many people are adamant at spoiling it. There really should be a lock or something considering this is a public site. 210.4.126.54 (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Everything that happens in the film is to be described in due detail. --uKER (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Inshort, if you look up information on a movie, don't be surprised to find information on this movie. Padillah (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings have been discontinued for a while now. Mike Allen 21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop Posting The Plot

Stop posting the plot! Its not out yet in America! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.242.114.115 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler. Thank you. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPOILER. Welcome to how the rest of the word feels for 99% of films released from Hollywood. This same issue comes up on a regular basis when a television show is aired in Canada a little in advance of of the US and it has long ago been decided that an encyclopedia would include the relevant information. -- Horkana (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to use the table of contents to skip the plot summary? Mike Allen 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I feel like I've seen the whole movie with all the trailers I've seen. I'm surprised there's a plot-point left to uncover. Besides, who really watches these movies for the plot? It's a Marvel action movie, plot has always been secondary. Padillah (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Plot...

Isn't that section generally not fleshed out until after general release for this type of film?

- J Greb (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? Is it not correct? If you have a complaint about accuracy please let us know. Padillah (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bluntly? At the time I queried it I had no legal way to check since the film's general release hadn't happened yet. All I would have to work with is the trailers - not the proper source to draw plot from - or pirated copies.

And no, it isn't a "spoilers" issue - I'd think most would expect a a short summary after the general release. But to have it up prior to that is contrary to Wikipeidia's fair use policy since it can impact the commercial prospects of the film's owners. Even a detailed summary, which this qualifies as, after the film just went to general release can under cut those same commercial prospects.

- J Greb (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are statements that are unsourced then, by all means, challenge them or just remove them outright. I will say that the release on April 28th was in France and that's only an hour or so from England on the Chunnel. Also, this movie has been reported on and public statements made for quite some time, so it's not unlikely that the plot contained herein is actually the plot. But, as I said, if it's unsourced and contentious, kill it. We have no deadline here so there's no need to rush this at all. Padillah (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Cinemas in the UK were running public previews even before the official release date. The film has been out a while already. Unusually the release came later in the United States so there are more people complaining about spoilers than usual but rules are the same as they ever were which was only fair. -- Horkana (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the guideline Films use? First showing, limited, or general release? - J Greb (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a specific policy but most editors are willing to wait until general release. Usually that happens in the United States first and it is a little annoying for everyone else but for a change it didn't.

Some editors will all plot summaries as soon as possible, given previews and festival screenings, which isn't always a bad thing (especially for smaller films less likely to get written about at all) but I think waiting until general release makes it reasonably fair that others can verify the plot section. Given the notion that Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia I'd definitely prefer more detailed plot summaries, there are plenty of films I'd prefer to get a detailed and full summary of and not spend the time actually watching. -- Horkana (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron Man 3

There are articles circulating the web that Iron Man 3 has been confirmed by Downey Jr., Faverau, Paltrow, and the guy who played Raza. I am not sure whether or not to add a sequel section. Maybe wait a week to see if more news appears? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.234.79 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Article already has sources saying it was intended as a trilogy. There is probably information available about contractual obligations (although we all see how that didn't exactly work out for Terence Howard). Depending on how much you want to add and what other sources you have I expect there is already enough for some kind of section about the Sequel but you will need to be careful to limit yourself and avoid speculation. Go for it. Go crazy with citations, they'll be replaced by better ones as they become available. -- Horkana (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

VFX

Visual effects and computer interfaces by Perception. Press release (PDF) Book to be released.

• Iron Man 2, Iron Man 2 Case Study.
• Thomas Ricker (May 7th 2010 5:27AM). "Iron Man 2: the gadgets (video)". Engadget. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (Video)

Hope to integrate this somewhere under the production section of the article. If anyone wants to start on it before I do please do go ahead. -- Horkana (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

More effects stuff, a guy from Stan Winston studios Legacy Effects talking about rapid prototyping using 3D printers. http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/17/objet-3d-printing-put-to-the-test-in-iron-man-2-video/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Legacy Effects used Objet printer for Iron Man 2 on YouTube

Not called Black Widow

As the Variety review points out specifically, Scarlett Johansson's character is "perhaps wisely never referred to by her comicbook name, Black Widow." Likewise, Vanko is never called Whiplash, and Rhodes is never called War Machine. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

However, all the promotional material does e.g. [3], [4] etc. Planewalker Dave (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If he's called Whiplash in the video game, we call him Whiplash in the video game article. But the filmmakers made a specific, conscious decision not to use the names Whiplash, Black Widow or War Machine, and we have to respect both their wishes and the objective fact that those names are not used in the movie. Just because he's Bruce Banner in the comics doesn't mean we call him Bruce Banner in the Incredible Hulk 1970s TV series article, where the filmmakers named him David. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, during the first big fight scene between Tony and James, Tony does say something along the lines of "So, you wanna be a war machine?" For what that's worth. 68.238.3.49 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just like Obadiah Stane says he and Tony are iron mongers. It's an in-joke, not a character name. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Positive, mostly positive

"Reception for the film has been positive. It holds a 75% overall approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 205 reviews with a average rating of 6.5/10.[65] " In other film entries, films with 90 percent and above can be "mostly positive." Any progress on a unified form of wiki review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.140.54.105 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sequel?

What is the official sequel for this film? Seems to be a game of tug of war between Iron man 3 and The Avengers.

Benjy234 (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no official sequel until one comes out. Movie release schedules are notoriously volatile, and movies get pushed back and pushed forward all the time. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions that it is "The Avengers" are entirely baseless. Iron Man 3 is the sequel but without details that doesn't actually mean very much. A sequel may be planned and Favreau may have intended the films as a trilogy (stated in article, from interview at the time of Iron Man 1) but for now we ave to wait and see, these things are never certain even until the film is finished and released. Still if you have a recent interview where Favreau mentions Iron Man 3 that would be great. -- Horkana (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone added information about Iron Man 3. See Iron_Man_(film)#Sequels and an identical edit was made to Iron_Man_2#Sequels -- Horkana (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Critics

Given that it's such a major release, and that its RT aggregate is only about 66% positive, we could probably use more critics than just five, and positive/negative/middling balance to better reflect the aggregate. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

More critics would be good, I wasn't particularly interested in adding them and once the film was released in the United States Ebert was quickly added. Ideally though the article wouldn't just list critics but would use extracts from different reviews to examine different qualities of the film such as cinematography, direction, score, the quality of the CGI or design. Admittedly only a few of the best Featured Articles go that far and manage to distill the reviews into more insightful analysis. -- Horkana (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Seth Green

Seth Green makes a Cameo appearance in the movie during the scene were we get a First Person View from Tony while leaving the Stark Expo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.169.53 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source that mentions it then it would be good to include that in the paragraph at the end of the Cast section. Think I remember seeing Larry Ellison in there too.

