Talk:Iron Man 3/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit request on 26 May 2012

Ben Kingsley plays the Mandarin

76.124.96.97 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No he doesn't:[1], unless you have a source that says otherwise--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: as above Mdann52 (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Some sources

Maybe this link could help to update this article, it was from the Marvel site: http://marvel.com/news/story/18821/first_official_iron_man_3_set_photo Happygoth09 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I see why imdb is not a good source.

Because someone there has added casting credits for Iron Man 3 that includes Sam Elliott as Thunderbolt Ross, Rocky Carroll as the Falcon, and Regina Spektor as Yelena Belova. I believe none of those is correct since they are all busy. Sam Elliott was replaced as General Ross by William Hurt, Rocky is probably doing prep for NCIS and Regina is more likely on tour. In addition, there is no link to even support that the cast has been increased. All of this makes me understand why imdb is a terrible site to use in the context of linking to here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Im the one who added those in an attemt to prove IMDb unreliabe. Let this be a lesson.NTC TNT (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rescue

Whatever the plot is and whoever the villain is, after what happened in Armored Adventures they'd better give Pepper her own armor. 74.69.214.197 (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Maria Hill

I know that it has not yet been verified but with Coulson no longer around, it is logical that Maria Hill takes his place as Tony Stark's S.H.I.E.L.D. watchdog. Also, it has been stated that Cobie Smulders is signed on for 9 films(like the rest of the group). Despite all of that, I do hope Marvel follows through with keeping an agent or two in IM3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Gravitons POV/OR changes to the starring list.

Graviton continues to change the starring list without reason, but he has at least confessed his purpose by posting this on my talk page: "You stupid idiot STOP MAKING WOMEN SPOIL THE MOMENT BEFORE I HAVE TO COME FIND YOU!". His misogynistic attitude not withstanding, he has no basis for changing this list and is apparently doing it because women ruin the moment, whatever moment that is. It's been discussed in edit summaries, his talk page and now here, and by discussed I mean people have said it and he has ignored it until saying stuff like the above. This discussion is being added for others to give input and for a record of Graviton's activities for when this inevitably escalates to administrator intervention. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reported Graviton at WP:AN/EW for violating the 3RR here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I really hate to say this, but Graviton is at it again, changing the casting order in the infobox. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And now we have Borxdeluxe making a similar change to the cast list four times in less than a day. With two separate notes in the article not to change it, edit summaries explaining why to not change it, and a message left on their talk page not to change it. Oy. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should report Borxdeluxe to WP:AN/EW since he has violated the WP:3RR rule. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that maybe we should remove the starring list entirely until a list is confirmed. I'd say gt it protected but that won't affect either editor, so in the meantime reporting him might help BUT it'd probably better to wait to see if he violates to 4th revert, 3 probably won't gain any real intervention.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Borxdeluxe did and was blocked for 24 hours. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Filed report here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I went ahead and used my third revert of the day restoring it to normal. Maybe we need some sort of semi-protection, as the vandalism/nonconstructive edits seems to be spiking recently. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wang Xueqi

Is it better to link to the original Chinese source, rather than the article with an English report on the matter? I don't speak fluent enough Chinese to provide an accurate sentence-by-sentence translation, but I know enough to confirm that the article definitely confirms the actor and the role and says that the reports of Chinese actresses joining were false, and that filming in Beijing and Shanghai will happen in September. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Chill out people

Look don't get too stiff! The least that can be done is have Don Cheadle 2nd, Ben Kingsley 3rd, and Gwyneth Paltrow 4th so that nobody has to irritate eachother. After all this is going to be an awesome movie, right?Mark (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I know. There is no basis on changing the casting order, and we should just wait until we have an official source to confirm the listing order. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The first three actors listed are in the same credit order as Iron Man 2. The rest are listed in the order they joined the cast. This is the best way to avoid WP:OR and WP:POV issues until an official listing is released by the studio. You've been asked to not change it a half dozen times, there are two notes in the actual article asking that it not be changed. It's been explained over and over and over. Please don't do it again. Your arbitrary rankings are not the "least that can be done", the least that can be done is leaving it be, per consensus and wikipedia policies, until we have a reason to change it. The only reason this is irritating to anyone is that you refuse to acknowledge that it's ordered the way it is for a reason, and keep changing it over and over and over. It's not constructive and it only makes it harder to keep the article clean. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I know this is a bit of a delay, but as per MOS:Film, cast are listed in order of credits and in order they join the cast. MisterShiney ✉

Filming in China

Is still scheduled, per the film's producer. A speculative report was placed in the article stating that it was cancelled. I'm going to remove, please don't readd without a firm source. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

William Sadler as "Sal Kennedy" in IM3

Source: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0351689/

Truth to this for an Edit or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.30.121 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source.Richiekim (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Citing a PDF that automatically downloads to the user's computer

Hey, I found this PDF a while ago; it's from the Miami Beach Gov't and includes filming dates for the location (which is currently tagged with a citation needed template in the article). The problem is the PDF doesn't open in the user's browser, it automatically downloads to the hard drive. So I'm not sure what citation template/format to use. Anyone know? -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Add "format=pdf" as a field to the cite. Webcite will back it up also. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Should I mark it as a dead url so that the webcite in-browser link is the default one? -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That I don't know, never had any idea what deadurl did, thought it just pointed out to people that a ref was useless. Archiving is essential though, I used a PDF over at Fast Five from the official site which is the source for almost all the development info. I looked the other day and it was dead, now redirects to a site about the DVD, but the archive, she still rolls! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dude! Archiving rules!

Have you guys gone to WebCitation in the last week or two? It's going to stop accepting cites at the end of the year if it doesn't raise $50K for new servers, etc. I contributed $25, and the total is only $1,100 so far. Let's spread the word to our Wiki colleagues to that WebCitation.org is in trouble and needs our help. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I started a discussion about it at WT:FILM. Apparently there is a proposal for the Wikimedia Foundation to save it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

James Rhodes' Iron Patriot and War Machine

Official merchandising clearly refers to these armors as War Machine and Iron Patriot. Does this not count as being canon? The tie-in comics also refer to Rhode's armor as War Machine. Suzuku (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The armors all referenced in the cast section but the character has yet to use them as codenames on screen.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This didn't answer my question. Suzuku (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe it did quite clearly, but for the sake of it, he is saying No. Merchandising and tie-ins often use names and items not in the film. Unless you want to cite Wing Attack Iron Man toy, Sonic Blast Iron Man toy and the space armor Iron Man toy in the article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Pepper in Armor

Marvel has recently released a new tv spot (can be see here) and with in it it confirms that Pepper is going to be wearing the armor, at least an Iron Man one. Should this be noted in the article at all at this time (I was thinking in the marketing section possibly) or should it be held off for the moment? Technically it can be added as Wikipedia does not deal with spoilers, in case any one felt that was a reason not to include it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already done this, since Marvel has posted an interview on its website featuring Gwyneth Paltrow confirming this. Richiekim (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Final movie

I have reverted an edit that said Iron Man 3 will be the final installment of the franchise. There wasn't a citation, but does anyone know if it will be the final one?Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 00:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Downey, Jr.'s contract for Iron man is up, but as it says in the future section, it may be extended for the Avengers 2 and another Iron Man movie. Downey himself said that "there's a couple other things we've gotta do" with his character. - Dracuns (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no way the series is going anywhere, it makes money and the MCU is pretty much built around Downey's popularity, plus they would be playing up this as "THE FINAL FILM: WILL IRON MAN DIE?!", I don't think they've even teased the possibility of him dying, and they won't since he will be in Avengers 2, so no, it's just a Red Link editor editing out of his ass. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Source - Interview with Hall

http://marvel.com/news/story/20374/iron_man_3_under_the_armor_with_rebecca_hall?LSID=6147125%7C10859501%7C1xgt94w877hfj , contains some plot stuff, character info, etc. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Title, Stan

Just came from a press screening. Giving no spoilers, but here are two pertinent things — neither of which we can use until corroborated by a published source, but just so we keep an eye out: The onscreen title, given at the end, is Iron Man Three, with the numeral spelled out. And Stan Lee has a cameo playing "Pageant judge." (Also, there's a two-person post-credit scene; can't say more than that.) --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Stan Lee's cameo has been sourced already in the article. And what you said about the post-credit scene keeps some of my theories intact and make me even more excited! But thanks for the heads up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Set photos

The coverage of the things spotted in set photos in the filming section does not appear to encyclopedic. A year from now, I do think readers will care what was seen in a set photo, the film itself will do that. What matters is analysis of the things seen in the film and is what we should strive to include. As such, I think the coverage of the set photos should be removed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, specifically some of the Iron Patriot stuff needs to be pruned. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And of course, the poster art and now the production notes, which I've just received, use the numeral "3." Why the blazes couldn't they have used that onscreen as well? What is the point of Disney and Marvel calling it one thing on screen and another thing in the official notes? What was Shane Black and Drew Pearce's point for using "Three" onscreen. Are they just screwing with the fans? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Presale tickets

Is it notable enough and worth including in the Release section, that major movie companies (Regal and AMC) are witholding selling tickets for midnight premires because of a contract disputes with Disney? Source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think so.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I thought so, just wanted to check before I did anything. I'll add it to the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It is, it speaks to Release I think, I covered it on... Tower Heist I think when certain chains refused to show it because the studio was going to put it on VOD simultaneously. And frankly, Disney's current method of doing business could do with being recorded somewhere anyway.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the reliable sources though guys and girls. MisterShiney ✉ 20:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Standard film template?

Just noticed the article doesn't seem to follow what I usually see when I look up films here. I don't KNOW that there is a standard template, but a "Premise" section instead of "Plot" seems very odd. 174.65.10.224 (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Plot

Per WP:FILMPLOT the plot summary should be between 400 and 700 words, so the current version needs to be trimmed some. I haven't seen the movie yet or I would help. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Real Mandarin

Does the plot indicate there is a real Mandarin, or is the Ten Rings not real in-universe?

Anonymous173.74.57.205 (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ten Rings

Is the Mandarin the leader of the Ten Rings?

Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

YesLive Light (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No he isn't. The ten rings organisation isn't even mentioned, the symbol of ten rings is simply used. There is no terrorist organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.204.123 (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Size of Mandarin's Role

It says here that Mandarin's role is a behind the scenes villain, but its source is claiming that whilst also claiming Guy Pearce is the main villain. With that article being from May and Guy Pearce admitting that his role is essentially an extended cameo, shouldn't we delete the behind the scenes aspect of Mandarin? I know we don't know that much, but given that the source was essentially wrong about Guy Pearce, they seem to be wrong about Mandarin as well. Jaybling (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. Went ahead and removed it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like they weren't so wrong after all...teaches you to be a bloody smart ass thinking you know better THEN EVERYONE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.250.20 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013 Release Date

so I just watched the trailer for Iron Man 3 and at the end it says that it has an April 2013 Release date and not a may 2013 release date as previously thought. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EjG-1U3wqA&feature=plcp should the page be edited to coincide with the trailer or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.229.56 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Coming from Marvel UK, I guess that's the UK release date. --Imroy (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The movie was released in Australia on April 25, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markall44 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Public premiere

Looks like it opened in 11 territories on Wednesday, March 24. Here's a citation from TheWrap.com if someone wants to use it. I'm on deadline right now. http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/iron-man-3-debuts-87771 . Plus, here are some of the 11 countries: http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/iron-man-3-tracking-160m-us-debut-it-rolls-out-11-foreign-countries-87446 --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Cast reordering?