The beautiful Helena Mattsson is getting some Iron Man 2 related press including an appearance in Maxim Magazine but I can't figure what part she played in the film besides being listed as "Rebecca" in the cast and being one of the many beautiful women in the background. -- Horkana (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe she's the woman who keeps throwing up stuff for Iron Man to blow up during the party scene (bottles, for starters). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Whiplash, War Machine, Black Widow not used in film

This is a perennial problem with movies or TV series based on comics, where the filmmakers choose not to use certain character names. It began with the 1970s The Incredible Hulk (1978 TV series), in which the character was David Banner, not Bruce Banner. Calling him Bruce Banner in the show's Wikipedia article would be incorrect. Likewise, as has long been settled at the X-Men: The Last Stand article, the Quill-like character is named Kid Omega in the movie. Likewise again, the Obadiah Stane character was never called War Monger in Iron Man (film).

Likewise now, the terms Whiplash, War Machine and Black Widow are never used in the film. If we need to call an RfC for this, we certainly can, but I'm not sure how productive a use of time that will be given these established examples that have long represented consensus. Is it necessary to re-argue settled Project style? I point us to an old example from The Incredible Hulk, where the Leader was not used and, as per this archived consensus, Abomination was not to be used.

To quote from another veteran Project editor, User:Emperor, on my talk page:

There is a clear consensus for the approach you advocate and it is the one that makes sense (Marvel are clearly trying to avoid too many characters running around with "silly" aliases, even if they are based on the relevant characters). ... The case of "Whiplash" underlines how important this is as they are using an amalgam of a couple of characters which needs to be explained in the text (properly sourced, of course).

With other media — video games, plastic cups, whatever — that use a different character name for purposes of trademark and marketing, then give the character name used there in that section or that article (properly sourced, of course, as Emperor says). But as far as the movie itself goes — and aside from any issue of respecting the filmmakers' wishes, just as we to respect the "David Banner" choice — we need to say only what it concretely, objectively and verifiably onscreen. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree at least that these code-names should not be used in the Plot section, except possibly as links (which some extreme editors think violates WP:EGG but anyhow). It would go too far the other way to not mention the code-names at all, the publicity material and reviews do. The cast section seems like the most appropriate place to mention them. I'm very glad the article explains Ivan Vanko is an amalgamation of several characters. The film makers are being subtle and trying to maintain a sense of realism but it would be a failure for an encyclopedia article to avoid being informative and not reference readers back to the comic characters on which this was based. -- Horkana (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm no sure what studio materials give character names other than one of the actors using a name colloquially — and as know, material saying "Whiplash" is wrong since it's established the character is an amalgam of Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo. But if specific, citable studio material gives a specific character name, we can possibly mention it in a section about publicity and marketing. I would strongly disagree that we put any character names in the cast list that do not appear in the official, onscreen end-credits. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that while the cast credits don't use their alter-egos, the design credits, later into the credits, do specifically use "Whiplash" to refer to Vanko's final armor. - Chris McFeely (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's good information, and maybe we should add a line to the production section saying the the design team referred to Vanko's character as Whiplash, with a cite.

Outside of that section, I would say that since the filmmakers never refer to Whiplash/Crimson Dynamo in the script or the onscreen narrative or the character names, that we give the actual character names used in the movie. The in-house code name for a design is not the same as the name of a character.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

2¢ worth...

If a name isn't used specifically in reference to a character in the story portion of the film, the character/actor section of the credits, or any version of the script, then we shouldn't be using it with in the plot or cast sections here. We also really shouldn't be using it to tag the character in other sections either. But... If there are production notes, reviews, and/or promotional material that use the terms, the it should be fair game to used the terms in the production, development, and (possibly) reception sections. - J Greb (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. If the name isn't used in the film then it should not be used in the Plot section. If it is used in other places then we cite what we have. I would like to note - we should not get hung up on names and characterizations. The film is it's own canon and does not have to feed from the comics directly. Just because the character with those powers is called Whiplash in the comic books doesn't mean they have to refer to them by that name in the movie. Nor does it mean the character presented in the movie is representative of the one from the books. Heck, event he hero's change depending on how the director feels they will be received (I'm thinking of Spider-Mans spinnerets for starters). So let's not get hung up on matching names one-for-one. This article is about the film, that's all. Padillah (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Marketing/Product placement

The article for Iron Man (film) includes details about marketing and product placement. Might be a good idea to add similar information to this article. "Iron Man 2's Marketing Tie-In Bonanza". -- Horkana (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Horkana. We need to take care to be plain and factual, and not use blurby or promotional language in this section -- primarily, this involves quantitative or qualitative claims that a company may make. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Pepper Potts "quits"

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like it is particularly unclear as to whether or not she is actually no longer the CEO of Stark Industries. I think the article is probably ok as it is, since it says she quits, which she did, but doesn't specifically comment on who winds up as the CEO. It almost seems through the last bits of dialogue in the scene that they pull an "I quit, well, ok maybe not." Anyone know if there's any statements by cast/crew confirming this? As I said the article appears to me more or less ok on this in its current form but additional clarity would be nice if we get the info to source it.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Whiplash/Backlash/Crimson Dynamo

The promotional material calls Ivan Vanko "Whiplash" and it seems most appropriate to link to Whiplash (comics). Editors keep linking to other things. It would be fine if they changes were at least consistent across the whole of the article but they aren't. The description in the cast section should certainly link to the characters which were amalgamated to create this version of Whiplash but messy inconsistency is not what should happen in a good encyclopedia article.

If someone has a good explanation of some other link to use please do explain, just try to keep it tidy. -- Horkana (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Still many editors changing this without any discussion, attempt to explain or even an edit summary (the WP:SIMPLE rules, remind editors to provide edit summaries, and following the basic rules would some good faith).

Last I checked the intro text links to Whiplash (comics). The plot text links to Whiplash (comics). These two must be kept consistent, in most cases I have reverted changes because editors have changed only one of the two and not made any attempt to explain why. The Cast section links to Whiplash (comics), then explains that the version of the character used in Iron Man 2 incorporates elements of Whiplash, Backlash, and the Crimson Dynamo.

There is another discussion about the use of these names since the film makers have - for a greater sense of realism - made a deliberate effort to reemphasize these names and not mention them within the plot (except occasionally indirectly). I do not think it would improve the article to remove them but the reasons discussed are sensible and if a consensus of editors decides to put less emphasis on codenames that might be a good reason to remove the links from the plot+intro if necessary.