According to this poster http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/530904_609691579047418_417629540_n.jpg, the cast order is: Robert Downey Jr, Gweneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pierce, and Ben Kingsley. Perhaps now is the time to change the ordering of the cast?Richiekim (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The current cast order comes from the official synopsis the studio has been releasing with the movie's trailers. It's actually the same order as that cast, just with more credits. Kingsley getting the "and" credit means he'll always be listed last on any cast list the studio puts out. -Fandraltastic (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

How the cast is ordered currently as I write the post, it is how it appears in the film. Charlr6 (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Cast Section

hello I noticed that on the Cast Section it says that Jing Wu and Stephanie Szostak have Unspecified Roles however both of there roles have been confirmed and you even have those roles on there Seperate Pages so I believe the Cast Section needs Updating to say that Jing Wu will be a 10 Rings Henchman and Szostak will be Ellen Brandt. both of there pages even say that they are playing these characters and those have been confirmed. so please update the cast Section to reflect this. 108.0.229.56 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Szostak's role is confirmed in here, an official production pdf from Marvel's site. There's a bunch of other info that can be peppered in throughout the article, too. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good find. I don't recognize the domain of the source, but you are a very accomplished editor, so I'll take your word that its legit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the domain Marvel uses to host all of its files (e.g. this, this, or this). It's a play on one of their character's names. -Fandraltastic (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I see.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is Harley not in the cast section? 81.82.196.135 (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

After the credits and the final scene...

It actually says "Tony Stark will return." Instead of "Iron Man". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youcoctus (talk • contribs) 15:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well in the films, Stark says that he is Iron Man. Even mentioned to the kid in this film that he is Iron Man, Iron Man isn't just the suit. I don't really think it matters. Some people could say they wish Bond films say "007 Will Return" instead of "James Bond Will Return". But also "Tony Stark Will Return", well as he is starting from scratch now at the end of the film after fixing himself up and destroying all the suits to start anew, technically at the end of the film Iron Man doesn't, and won't exist any more until another suit appears, but as they were all destroyed we'll have to wait until probably The Avengers to see what happened. Charlr6 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Credits

My caveats above aside about the Kingsley credit (which might have been purposefully different to avoid a gigantic spoiler from journalists given the credits), here, for reference, are excerpts from the official credits. Character names aside, the actual people's credits are contractual and, barring human error, have to be the same as onscreen. The odd breaks for Executive producer are verbatim and correspond to individual/group title cards onscreen:

MARVEL STUDIOS presents In Association with PARAMOUNT PICTURES and DMG ENTERTAINMENT
A MARVEL STUDIOS Production
Directed by. SHANE BLACK
Screenplay by. DREW PEARCE & SHANE BLACK
Produced by. KEVIN FEIGE
Executive Producer. JON FAVREAU
Executive Producer. LOUIS D’ESPOSITO
Executive Producers. CHARLES NEWIRTH, VICTORIA ALONSO, STEPHEN BROUSSARD
Executive Producer. ALAN FINE
Executive Producer. STAN LEE, DAN MINTZ
Director of Photography. JOHN TOLL, ASC Production Design. BILL BRZESKI
Edited by. JEFFREY FORD, A.C.E., PETER S. ELLIOT
Costume Designer. LOUISE FROGLEY
Visual Effects Supervisor. CHRISTOPHER TOWNSEND
...
Music by. BRIAN TYLER
Casting by. SARAH HALLEY FINN, C.S.A.

Tony Stark. ROBERT DOWNEY JR.
Pepper Potts. GWYNETH PALTROW
Colonel James Rhodes. DON CHEADLE
Aldrich Killian. GUY PEARCE
Maya Hansen. REBECCA HALL
Happy Hogan. JON FAVREAU
The Mandarin. BEN KINGSLEY
Savin. JAMES BADGE DALE
Brandt. STEPHANIE SZOSTAK
Jarvis. PAUL BETTANY
President Ellis. WILLIAM SADLER
Mrs. Davis. DALE DICKEY
Harley Keener. TY SIMPKINS
Vice President Rodriguez. MIGUEL FERRER
Doctor Wu. WANG XUEQI [not evident onscreen that I recall]
Ho Yinsen. SHAUN TOUB [not evident onscreen that I recall]
...
Himself. PAT KIERNAN
Himself. JOSH ELLIOTT
Herself. MEGAN HENDERSON
Himself. THOMAS ROBERTS
Himself. BILL MAHER
Herself. JOAN RIVERS
Himself. GEORGE KOTSIOPOULOS
...
Pageant Judge. STAN LEE
...
Based on the Marvel Comic Book by Stan Lee, Don Heck, Larry Lieber, Jack Kirby ...
[and much farther down the list]
With Special Thanks to ADI GRANOV, BOB LAYTON, DAVID MICHELINIE, JOHN BYRNE, KEV HOPGOOD, LEN KAMINSKI, WARREN ELLIS

[There's no mention of specific storylines onscreen. I hope this helps]. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The New Year's flashback scene

I'm not happy with the current description of the plot, which mentions the New Year's Eve flashback scene at the very start of the section. I understand why it has been included here, because it was shown first in the film. However, I feel that it would serve the purpose of the article better if it were included further down the page, in the paragraph about Stark's first encounter with Killian. The reason for this is that Stark reaslises his actions on that night were directly responsible for setting Killian on the path he chose, and Stark blames himself for them. Therefore, the flashback is more relevant to that scene than the opening.

Furthermore, describing the flashbacks at the start of the section provides no context to their relevance later in the film, and the reader has to keep reading to understand what it means. There is nothing in the MOS that says recounts like this have to be done chronologically, and the MOS also emphasises clarity. I think it would be much clearer if the section was attached to the scene that it has the most relevance to. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I do understand Prisonermonkeys' point, and, certainly, WP:FILMPLOT allows us to mention such things where editorial consensus feels they make sense and not necessarily chronologically. I would argue, however, that without setting up Hansen and Killian at the start that they appear to come out of left field later, and insufficiently motivated. Why does Hansen show up at Stark's house? Who is she? Why does Killian have antipathy toward Stark? As the filmmakers themselves wisely did, it's important to establish at the start who they are. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we can afford to cut the detail about Hansen showing up at Stark's home. Our job is to decribe the events of the film in the way that allows someone with no prior knowledge to understand it if they were to click on the random page function and wind up here.

Hansen being at Stark's home doesn't really have any bearing on the overall plot. She is complicit in the abduction of Pepper Potts, but the important point to note is that Pepper was abducted, not how it happened (especially since the film only touches on it breifly). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I do see your point. On the other hand, she virtually disappears from the movie if we don't include her presence in that scene. And we still have the issue of Killian coming from out of nowhere without his being established in the flashback. What do our other WPC regular editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire point is that Killian comes out of nowhere. Stark never suspects his involvement until he reveals himself, and even though he is woven in and out of the narrative until that point, his role is never firmly established until it is revealed he is behind it all. Up until then, he is presented as being nothing more than the Mandarin's accomplice. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, while I prefer having the flashback upfront where I think it makes the most sense, I won't push back against a well-written passage that makes the same narrative points clearly later in the synopsis. I think, though, we should hear other editors' views first, since it's just us two so far. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I would try to convey the structure of the film's plot as closely as possible, even if it means some repeated information. Holding off on the Maya and Killian introductions might give the reader the impression that they hadn't appeared in the film at all until the halfway point. I'd start with a brief flashback paragraph ("On New Year's Eve, 1999..."), then jump into the main story ("In present-day America..."). Maybe we could even begin the section with a line stating that Stark is recounting the story in retrospect, which would tie in to the post-credits reveal (or would that be too trivial?). —Flax5 13:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Recasting RD as Tony Stark/Iron Man, rumor.

This link that has been posted as source that the studio are eyeing Bradley Cooper, Colin Farrell, James Franco, Elon Musk and Jon Hamm to replace Downey Jr as the new Tony Stark, but in the source the blogger posted his own thoughts on who they should consider, not who they are actually considering.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/19/bradley-cooper-to-colin-carrell-who-could-replace-robert-downey-jr-as-iron-man-3641018/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.13.67 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to write this too. It's mere speculation but it's in the article as if it were fact. Can someone please remove it or find a valid source? 2602:306:CD26:9A20:903F:9594:6CF7:ADB5 (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Aldrich Killian doesn't die.

Aldrich Killian only gets hit by Pepper Potts. You never see him die or anything of the like. Nothing of the sort is mentioned either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.21.107 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point. And we've seen him come back from an exploding Iron Man armor. This should be worded to match what we see onscreen. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

He was very weak and hadn't had time to regenerate. And also I have seen wikipedia articles written to what is implied on screen, even by frequent editors, and to me, it is implied he died fully due to not having time to regenerate. Charlr6 (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Mandarin, if he were to die, would be at the hands of Iron Man. We will see him return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.21.107 (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Intentions of the Vicepresident

He was not intended to bring curation to the little girl with the Extremis virus. Instead, working as a puppet leader, he was intended to bring the disabled kids to make them soldiers or guinea pigs for the Extremis investigations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.138.54.51 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nooooo, Killian has clearly got the vice-president in his pocket by promising to use Extremis to replace his daughter's lost limb. - Chris McFeely (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Or granddaughter, given the VP's age. It wasn't specified. May even have been a niece — who knows? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to propose an edit.

There are some edits that I may suggest to this article. For instance, at the end of the movie, after the psychologist listens to Tony Stark halfway and falls asleep, the screen goes black with a message; TONY STARK WILL BE BACK. Also, there are some specificications I would like to suggest to the "plot" part. I do not understand why this page was made a semi-protected one, but I think it was made so by some foolish people who wanted their way, only their way. But what of the honest people? What of the people who honestly want to help Wikipedia? Please, can't you just make editing public?

I honestly thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Marty Jefferesson 10:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestmj33001 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The article already says, "After the post-credits scene, a final line states 'Tony Stark will return'". See the section titled "Future."

It's semi-protected because experience shows that superhero-movie articles suffer vandalism and non-constructive edits from anonymous-IP editors — presumably schoolchildren and teens having fun and not interested in contributing to a range of Wikipedia articles. I would also suggest here that your tone may strike some as a bit offensive: The article's protection is about just that, protection, and not about someone wanting to "get his way." As I think a perusal of this article's contributors and contributions will show, there are indeed a large number of "honest" editors who have made the article what it is so far. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Studio, because people obviously can't take the hint. By people I mean person.

Read.

Co production, Marvel Studios, DMG Entertainment. No paramount. I know you have been told this multiple times Cuktdu, do it again and I'll just be asking for administrator intervention. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(Released Date)

May 3 in America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.205.117.151 (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"3" or "Three"

Just a quick one, watched the film last night and was suprised to see it titled as, "Iron Man Three" instead of "Iron Man 3" in the film iteslf. So what's the official title? "3" or "Three"? 212.250.138.33 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The onscreen title is indeed Iron Man Three. And that is freaking maddening, since Disney's own press materials say Iron Man 3. We may have to wait to see how the majority of reviews and articles render it in order to see if WP:COMMONNAME applies. At the very least, we'd need to give both versions in the lead sentence. I guess we could do that now since the film has been released, but until more Wikipedians see it for themselves, I'd rather hold off till the U.S. release so as to avoid a huge debate. In the meantime, I guess we could see how the U.S. Copyright Office and the BBFC have it. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The BBFC certificate at the start of the film has Three. Personally I would go with whatever is in the opening credits on the film as that is obviously the final take the studio decided on. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Myself, I'd agree. A lot of thought goes into the title of a movie or a TV show, and the final result is what the creators choose to put onscreen.