The cast section though really must retain the links to the three characters Whiplash, Backlash, and the Crimson Dynamo. To do otherwise would be a significant disimprovement and go against the very idea of an encyclopedia being informative and leading readers to learn more. -- Horkana (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Horkana that even though we don't mention the codenames in discussion of what the movie has onscreen, it's appropriate to wikilink to the character pages. This shouldn't be a problem with Natasha Romanoff or James Rhodes, which redirect to their comics codenames. Ivan Vanko is more problematic since his movie character is an amalgam, but since colloquial common usage is "Whiplash", I agree with Horkana that for the sake of consistency and simplicity, "Ivan Vanko" link to Whiplash (comics), where an explanation of the amalgam can be made, if it is not already, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron Man Film Franchise Article or full Marvel film franchise article

I am proposing an article that would show the entire franchise of Iron Man, similar to the ones that Spider-Man and X-men have, I feel this would be a good idea or an article the merges all the characters of The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 1 + 2, Captain America, and Thor. I feel this wouldn't be a bad idea as the Avengers film is planned to happen. I myself am not fully capable of writing such an article, but if someone else did it would be worthwhile, it could have development info for all the films, a full cast list, and other stuff. Thoughts? Volunteers? 76.92.234.79 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• That's defianetly going to happen sometime. Anybody such as you can try it. Just click on this link Iron Man (film series) and edit related constructive information in it (or test your edits it on an sandbox if you want to be more careful) and the link won't be red anymore and walla there's an article. As simple as that unless someone objects. That's how Wikipedia works. Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. It looks like it's been deleted once but mainly because it was an copied article of Iron Man (film) you are defianetly going to be more careful when creating it. But I defianetly think it's about time to get an article for it. So people know where to go for information for the sequel even though that can be placed here too. Also keep in mind that this may be before Iron Man 2 when it was not necessary to have an film series article yet. Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think usually before a film series page is created, three films must be released. So in that case, it'll be a while before it happens. Mike Allen 02:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Usually there must be three films in a series before a film series article is created but there is an article on the Marvel Cinematic Universe. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. In that case. Why is there an Hulk (film series) article. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a case of other stuff exists, also there seems to be a dispute on its talk page even if it is a true film series. Keep in my mind I did say usually, notable exceptions can exist but I do not think Hulk (film series) is a good example of one. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well. I do agree on that. I wasn't making that an example. I am not even sure it is not an true film series. It should probably renamed Hulk (films) like the The Punisher (films) article since they are basically reboots not having to do with each other. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thor?

I heard Thor was going to have a cameo in this movie and that the guy who plays him in the 2011 "Thor" movie will play him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknroll47 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

not a cameo -- some people are saying he's in the russian prison scene (NOT TRUE)

the after-credits scene IS about him, nevertheless [A] 01:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. The guy was buff with blond hair of length matching the first picture we have seen of Thor. But the scene was incredibly fast, you can see a flash so it is safe to assume a picture was likely taken. - Izzy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.242.33 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A comment was added to the [Plot] section [about the post credits scene] "This scene was directed by Vic Armstrong." Vic Armstrong is the second unit director for Thor. If this claim could be properly sourced (my very brief search didn't turn up anything) it might be worth adding to the Production or Filming section. -- Horkana (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I recall Favreau saying in an interview it was not Thor, I'll have to find it. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Here it is [5] --TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• • !!!THEORY!!!**Seeing that there is a separate movie for "Thor" i doubt they will replace Iron Man with him. Im in HIGH speculation that Marvel has come to their senses(2 movies is just the right amount on 1 character) to morph the Iron Man series into a past comic "The Avengers." They will still have iron man, but with the addition of Thor(rather, thor's hammer) and announcement of the movie "Thor. "maybe they will have a movie on each character of "the avengers" to introduce his/her powers and develope a major fan base for each. Slowly introducing them into the possibly morphed Iron Man series...and try to get one MAJOR mass of revenue with a future "The Avengers" movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venom831 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything in it's right place

Trivia

• When Tony Stark is making a particle accelerator for his new chest piece, S.H.I.E.L.D agent Coulson finds what appears to be an unfinished shield of Captain America. Though Coulson implies that it is significant, asking him if he knows what it is, Stark then asks him to hand the shield over, using it as a prop to make his accelerator level.

For those who have read the guidelines WP:TRIVIA is not a license to delete but a firm stick with which to put things in their right place and find citations for them. It is also a bad idea to have a vague miscellaneous section that accumulates non notable information. Rather than fight edit wars over the trivia I have: removed the redundant item about Thor's hammer that is at least for now covered by the Plot summary, consistent with the article for Iron Man (film). Above I've include the other remaining Trivia item. If the plot summary is to be kept to around 700 words there is really no room for the Captain America's shield but where is the right place for it?

A whole Marvel section was deleted without discussion, and given that a huge amount of Iron Man 2 feels like setup for other films it seems hasty to remove this entirely, and the above also shows that editors are trying to find a good faith way to include what they feel is information relevant to the understanding of the film and there are sources and reviews out there that show others feel this is notable too and worth explaining to audiences.

How can this information best be presented in a manner fitting for an encyclopedia? If this was a an encyclopedia article about Prometheus it would be relevant to talk about other gods in of the Pantheon so what is the most appropriate way to mention how much this is all marketing and setup for the Avengers, Thor, and Captain America? -- Horkana (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The link to other Marvel Studios films section was mostly trivia / fan service. The focus of this article is IM2 and if it is in deed relavent and has bearing to the story than is should be included in its plot section not else where. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also the easiest way to take care of this issue is simply mention in the lead that film is a part of the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Lots of the reviews and coverage of this film makes the effort to go into detail and put the film in context of the Marvel Universe and fit together the larger developments Marvel studios are working on. There's no shortage of commentary on this and I think it is hasty to dismiss it as fan service or merely coincidental. The development section of this film could perhaps be expanded to mention the context in which it was developed and that the nods to other projects is a very deliberate setup for other upcoming Marvel Studios films. A stray link here or there within the article is more of a tease instead of putting the information in a proper context as you'd expect from a good encyclopedia. -- Horkana (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree in essence with Horkana that placing plot elements within the context of other Marvel films is important. I would say that at this point, before the other films have been released, that it seems premature, and an invitation to OR analysis. There's WP:DEADLINE.

That said, I applaud Horkana's good and effective efforts at raising the article's encyclopedic standard, just as our colleague Alientraveller similarly did such great work at The Incredible Hulk (film). I note these two as models of comic-book film-article editing. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also just so you know there is currently an effort to going on to expanded the Marvel Cinetmatic Universe into its own article, in depth encyclopedic coverage of how these film correlate will be explained there. Iron Man 2 specifics can be presented in the plot section with third party references, see WP:PLOTONLY. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You're full of shit you know that? There's no harm in including that section, so stop edit warring just because you think it's not Wiki suitable.

Save for the tone, I can only agree with the anonymous ranter above me. The links to the other movies are undeniable, and given proper sources, I see no harm in including mention of them in a separate section if necessary. --uKER (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything in its right place,

• Marvel Cinematic Universe is now up, supported by secondary information.

• Iron Man 2 in-universe detail can be described in the plot summary or elsewhere in the article but needs to be supported by secondary information and avoid indiscriminate lists.

• An entire article is now up for deletion based on the same type of indiscriminate list.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me when there is a deletion request put on any "List of ..." article, a lot of editors dislike list and reflexively push to delete them. I this case it does seem reasonably appropriate since much the same information is better expressed in the article Marvel Cinematic Universe, so once the information is merged a consensus in favour of deletion might hold. -- Horkana (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cast Section...

...needs serious re-vamping. While cast sections about a movie should be about the character and their role in the movie, this section for the most part seems like a gossip article related to the behind-the-scenes of 'who should have gotten the part' or 'a/b/c/ was almost cast for the part.' Of course arguing this will only fall on deaf ears on Wikipedia.63.118.154.72 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remove a bit of the prattle about Ivan Vanko. It is pure OR to insist that the character is based on certain characters from the comics. The character in the movie is just that - the character from the movie. It is a stand-alone character and should be presented as such. Padillah (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The anon-IP commenter above needn't be snide; discussion is in fact at the heart of Wikipedia. I agree with Padillah that behind-the-scenes gossip should go; some instances of cast changes, such as Emily Blunt having had the role of Natasha originally, however, have been widely reported in WP:RS sources such as Entertainment Weekly and are pertinent and factual. With Ivan Vanko, it would be OR were there not footnotes citing the filmmakers themselves, who described the two characters bases for the movie character. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem I have - it's too much information for a quick Cast listing. It may be cited but that doesn't mean it goes here. Here's the statements and my responses, let's see if we can't come to an agreement.

1 Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko:

2 The film's main antagonist, a physicist who builds his own arc reactor-based weapon to exact vengeance on the Stark family.

3 The character is an amalgamation of Iron Man villains Blacklash (originally known as Whiplash) and the Crimson Dynamo, and is the son of impoverished Soviet physicist Anton Vanko, the original Crimson Dynamo in the comics.

Should simply be "The character is an amalgamation of Iron Man villains Blacklash (originally known as Whiplash) and the Crimson Dynamo"

4 Downey offered Rourke the part during a roundtable discussion with David Ansen at the 2009 Golden Globes, and Rourke met with Favreau and Theroux to discuss his character's role.

No need to mention the sit-down. Just "Downey offered Rourke the part at the 2009 Golden Globes"

5 Rourke almost dropped out of the role due to Marvel's initial salary offer of $250,000, so the studio chose to increase the deal.

Not needed. Should go elsewhere in the article body.

6 Rourke researched for the part by visiting Butyrka prison.

Fine.

7 He suggested half of the character's dialogue be in Russian.

Not needed. Should go elsewhere in the article body.

8 Rourke suggested the addition of tattoos, gold-teeth and a fondness for a pet cockatoo, paying for the teeth and bird out of his own money.

Not needed. Should go elsewhere in the article body.

9 Rourke explained he didn't want to play a "one-dimensional bad guy" and wanted to challenge the audience to see something redeemable in him.

Not needed. Should go elsewhere in the article body.

10 Not knowing anything about computers himself Rourke described pretending to be tech-savvy as the hardest part of the role.

Not needed. Should go elsewhere in the article body.

So, yes there is appropriate content there. But it's appropriate for elsewhere in the article, not a Cast synopsis. Padillah (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would just refer everyone to WP:FILMCAST. Relevant behind-the-scenes background production information is notable here (for example, Emily Blunt being cast before ScarJo). Also encycolpedic insight on the performances are notable as well (i.e. preparation, motivations, etc.). --TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the information presented in the Cast overview should really be in a Casting section (or subsection of Production). The cast listing we have is an inappropriate place to put prose on character and casting details. Padillah (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are several ways to present this information, how best to entirely depends on the information that we have available in context to to the entire article. Keep in mind cast listings do not have to be bare bones lists (see The Dark Knight ) --TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a middle ground that addresses the denseness of the Cast list without leaving it bare-bones. Probably a good portion of the information in the cast list can go organically into a "Casting" section under "Production", and some condensing wouldn't hurt (e.g. the suggestion to trim the Golden Globes casting detail). --Tenebrae (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

These changes seem like a good idea. The Cast section could be tightened up if the better information is moved to more appropriate places.
Another editor tried to delete all the Terence Howard information. I can see how moving to another section could be an improvement but deleting it was not helpful. I also added a bit about Olivia Munn and how she ended up playing Chess Roberts, unfortunately looking at it now the bit about her cut scenes on the DVD will not be relevant until we have a Home media/DVD section. Also this is covered to a certain extent by the Filming section but it (uses a bit too much direct quoting and) comes at the issue in an different way, and makes an interesting note that ~the film became darker in the editing process~ and since I didn't want to lose the valuable bit of context expressed by that section I'm a little bit stuck as how best to reorganise things. -- Horkana (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've found it usually works to do it small steps at a time. What do you say we start a "Casting" section under "Production," move a couple, three items there to see how it reads, and then take the next step after that. What does everyone think? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the Terrance Howard info and maybe the Golden Globe sitdown would be a good place to start this section. This also allows us to get a little more verbose about mentioning the sitdown so people don't walk away thinking Hollywood is run by the Mafia. Padillah (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain America?

Was that Captain America's shield that I saw in the film and was that a hint that he was Stark's Dad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.150.213 (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looked like the shield. It seems very unlikely Howard Stark would be Captain America. Perhaps he helped develop Captain America's shield. The article about the shield says Tony Stark made modifications to it. Best not to think of it as anything more than a comic book reference for the fans. -- Horkana (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The shield used in the scene with the particle acclerator(sp?) is clearly not the actually one, more it looks like a model used to show what materials were/are used in the construstion of it, like a pre-prototype. (Funnily enough you see the proper shield (we assume) very briefly in the first movive! lol) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.34.77 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Historic Grand Prix of Monaco

I'm putting this in because I can see it was added to this page earlier and removed as 'person didn't see the movie' - the Monaco Historic Grand Prix is a real event, and consistent with the movie, is 'the event that features historic cars' rather than the current year's Formula One cars.[6] This is a rare case of an article which probably ought to be in Wikipedia by now but isn't as of this writing; see Historic motorsport for another link to it. Skybunny (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This article does not seem like the right place to start that article and it didn't seem worthwhile to have the WP:REDLINK pointing at nothing when a general link to the Monaco Grand Prix is a good basic start, although I probably would have written something more verbose and immediately obvious to for someone not familiar with the race, if WP:PLOT didn't constrain is to so few words.

I do want to encourage you though to start an article for Monaco Historic Grand Prix, give us something to link to, even if it is just a start. I've moved some pieces around but the article referenced in the "Effects" section does mention that the Historic Grand Prix and might be of some use to you. Creating a page and then having it redirect to a section of the article on the Monaco Grand Prix would be a way to start it and then you could copy over any relevant information and expand it, a bit like how this article had details about the soundtrack/score that were moved out to a separate article and then trimmed/removed here. -- Horkana (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New Element tastes like Coconut?

Hi, can anyone explain, why the new element tastes like coconut and Tony is somehow distracted by it? I'm not a comic reader, so I don't really now, if he just doesn't like it and that's an insider. thx for replies, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I took it simply as a throwaway joke. Google is your friend. I did a quick search and found a comment which claims the Captain_America%27s_shield novelization makes it clear the element (re)discovered is Vibranium, best known as the fictional element used in Captain_America's_shield. The claim is repeated in the article on Vibranium#In_film but a page citation had not yet been added. -- Horkana (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So the element Vibranium is found in Captain America's shield

...which was used (crammed under a particle accelerator) to create Vibranium in the first place? :mind asplode: This is about as concrete as the fossil record. 98.145.211.102 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)TJ

Validity of citations

I've just run across a couple of claims being footnoted by citations that do not support or in one case even mentioned what the claims say. I'd ask my fellow editors to keep abreast of these false citations, and to click through to the footnotes to verify them. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The New York Post newspaper is owned by News Corporation. I think it is important to include publisher information, and be aware of any potential bias. The link was correct but it would have been better to also include the work or newspaper parameter in the citation.