The US copyright is no help: The only thing I could find is a "preregistration" from February 27, 2013 that gives it as "Iron Man 3" but also lists Ben Kingsley as playing "The Mandarin," so clearly things changed between then and now. I'm thinking Star Trek Into Darkness and wondering why filmmakers can't just use plain, consistent English. Sigh. --Tenebrae (talk)

Considering how unusual it is for a sequel to spell out a numeral like that, there's no way it could have been an oversight or mistake, especially on a production of this expense and popularity. Regardless of the English, this is clearly a deliberate stylistic decision made by Marvel Studios and/or Shane Black. I think M*A*S*H (TV series) is a good precedent to consider – not necessarily correct in the grammatical sense, but still an important part of the work's image and identity.

As far as WP:COMMONNAME goes, I imagine that many of the publications currently calling it Iron Man 3 are only doing so because that's how the name is rendered on Wikipedia.

I'd go with something along the lines of "Iron Man Three (referred to in promotional material as Iron Man 3) is a 2013 American superhero film..." —Flax5 19:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I would completely go with that.

I just got the official credits list from Disney. It's also no help: Unlike onscreen, it says Iron Man 3 — yet also, unlike onscreen, it has Kingsley playing "The Mandarin" when onscreen it's "Trevor Slattery."

At least, thank God, they're not calling it "Marvel's Iron Man 3" so we don't have to go through THAT again!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hah... I see you there... Erik (talk | contribs) 21:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I like "Iron Man Three (referred to as Iron Man 3)" a lot. If anything, there needs to be a redirect page for "Iron Man Three" cuz right now, it's nothing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.64.118 (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Edit of Iron Man 3

Some mention of the Chinese edit for Iron Man 3 should be made.

This appears noteworthy as additional scenes featuring minor characters have been added (as well as paid advertisements) that do not appear in the international and U.S. domestic film edits.

Source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/iron-man-3-china-scenes-450184 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.24 (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Tony received Extremis?

I don't recall any explicit statement in the final scenes that Tony underwent the Extremis process as part of the removal of the shrapnel and his chest arc reactor. Why would he have required surgery if the Extremis would have simply healed him anyway? - Pennyforth (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese co-production

So I'm a bit confused on how to handle this. The film is a co-production between DMG (a Chinese company) and Marvel Studios (American), but according to some articles I've read ([http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/03/08/iron-man-3-blasts-away-at-china-co-production-myth/ Wall Street Journal), the film is technically not filling in all it's forms to become an official American-Chinese co-production. Should we then consider this an American Chinese co-production or just an American one then? Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Box office

Surprised no one has added the US box office yet. $175.3 million for the weekend, sourced from Box office Mojo. 75.111.63.85 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on which story

After watching the film, though it is said Iron Man 3 is based on "Extremis", it turned out the story is more based on "The Five Nightmares". --TX55^TALK 09:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we can't do anything about it without a reliable source to support it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I know, that's why I only bring it here instead of directly adding into the page. --TX55^TALK 16:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Source for The Five Nightmares: [2] --DocNox (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Mandarin - Killian or Kingsley?

Could someone help keep an eye on Mandarin (comics) to help assure that the information regarding the film there is limited to what is reported in sources, and not just what some casual viewer thinks the film was about? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's Killian. Shane Black has gone on record to admit that Killian is their actual take on the Mandarin character, albeit as an actual person with an identity. People are simply upset by the twist and many keep changing the info on the various respective articles but don't be fooled; Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian is meant to be the Mandarin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demented-P (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the movie's end-credits list Kingsley as playing "Trevor Slattery," and not "Trevor Slattery / The Mandarin". --Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Pirated copy online

Should this article mention that a pirated copy of this movie was leaked online before it was released in the United States? Fladoodle (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If there are any reliable sources that can verify and give weight to it, it might warrant a mention. - SudoGhost 02:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it's notable. To hear the movie industry tell it, a large number of movies are leaked online. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"also known as..."?

Is the film "also known as Iron Man Three"? I'm pretty sure this was just a style thing done as part of a retro-exploitation film gag in the closing credits... The goddamn iron man (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's not important enough to call it an alternative title. The posters all say "Iron Man 3" as does the copyright information at the bottom of the poster as seen here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the wording but if you all do not think it is even worth mentioning, then remove it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The opening credits also call it Iron Man Three, and I don't recall any kind of exploitation gag there. The British Board of Film Classification uses this form too. —Flax5 14:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's still being pretty pedantic, you aren't knowing it as either or, it's the same title. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is pedantic in the sense it is not worth mentioning the difference. Unless we have coverage from reliable sources that covers this particular title, I'm not compelled to endorse the mention. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The way it currently reads, "Iron Man 3 (stylized Iron Man Three)," seems to give the information factually and includes all the pertinent data, including the onscreen title. I see it as similar to Seven (film): "Seven (sometimes stylized as Se7en)". In both cases the stylized version is the onscreen title, and the other version is the one used in studio materials and the majority of press accounts. If Disney had written it as "Iron Man Three" in all its materials, that would be different.