There were a load of links from MTV about Olivia Munn and her role. I may have mixed them up. The note about her original scenes being included on the DVD was out of place anyhow, but the article didn't have a Home Media/DVD section where I could add it at the time.

I can see how the Kate Mara section got messed up but there was no need to delete her mention completely. Before the film came out her casting would have needed a citation to back it up. Rumors about her playing Bethany Cabe would have needed a citation, then when it was debunked that would have needed a citation. Once the film came out no citation was needed since her role is evident from the plot, but keeping the old citation would help prevent speculation that her role meant more and also help show she was notable enough to have all these rumors about her role flying about even if it turned out to be only a minor cameo. -- Horkana (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Budget

Editors keep vandalizing the budget and gross figures. The lack of any edit summary or discussion about the deletions of sourced material marks this as vandalism and not edits made in good faith.

An editor deleted budget figures sourced from a LA Times article which are more detailed and more authoritative than those provided by Box Office Mojo.

Editors have repeatedly deleted the reference to the website TheNumbers.com which provides similar information to Box Office Mojo. Depending on what time of day you look The Numbers or Box Office Mojo has the latest figures, both sources are just as good and there is no reason to delete one or the other, both should be kept, and both should settle to the same figures when things get quieter. A comment in the Wiki source explained that two sources allow the figures to be more easily verified.

If an editor disagrees with the sources by all means provide a better source and discuss it here but deletions of sources and failure to show enough good faith to provide even a brief edit summary will be taken as vandalism. -- Horkana (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If IP editors are constantly creating unconstructive edits. Then it might be best to semi-protect this article for an while. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not just IP Users. There's one registered user who has multiple ignored comments on his talk page explaining the basics of Wikipedia. I've also added comments similar to the above to his talk page. He's not reading the edit summaries other people have left, and he's not providing any to his edits. He's not bad enough to be banned just annoyingly misguided. -- Horkana (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to be polite but User:Prem555 continues to make the same disruptive edits. He fails to provide any edit summaries, failing to follow even the WP:SIMPLE rules shows a lack of WP:AGF good faith.

He changed the budget figures to 200 million based on information from Box Office Mojo but ignoring the fact that both The Numbers.com gives the figure of 170 million and also the Los Angeles Times gives the same figures and breakdown of those figures which suggests they are more authoritative. The article eventually settle with the budget written as 170-200 million even though the latter figure seems like a rounded up number and less authoritative.

He continues to delete The-Numbers.com a source and ignores requests on his Talk page to provide edit summaries. It helps to verify the box office gross is actually correct and it reinforces the budget figure of 170 million. I am concerned he will again delete the LA Times link as he has done before and try to claim the budget was 200 million ignoring the other sources. His edits seem only misguided rather than malicious, which is why other editors here have not identified them as vandalism and reverted them. It is not worth bringing this to the admins, all they are likely to do is force him to respond to messages on his talk page so I am asking other editors to please help to revert such bad edits. -- Horkana (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If he still keeps on doing it you should use Warning templates to him that he could get blocked. Check the link to see what I mean. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research

You and I and other comics readers know what Thor's hammer and Captain America's shield look like. That's our personal knowledge about this fictional universe. And as tempting as it is to say, "Oh, that's Thor's hammer," we can't say that in the plot section since the movie -- the canon that is onscreen -- doesn't say that. Our personal knowledge is original research. It's the same as our not calling Justin Hammer the Iron Monger in the movie [[Iron Man (film}|Iron]] -- you and I know that's who it is, but the filmmakers chose not to call him that.

When the Avengers movie comes out, it being part of the same movie continuity, then we can identify the shield and the hammer, since they'll have been identified as Cap's and Thor's onscreen. Until then, we need to respect the policy of NOR. Because if we say it's OK to use our personal knowledge here, then why can't everyone use their personal knowledge elsewhere? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record I made an earlier change to remove the an earlier description which simply asserted the hammer was Mjolnir (comics) bit failed to say what was actually shown (a hammer). It is important not to make too many assumptions about readers, and it would be bad to force them to go off and read another article when it should have clearly state it is a hammer. Although it is maybe a bit of a stretch (and possibly a violation of WP:EGG a pedantic rule I don't like very much) I do think it improves the article to give the extra context and link hammer to Mjolnir (comics) so that readers can learn more. The Thor (film) article at least makes note of this as being part of the "Marketing" for that film. Hopefully editors can find a way to include the other information and keep within the annoying restrictions. -- Horkana (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot Hole

When he takes the Mark 2 suit, how did he power it? So far, to my knowledge, Stark only has the one working reactor in his chest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.59.217 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Rhodes, right? If so, you'll notice that when Rhodes and the other officer examine the suit at the AFB, it has its own independent arc reactor built into the suit. They pull it out in the process of examining the suit. --Kevin W. 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Phil Coulson

I don't think it's needed yet, but I have created a userspace draft for Agent Phil Coulson from Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and Thor. Feel free to edit it.  :) --Boycool42 (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Black Sabbath song

The infobox lists them for as "Iron Man theme," yet I don't believe the band's song "Iron Man" appears in the film. (It's in the trailer.) Can anyone confirm its presence in the movie with a citation? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no mention of "Iron Man" in the film's credits. Indrek (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jayslobb, 14 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I noticed that in the plot summary you put in the post credits info that Agent Coulson a "War Hammer" in a crater. I just wanted to inform you that while this may be somewhat correct, I think that you should inform people that this scene was in fact for a reason much more significant. It is Mjolnir, the hammer of Thor. Thor will be apart of the Avengers Initiative and, along with Iron Man, is apart of the new Marvel Cinematic Universe, and that was the whole reason for the whole scene. Not just so Coulson could stare at some random War Hammer. Please, and thank you.

Jayslobb (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

As pointed out above - the film it self does not establish anything about the hammer. Nor have have any reliable sources been put forward spelling out that it is Thor's hammer. All that has been put forward amounts to fans identifying it and adding the information based on their own knowledge. The text of your request falls into the latter - no source provided, but rather we should be the source for others. That isn't how Wikipedia works.

- J Greb (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

J Greb, a knowledgeable and experienced longtime editor, is correct. Making the claim without citation, based on personal fan knowledge, runs afoul of No Original Research, one of the absolute cornerstones of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

War hammer

Calling the war hammer at the end of the film "Mjolnir" when the movie itself does not, at the filmmakers' choice, comprises original research, which is disallowed. The movie does not call it "Mjolnir" or "Thor's hammer"; therefore the information is added via personal knowledge of the comics. That violates NOR.