I wonder if "(stylized onscreen as Iron Man Three)" might be better, since I could see an editor reasonably attaching a "where?" tag after the word "stylized" otherwise. -- Tenebrae (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to preemptively compensate for every editor who will do something like that, it's just a different formatting of the same name, it isn't Fast Five and Fast & Furious 5: Rio Heist where it is clearly known as two different films in different areas. The Iron Man 3 / Iron Man Three thing is needlessly specific, like the opening sentence of Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, which says the same name 3 times with minute differences, so you're nearly onto the second sentence before you find out what Mission Impossible 4 - IV Ghost Protocol 1 The Impossible Mission Protocol of Ghosts IV - Mission: Impossible is.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dark. Not sure how this isn't closer to "Se7en," where it's just the one title onscreen. I can't speak for Mission: Impossible since I didn't see it, but obviously if it really showed four different titles onscreen that's rare if not unprecedented and such a freak exception it's hard to see how it has bearing

I don't think having the onscreen title mentioned once in the opening is throwing too muh trivia information at the reader, which is what pedantic means. And the onscreen title, which the filmmakers choose very carefully and deliberately, isn't something we simply chose to ignore. It's four words where we're mentioning the title, addresses a discrepancy; nothing more, nothing less. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It adds absolutely nothing of value to the article, and other sources don't refer to it that way. It should not be in the article. Xkcdreader (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, I have a habit of checking Wikipeida shortly after watching a film and the first thing I typed in the search bar was, "Iron man three" since that was the title in the actual film itself. Was suprised that it said that the page didn't exist and didn't have a re-direct (bearing in mind I watched it a day after it was realeased in the UK) so my instincts told me to try, "Iron man 3" and I was brought to this article. Personally I think it should be the other way around and use the title as shown in the film itself since that seems the most intuitive thing to search for if you've seen the film, but it's up to the community as to how it's titled and whether or not it's important that the film itself uses, "Three" instead of, "3". 212.250.138.33 (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur: An encyclopedia can't simply ignore the official onscreen title. The phrasing as we have it now, "stylized as...onscreen," gives the pertinent fact once, in a few words, at an appropriate place. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Tony Stark will return

Shouldn't this be mentioned along with the mention of Bruce Banner's post credit scene?--Krystaleen 15:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's already in the article, in the "Future" section. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Sorry if I wasn't being clear, but that's my question, why is it there? Why not in the plot section along with Bruce Banner's post credit scene?--Krystaleen 07:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it is not a part of the narrative of this film's plot.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. I just thought it's part of the post credit scene, so I think it's weird to have that two parts separated. But now that I think about it, it might be not part of the post credit scene after all. Although I still think it looks a bit out of place they way it is in the Future section. Perhaps the wording or what, it just doesn't flow nicely.--Krystaleen 07:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Why it is bad add a short review of the film ?

On 6th May, i have added the review taken by The Times Of India, suddenly it was deleted by Tenebrae according to that fellow it must be a short paragraph, i admit besause i had added a long paragraph. I think the review must be there in short paragraph not totaly unavailable. That person mentioned that "The reception area is already long and covers most aspects", in my opinion the area must be shortened and a single review must be added (in short paragraph). Himanis Das   talk  06:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the question is here. The article has a full range of excerpts of reviews by major US and UK critics. Having an undue-weight long discourse by a Times of India critic doesn't add anything and seems as if it were inserted more to promote the paper's critic. Additionally, there are English-language papers in scores of generally non-English-speaking countries; if we're including a smattering of excerpts from such papers to give a sampling of international press — or at any rate the international press writing for the outside English-speaking world rather than their own countries — that's a whole other thing ... and one that I, at least, haven't seen us do anywhere else in WP:FILM. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Iron Man 3 inspired by "Iron Man: Director of S.H.I.E.L.D." storyline?

I realize that the main starting opening of the article mentions how the plot is inspired by the Extremis story arc, but given how there's no source provided for that, is it possible to add that it's also inspired by the Mandarin's story arc from Iron Man: Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. (#15-28) aka Iron Man: Haunted?

If you don't understand what I mean, you can have a look at the specific story arc I'm talking about on the Mandarin's wiki page under the sub-heading "Government inflitration". Demented-P (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is one reason we have to go with onscreen credits: Anything else is open to interpretation. I've removed the "based on the Extremis arc by Warren Ellis and Ari Granov" form the infobox, since the movie's own credits DO NOT say it's based on that arc. It uses concepts from the comics, but SAG would certainly have something to say if the screenwriters were lifting an entire story from another source without credit. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

ALDRICH KILLIAN AS MANDARIN AND MARK RUFFALO AS HULK

There are numerous sources reporting that around the half-way point in the film, Aldrich Killian is revealed to be the true Mandarin and that Kingsley is a decoy. Even though the film wont be released in the United States until May 3rd, someone should still add this in the cast section. Also Marvel Movies Wiki is reporting that Mark Ruffalo will appear as Bruce Banner in a post credit scene so maybe you can add that too. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.174.132 (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This is correct. I've been to the avant première yesterday (23 April). No post credit scene though.