In point of fact, it may not be Mjolnir, but a duplicate, a false image by Loki, the hammer of the Thor clone Ragnarok, or any number of other possibilities. Regardless, there is no citation that can be given through the film itself as to exactly what the image depicts. Anything we say ourselves that we cannot cite is POV. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but this seems to be completely ridiculous and pedantic beyond reason. I can't comprehend how anyone could think that the filmmaker's intention was the audience would think it was anything other than Mjolnir. By this logic, maybe the shield in the workshop wasn't Captain America's - maybe it was USAgents. Both the obvious and implicit meanings of the scene identify the hammer as Mjolnir. - Goldenboy (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel name-calling is appropriate. We're looking at big picture about Wikipedia policy and not the plot of one movie. This is similar to how we comic fans may "know" that Scarlett J. plays the Black Widow in the movie — but the filmmakers made a conscious choice not call her that. We can only go by the text of the movie — anything beyond that is our own original research. That's a core Wikipedia policy, and if people start making exceptions, where does it end?

Every field has fans and experts who could make logical assumptions. Many times they'll be right — but sometimes they'll be wrong, and how would we ever know which it is? You and I can look at a comics article and have a high degree of certainty of what's right, but would you trust uncited claims in an article about cancer research or your senator, say? Overall, NOR is a good policy, even a critical policy, and we shouldn't mess with it lightly. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thor mentions the Mjolnir in Iron Man 2, here also at Mjolnir . Both are unreferenced to any sources so I assume to delete them also? Xaiver0510 (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are they cited to a reliable source, such as The Hollywood Reporter or Variety quoting a filmmaker, or is it fan-site speculation? If unreferenced, then it's NOR assumption. Who knows if they'll eve call it Mjolnier in the movie. They didn't call Natasha the Black Widow in IM2, for example. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate and rephrase my above point. If a reader wants to know what happens in the film without needing to actually have watched the film then you must at the very least state that a hammer or "war hammer" is what is shown on screen. To write only Mjolnir without explaining that it is a mythical hammer, is like saying "Model T" without having explained it is a car (an example from the documentation). Now I think it makes the article better to have the hammer linked to Mjolinir (comics) to give greater context and allow readers to learn more.
Still struggling to find a really good quality link so we can say the hammer is Mjolnir without there being any claims of it being Original Research but I do not think we are stretching the rules very far to say it is. Don't know why I didn't think to look at the Marvel website sooner, where better to source information. Info on LG Android phone. Cast interviews: Downey; Cheadle and they do namedrop War Hammer; Johansson and they do call her the Black Widow; Paltrow

As a compromise, as Horkana suggested earlier, can't we link to Mjolnir (comics) but use a pipe text of war hammer? The article already does so for War Machine, Black Widow (Natalia Romanova), and Crimson Dynamo; I know the phrase "War Machine" was spoken in the film, but don't recall Johansson being called "Black Widow" or Rourke calling himself "Crimson Dynamo". YLee (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

For Rourke, there is at least one source referring him as amalgamation of Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo. Both links quote the same source here. I have not read/listen to the interviews but if there is an explicit reference then I think it is fine to do the pipe link and to add the same source over at Mjolnir (comics). While you can say it is already being done in the article (the pipe link for others), if it is done erroneously, it does not mean we can follow a wrong example! It means we have to fix up the errors as well.Xaiver0510 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we don't know if it will be called Mjolnir or not. The fact we saw what appears to be Captain America's shield in Tony Stark's lab should tell us that this is a different continuity than the comics. If Stark built Cap's shield, then who built this hammer? This is just one of a dozen possibilities I could name off the top of my head — which simply illustrates the importance of WP:NOR. We don't know what it is. We only have an educated guess. And that's not enough to make a definitive, concrete statement.

"Bending the rules" of OR is a slippery slope. Going down it for something as trivial as a comic-book movie doesn't seem worth it given the repercussions it could inspire. I say this: The Avengers movie may well state that it's Mjolnir, or perhaps "the Odinhammer" or somesuch. Then, in this shared continuity, we can identify it as the filmmakers have. Until we know what they want to call it, we don't have a right to presume for them.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

on a similar note, I suggest to delink Ivan Vanko to Whiplash as he is an amalgamation of 2 characters and marvel actually created another whiplash character similar to the movie version. In fact, linking him to either Crimson Dynamo or Whiplash is not correct but notes on the cast section detailing this information with the same link will be much better. Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. What to do about the amalgamation is problematic. I'm wondering if an outside RS can say "the character is an amalgamation of Whiplash and the Crimson Dynamo," which we can footnote and have "Whiplash" and "Crimson Dynamo" wikilinked rather than "Ivan Vanko". --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to link to Crimson Dynamo#Film or Whiplash (comics)#Film since invariably they are talking about the same thing. Perhaps we can sync both sections to be the same. Sounds like duplicating information but unfortunately both deserve a section in their own article. Tenebrae, can you help with that? I am at work and I can't really edit so much so openly. :) Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly sounds reasonable to me. I'll make a link and see if it stands. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the best bet would be to put it as "implied to be Mjolnir" until it's confirmed by the Thor film. I mean, it's pretty obvious but still unconfirmed. --Kevin W. 19:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Implied to be" is OR speculation on our part — we can't write without third-party citation from the filmmaker, say, that we imply, presume, assume or use any term like that. Again, it's obvious to us because of our personal knowledge — and just as the Hulk was David Banner and not Bruce Banner in the TV show, not everything we know from the comics necessarily corresponds to other media. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe "suspected to be," then? --Kevin W. 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, we'd have to ask "suspected by whom?" Obviously, by us fans with our personal knowledge. The only way we can call it Thor's hammer under Wiki policy is if one of the filmmakers went on the record calling it that. We'd still have to put it in a footnote since the "text" of the movie itself doesn't call it that. But I think with a footnote, we could at least justify wikilinking it to Mjolnir. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, since no foot note was added I've flipped it back to the base line "war hammer". In all hnesty, without a secondary reference it can wait for after the next film's relaese, assuming that film clarifies it. - J Greb (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If we can't let readers know the hammer might be Mjolnir, why is it fine to link Scarlett's character to Black Widow? Nowhere in the film do they call her that, and she has a different name. Sometimes you should just let little things like these slide. 01:29, 5 September 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.120.102 (talk)

Bluntly?

1. Natasha Romanoff (film character) should redirect to Black Widow (Natalia Romanova)#Film since Natasha Romanoff redirects to Black Widow (Natalia Romanova).
2. For the most part the Film section of that article deals with sourced information about the character being adapted for the film.
3. Identifying the war hammer at this point is based on viewers interpritation of the film. Mostly viewers who also happen to be comics readers. It isn't called Mjolnir in this film. Thor is not mentioned or linked to it. No reliable, verifiable secondary sources have been cited to support the identification. Wikipedia, contrary to appearances, is not a news site, a film review site, a fan site, or a board for posting editors' opinions or conclusions which fall under WP:OR.

- J Greb (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "resembling Thor's Mjolnir hammer"? This is more of a visual description than anything else. 222.254.53.212 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Got a source, a reliable and verifiable souce, other than your own two eyes and expertise as a comics fan that it "looks like"? No? Then, no, you cannot add your interpritation of what the war happer is. Full stop.

- J Greb (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't get this at all. What if it is Thor's hammer? What is it doing there? What is its significance? --Timtak (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a reference and setup to the upcoming movies Thor and The Avengers film project. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If so and if referencable(?), then I think this should be made plain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtak (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if a reference were to be provided along with the added information. What's been foisted on the article so far though amounts to "As and Avengers fan, the hammer is almost certainly Thor's and a nod to the next film in the Avengers series." Nothing cited that includes commentary from Marvel or the producers of IM2 that this is indeed the case. - J Greb (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If sourced it can be added, perhaps crossover/connection section. But not in the plot section, which should only include what is actually in the movie. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Heres a possible reference, it seems the DVD extras of IM2 definitely draw this as a connection to Thor's hammer.
Iron Man 2 Blu-ray Review. Superhero Hype!. 20-09-10. Retrieved 20-09-10. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

link to the extra via youtube;

Iron Man 2 - Making of "Thor's Hammer After-Credits Sequence. Youtube. Retrieved 20-09-10. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that though this appears to be Thor's hammer, and may very well prove to be, no one in the video actually calls it that ... it's only referred to as "the hammer," meaning it could be impostor or some other form of plot misdirection. Events that happen in the comics, as we've seen over and over, don't necessarily translate to the movie version, hence the composite Whiplash/Crimson Dynamo character, for instance, or the TV series' "David: Banner." This being an encyclopedia — i.e., the last word and most authoritative place to which someone goes — we can wait until there is no doubt whatsoever. There is no rush. An encyclopedia has no pressure to be newsy, like a newspaper, blog or fan site. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want change the name from Mjolnir since it is not actually called that in the video. However JMS does state that the crater and hammer is taken directly from his comic so I'd say its safe to say it refers to Mjolnir.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Another thought. The video does draw a conclusive connection to Thor (film) so how about we direct the war hammer link there? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I truly hate continuing to seem like a wet blanket, but that kind of redirect goes against WP:EGG, which is about intuitiveness and specificity of links. I did hear JMS' comment, and while I do agree it is very, very likely that is Mjolnir, there's no guarantee that what he wrote in the comic is being adapted absolutely directly to the screen. All we know is that it's a war hammer. Whether it's Thor's, or it's Odin's and this is the origin story of how Thor got it, or whether it's a copy, or whether it's another god's, or whether the movie calls it by another name or by no name (e.g. Natasha not being called Black Widow in the movie), we just don't know.

There's no WP:DEADLINE and Wikipedia is distinct from Wikinews. I and JGreb and others are inclined to wait until there is not even a glimmer of doubt whatsoever — that kind of certainty is what any encyclopedia is all about. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to feel bad, this is what discussion is for. Also I am aware of the essay on deadline, I am just merely presenting evidence as it appears. If it is not enough change the article then we will just have to keep waiting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I really do appreciate your collegiality. It's ironic that we actually agree on the content itself — and I'm glad that we're both able to transcend that for the bigger Wikipedia picture. It's good to work with you; when I see your sig on an edit, I know it's going to be thoughtful. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Not sure if this counts, but watching the DVD commentary track for the movie, Jon Favreau specifically describes the hammer as "Thor's hammer" on one occasion, and also states that the post-credits scene is actually a scene *from* Thor. Would that be an adequate source to name it, or am I misreading the requirements? rdfox 76 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds worth discussing. Can you transcribe exactly what he says, and note the time-points on the commentary? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some time references? Then I would totally agree that we can change it. Planewalker Dave (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. May take a little bit--school's kickin' my ass this semester--but, of course, there's no deadline. I know that the second comment is right before the end of the closing credits... rdfox 76 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF9vG3JvxZo&feature=player_embedded

It's Thor's hammer. It may not be called Mjolnir by name, but if it was bout linking Iron Man 2 to Thor, and it has the creators of Thor in the video, and the director of the film, and actor who is IN Thor, it is VERY safe to assume it is Thor. If you want to keep 'War Hammer' up, fine, but redirect it to the Thor film if you do. It's only right. Otherwise it seems like a random addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.75.125 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"It may not be called Mjolnir by name". Exactly it is not, so it should not be in the plot, since the plot covers what happened in the actual movie. This has not. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

But it was cited as "Thor's hammer." Thor's hammer's name is Mjolnir. Therefore, it is logical to assume that, since the hammer is Thor's and the hammer's name is Mjolnir, Thor's hammer's name is Mjolnir. Since it was confirmed as being Thor's hammer, it must, therefore, be Mjolnir. What else could it be besides that? I've cited a specific example, of the filming of the scene, and of the film itself. A direct connection. At the very least, redirect 'war hammer' to the Thor film page, since my source may not name it as Mjolnir, but it connects it to Thor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.75.125 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved. Now, since it was filmed as being the beginning of the film, and so making up bull such as 'it might be an impostor Mjolnir' can't work as an argument, since it is and of itself is original research, one might say, it can be dismissed as an argument. Just because you cannot prove something is something, does not give you license to create absolute crap to prove that it isn't.

It isn't in violation of the rules, since it has been numerously times stated to be a connection to Thor, and, if it were just a 'war hammer' as it is currently cited, it would make absolutely no sense. Connecting it, however, to a film that was directly linked to the scene in question, is. Therefore, I have linked 'war hammer' to the Thor film page, so that, although it is not referenced as Mjolnir, it is referenced as being a link to the Thor film.

Is that agreeable? It has been backed up with information, proof, evidence by the filmmakers themselves. Therefore, it is a perfect compromise to link 'war hammer' to the Marvel Studios 'Thor' film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.75.125 (talk • contribs) 20:53, October 20, 2010

No. It isn't.

If an assumption has to be made, it is a poor reference to use. The reference should be chrystal clear on its own. Applying editorial interpritation is original research.

It is not acceptable to edit the article to get what you want 'prior to seeking consensus for it.

It is also not acceptale to place that information within the plot section. That section should be based on the film as released. Critical analysis and impact/relationship to other films belongs within other sections.