I have seen the film in Australia and it contained a post-credits seen with Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner. I don't have a reliable source though. These are close though. Don't be alarmed when people add it to the article as they see it.. unfortunantely, still without a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.78.244 (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. MultipleTom (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Mandarian was a made up person, who didn't even realise he was being used. Killian is the mastermind/brains behind the operation and the real villain. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Aldrich Killian admits he is the real "Mandarin". The character is still basically Mandarin with the exception that he is given the identity of Aldrich Killian coupled with Mallen's powers and abilities from the Extremis comics. Even in the film, Aldrich Killian was portrayed as breathing fire like a dragon as well as having dragon tattoos on his torso to symbolize this; signifying that he is indeed the cinematic version of "The Mandarin" character. The cast listing should reflect this and should add "The Mandarin" to his role along with "Aldrich Killian". Demented-P (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of room for interpretation and argument when it comes to how characters should be listed, so we generally just follow the credits as they're shown in the film. Do the end credits say "Guy Pearce as The Mandarin"? If they don't, then neither should we, though the fact that he calls himself the Mandarin near the end of the film might be worth a mention in his paragraph. —Flax5 16:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The Plot reflects all that crap, the cast is not for plot or "important" revelations, it's for credits as the character is introduced. Also while I have seen the film, gg to the douche who titled the section both in all caps and with a glaring f***ing spoiler in it. Your contribution to humanity is felt. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The end-credits state that Ben Kingsley played Trevor Slatter, and Guy Pearce played Aldrich Killian. Killian confirmed in the end that HE is the Mandarin, with Trevor as his decoy. So, Pearce played a composite of Killian and the Mandarin with Kingsley as Mandarin's decoy, just like in Batman Begins where Liam Neeson played a composite of Henri Ducard and Ra's al Ghul with Ken Watanabe as the decoy. — Hasdi Bravo • 15:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

When did Stark find out that Pepper has really survived Extremis?

"Rhodes secures the president and takes him to safety, while Stark discovers Potts has survived the Extremis procedure. However, before he can save her, a rig collapses around them and she falls to her apparent death. Stark confronts Killian and traps him in an Iron Man suit that self-destructs, but fails to kill him. Potts, whose Extremis powers allowed her to survive her fall, intervenes and kills Killian."

Is the above paragraph correct? My understanding was Pepper "survived" because the procedure was cut off, and Stark obviously didn't know her body has acquired the Extremis powers because he didn't think Pepper would've survived the fall.--Krystaleen 05:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Time for a GA?

All right. I am thinking about getting this article to FA status as what we did in the past with the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe film articles. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's way too soon; the box office section has really just started getting going, the film's legacy (i.e. records, awards) have not been secured and there is bound to be more production information to come out especially around the time of the blu-ray release. Not to mention the plot section still isn't stable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. I think we'll just have to wait a couple of more weeks or months obviously. I should have corrected the mention that I wanted to get this up to a GA, not an FA. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason why work cant continue to be done on it, but bearing in mind given that it is still in cinemas, and editing is still going on, it probably won't pass first time. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't mention Killian as Mandarin too much on wikipedia, he was the creator of the Mandarin and there might be a chance that Mandarin will be renewed in future films

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't mean to worry anyone here but I would perfer not to mention Aldrich Killian as Mandarin because he was not wearing and using rings. It frustrates some users like me when you slander that name over the bad twist that plagues the filmand the Marvel Cinematic Universe and besides Killian never mentioned himself as the Mandarin until he came out of the debree so disappointingly not dead because he was ticked at Tony for outsmarting him with part shifting Mark 42 armor that failed to kill him due to his Extremis enhanced body being denser than the other soldiers in his organization. If he was really the Mandarin, he should have used power rings but he did not so that does not make him any more official than Trevor Slattery, not even the dragon tatoos. He only combined fire elements with Extremis which makes him more like the supervillain Firebrand in a more extremis enchanced version. I reccommend not to mention Killian as the Mandarin at least not on the Iron Man 3 page. They may reintroduce Kingsley's character as the actual Mandarin in the future MCU installments. Afterall with Iron Man 4 announced along with two rumored 5th and 6th films and with Mandarin being Iron Man's arch enemy, it would be impossible for the staff of the Marvel films to continue without the actual character, and especially withoutthe rings too because there is one more major story line in the Iron Man comics that Marvel hasn't used yet before Extremis got their attention. It's the Dragon Seed Saga; the one where Fin Fang Foom betrays the Mandarin over his legion of alien dragons coming to invade earth forcing Iron Man and his arch enemy to team up to defeat the dragons.MandarinVengeance (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but your elaborate fan theories don't belong here. We'll go by the actual film's content and what the filmmakers say about it. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Shane Black confirmed that Guy Pearce's character (Aldrich Killian) is the MCU's version of the Mandarin. So only until a "new" version comes out, the info will stay as it is. Black basically describes the terrorist persona as Killian's proxy, essentially a "mask" for Killian to remain anonymous while manipulating the media and the government. It doesn't render Kingsley's portrayal obsolete at all, as it essentially acted as Killian's "face" and remains a vital part of his character. Just as much as "Iron Man" is truly Tony Stark, the "Mandarin" is truly Aldrich Killian. Black elaborates that this is what Killian truly meant by his final speech, in which he and Tony should stop wearing "false faces" to highlight his acceptance and self-entitlement towards his crimes as well as his role as the true "Mandarin" (the title itself is described in the film as an "adviser to the king" which basically hints at Killian's goal by holding power over the government and the terrorist persona he created). I recognize that many fans were not too happy about the twist and as well as Black's insistence that Killian is truly the Mandarin, but that doesn't change the facts given by the filmmakers and the blatant references towards the character in the film.Demented-P (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't know that it will last because Marvel may reintroduce the character in the future whether you believe it or not. So please no more disagreeing commentsMandarinVengeance (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As true as this statement may be, it still has no place in a Wikipedia article. The article must reflect what sources and the films creators say. So please no more disagreeing comments. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Youre twisting my words. Black said interpretation, meaning under consideration. Whether a new or fixed Mandarin will appear or not, we will still have Fin Fang Foom for Iron Man 4 at least and if a new Mandarin or reintroduced Mandarin is confirmed, Killian will be the real phony then.MandarinVengeance (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, we have to go off of what the sources, creators and film say, and that is that Killian is the Mandarin. This is the Marvel Cinematic Universe's version of the Mandarin, so it can be different from the comics, and have no intention of bringing the comic version into this universe. In addition, Iron Man 4 is not announced at all, so most of this is just fan theories as Fandraltastic stated above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to Tenebrae for changing the source. I was gonna do it myself but I didn't know how to cite it properly. Re-reading the interview again, it's pretty clear that the interview heavily emphasized on the notion of "Pearce's Mandarin" as opposed to simply being inspired by the character. That said, it pretty much legitimizes his role as the MCU's version of the Mandarin.Demented-P (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest closing this discussion. Nothing productive has come of it, and the user responsible for starting it has already attempted another argument. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 04:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing per OP request. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blue (Da Ba Dee)