- J Greb (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I would support identifying the hammer in the plot summary; we can add a reliable source for identification. While the summary as a whole should be written at face value, I think that the denial of the object's identification here is a bit strong. WP:FILMPLOT does say, "Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section." While not directly applicable, I think that a reference can be used to clarify the discovered object. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I don't believe we have any reliable secondary source unequivocally stating that this is Thor's war hammer (as opposed to any of the other possibilities described in this discussion). In any event, the Thor movie is scheduled to come out in May. There's no critical urgency in identifying the hammer until closer to that film's release, when surely one filmmaker or studio source or other will state it directly and plainly.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What about this and this? Judging from the above discussion, we don't need to call the hammer by its comic book name; we can just write "Thor's hammer" with a wiki-link to Mjolnir (comics). You're right that it's not urgent, but at the same time, is there really a push not to mention this at all until then? Erik (talk | contribs) 00:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting in a different section of the article that the post-credit scene acts as a bridge/linkage to Thor, with the relavent details and sources should be enough. How Thor plays out may provide an explicit link, but we won't know that for 6-7 months. And to be honest Erik, what that mallet is has zero importance to the plot of Iron Man 2. So no "complicated plot" exists that needs explination. - J Greb (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point that it has zero importance to the summary of the plot. I've removed it. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned the post-credits scene in the "Filming" section using one of the references. In addition, at the article post-credits scene, there was this sentence: "The documentary 'Ultimate Iron Man: The Making of Iron Man 2' on the Iron Man 2 Blu-ray has a short clip presented after the credits on filming the 'Thor' sequence, interviewing director Kenneth Branagh and Clark Gregg." This could be used to expand on the new sentence in "Filming". Erik (talk | contribs) 01:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

AHA!http://marvel.com/news/moviestories.13412.thor_movie~colon~_new_thor_and_mjolnir_pic

Marvel.com CONFIRMS that it is Mjolnir. They identified the hammer by name, and it is clearly the same one as in the credit sequence. That's good data, right? 209.6.75.125 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(←) That's about another movie with a picture from another movie, and doesn't mention this film besides that Marvel has other movies and this is one of them. Also it still didn't happened in the movie. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What if, instead of 'war hammer', we put down 'mysterious hammer' instead? That way, it has the mysterious implication that it does in the film, whereas 'war hammer' implies it is an ordinary hammer, which the film doesn't imply it to be. However, since it doesn't address it as Mjolnir, it can't be positively identified as it. But writing it as 'mysterious hammer' would give the mysterious implication it has in the film. That way, it doesn't seem to outright state it isn't Mjolnir, but doesn't say it is. Not to mention the war hammer article has images that don't even remotely resemble the hammer in the film. It implies it resembles a pickaxe, which isn't accurate. That seems fair enough to me. What do you guys think?209.6.75.125 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It does rather more resemble a maul than a war hammer. "Mysterious hammer" seems accurate, though some descriptor is needed to avoid the most common connotation, that of a household hammer. Perhaps "mysterious medieval hammer" or "mysterious ancient-looking hammer". And J Greb is certainly correct in noting that it is insignificant to the overall plot of Iron Man 2. Saying "mysterious object" might simply be the least arguable construction — we can certainly all agree that it is that. And, really, that's it's only function in the movie — to be a mysterious object. But I can understand those wanting to call it a hammer, since by observation it clearly is. But exactly what hammer or whose, the plot of Iron Man 2 does not say. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does, although different versions resemble between a sledgehammer and the actual hammer itself, but is still way, way closer than the pickaxe-like War Hammer. So, Xeworlebi, what do you think? Would 'Mysterious hammer' fit accurately? Seems so to me, since that's the general mood of the scene. It's definetly not some random hammer, but it doesn't say it's Mjolnir either. 209.6.75.125 (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Break 3 (November 7 2010 edits)

RE Today's edit: First, in terms of literal attribution, Coulson does not, in fact, say they've found Thor's hammer. He only says they've found "it." But as to the larger issue: The citation was one fan-publication writer's opinion of what he saw onscreen. It is not confirmed by anyone involved in the production, who would have access to fact, not opinion. I suppose if it were critical to the article, we could say something like "Agent Coulson reports finding a mysterious object, which one fan-publication columnist believes to be the hammer of the Marvel superhero Thor, who appears alongside Iron Man in the next scheduled Marvel Studios movie, Thor." Something like that would be the clearest, most contextual, and most neutral, NPOV way to express this, if it's absolutely necessary to the article. How relevant any of this is at this point to general-reader non-fans I cannot say.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you and added a citation that references the DVD's "making of" video that shows the relationship between Thor and this film. Is there any real reason to continue denying this? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See discussion about the DVD above. No one in the video actually calls it that ... it's only referred to as "the hammer." We are not "denying" anything — we are only saying what the content of the film itself says. Anything else is our fan interpretation, which is original research.We need to cite incontrovertible proof — the standard of an encyclopedia — and not make interpretive claims. The one thing we know here concretely is that one columnist believes this. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I attributed MTV in the identification of the hammer. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we can reach a compromise solution. I've specified that this is that writer's opinion, and that the MTV article is not reporting a fact. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And the current run around:

• Do not put words or information in the film that are note there. Period. If "hammer", "Thor's hammer", or "Mjolnir" were not uttered in the scene, do not add content that implies they were.
• Including properly quoted and referenced material that other web sites, reviewers, reporters, bloggers, or whomever have speculated that the "it" from the scene is Thor's hammer may be OK. But those cited refs should definitely include the identification and the quotes should spell this out as well.
• Placement in the article should also clearly reflect what content is in the section. "Filming" does not involve linking the film to later projects. At best that section would not that a post-credit scene was filmed and what it amounted to as released in the film. "Sequel" would likely be a better place to bring out the other sources speculating on the scene being used to connect Iron Man 2 to Thor in an arc towards the Avengers film.

- J Greb (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• The agent said, "Sir, they have found it". The hammer was only mentioned as "it". We should definitely just insert the quote and redirect "it" to the Thor page.--TwelveOz (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's be less confusing to the general, non-fan reader to explain what "it" is, as done here under the compromise solution, than to link to something about which the general reader has no idea. Let's remember this isn't a fan site — just like you or I would go to an article on Nigerian cinema or particle physics, say, with little or no knowledge of the subject, so, too, are readers coming to this page with little or no knowledge of the subject. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, both are against policy. We can't attribute or define what "it" is without adding our own knowledge to the process, that's Original Research. We also shouldn't link to an attribution because it still speaks of OR and it violates WP:EGG that states hiding links with meaning is not the best way to cross-link pages. This is the same argument as Black Widow, Omega Boy, and others that have been resolved. Regardless of the strength of the allusion it was always just an allusion. Until we have something citable to go on we can't continue to connect "it" with Mjolnir. Padillah (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there you go — I've learned something! And may I just say how good it is to see a fellow editor upholding encyclopedic standards; as you can see from this endless thread, it can be tough sledding to overcome well-meaning but perhaps overenthusiastic fans. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

New source December 2010

From the New Mexico state film office. Retrieved 2010-12-22.

A New Mexico connection to Marvel Super Heroes was first glimpsed in the plot of IRON MAN 2, when Thor’s hammer was believed to have been discovered in the state.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Medals

At the end of the film, Stark and Rhodes both get a medal. Rhodes, as a US Air Force officer, get the Meritorious Service Medal. But I haven't been able to find which medal Stark got. Does someone know? --Triskael (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was a No-Prize?  :)  --Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

IMDB trivia claims it was the Army's Distinguished Service Medal. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

IMDb can't be used for reference, since it's essentially a wiki — anyone can post anything. That's why WP:FILM articles have IMDb as EL links only. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that. Just trying to give a starting point. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I misunderstood. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)