This song can be heard during the Marvel Comics opening sequence, how come this is not referenced? Jking88 (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is notated on the Iron Man 3 (soundtrack) page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the removal of Guy Pearce/Mandarin information

I don't understand why this keeps getting removed, because the rest of that paragraph makes little sense without it; the Shane Black quote for example. - SudoGhost 01:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote from Shane Black already covers the characters' connection to the Mandarin. There's no need to mention the same information twice within the same paragraph.

LoveWaffle (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't, actually. It discusses the connection without context, which you removed. Saying "Ultimately we do give you the Mandarin" makes absolutely zero sense without explaining what that means, because nowhere does it mention that this individual portrays that character in the film. - SudoGhost 03:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't if you stop the quote short. "Ultimately we do give you the Mandarin, the real guy, but it's Guy Pearce in the end with the big dragon tattooed on his chest." means "Guy Peace is the Mandarin."

LoveWaffle (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

When you have to claim that text is inferred instead of it actually saying it, that's quite to opposite of "mentioning the same information", because that quote doesn't say that, it clarifies the content you removed and without that content it's a confusing quote without context. - SudoGhost 03:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not inferred, Shane Black's quote blatantly says Guy Peace's character is Mandarin.

LoveWaffle (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is something that the first sentence, being a summary, should say given its importance. There's no reason to remove it since it summarizes, clarifies, and puts the later quote into context. So I disagree that "there's no need to mention", especially when there's no need to remove, but plenty of reason to include. - SudoGhost 04:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The information is not redundant as it summarizes Killian's role within the film. Based on your (LoveWaffle) proposed principle, we might as well remove the fact that Trevor portrayed "The Mandarin" and just leave his character summary as an actor who was hired by Killian, since the following quotes and examples mention this piece of information. The same could be said about Rhodes wearing the Iron Patriot armor due to the simple notion that Kevin Fiege mentions its relevance within a quote. Black's referral in regards to the alter ego of the Mandarin makes no sense without this piece of information, which is why it should be retained. Also I have already altered the wording from the original version to summarize and assure a better sense of clarity; that way it won't cause any confusion for the reader. Demented-P (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:SudoGhost - Of course it needs to be mentioned, just not twice within the same paragraph. And it's Black's quote that puts the information in context, not the other way around.

Re:Demented-P - The claim does not summarize his role in the film, and even if it does there's no reason for the information to be mentioned twice within the same paragraph. The quotes concerning Don Cheadle's and Ben Kingsley's characters are not redundant as they do not re-state what is elsewhere in their descriptions. And the claim is highly debatable (for reasons best not getting in to). It's the claim that needs Shane Black's quote, not the other way around. And again, there is no inferred reading behind Black's quote as he blatantly says Guy Pearce's character is the real Mandarin.
LoveWaffle (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't given a reason why it needs to be removed other than "twice within the same paragraph", which is a very poor reason and is dwarfed by the reasons to include it in the first sentence. "Twice within the same paragraph" isn't a reason to remove it since it is rather common on Wikipedia to summarize then elaborate relevant content, especially when the subsequent mention makes little sense and has no context without the initial mentioning. - SudoGhost 04:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be removed because it is redundant and does not summarize the character. The subsequent mention makes perfect sense on its own.

Furthermore, "summarize then elaborate" is not the style used on any other entry of this sort on this page.

LoveWaffle (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"It is redundant" is not good enough and repeating it over and over doesn't change that, not least of all because it isn't redundant. Do you have any other reason for wanting to remove this, because if that's the only reason then there doesn't seem to be anything else to discuss. - SudoGhost 05:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:LoveWaffle "The quotes concerning Don Cheadle's and Ben Kingsley's characters are not redundant as they do not re-state what is elsewhere in their descriptions." As a matter of fact, even disregarding Fiege's quote you'll find that Don Cheadle's section re-states the same information. The first part describes the armor as "Rhodes operates the redesigned/upgraded War Machine armor, taking on an American flag-inspired color scheme similar to the Iron Patriot armor from the comics." Within the same section it repeats the usage of the term "Iron Patriot" as well as the information in which Rhodes dons a newly-painted armor, "In the film, the president asks Rhodey to take up the moniker "Iron Patriot", and don the red, white and blue suit, in order to be the government's "American hero" in response to the events in The Avengers." Based on your proposed reasoning, we should remove one or the other, due to the fact that "it is redundant" (based on the notion that it re-states similar information). In regards to Guy Pearce's character role, initially you claimed that the material was simply sourced incorrectly yet when the citation was fixed you still removed said material under a new reason altogether. The information is not redundant as it summarizes the revelation in which Killian assumes complete responsibility over the Mandarin's actions and even specifically revealing himself as the alter ego of the "Mandarin". Such a piece of information regarding the character and his connection to the terrorist persona is vital as it provides a sense of clarity in regards to his actual role within the film. Demented-P (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:SudoGhost - Of course the information being redundant is a good reason to remove it. There's no reason to say the same thing twice within the same paragraph.

Re:Demented-P - The quote from Feige explains why the redesign on the armor was done, providing detail. Shane Black's quote regarding Guy Pearce's character does not do this. Furthermore, the information in question does not summarize Killian's role in the film.

LoveWaffle (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between removing redundant material and outright removing necessary information regarding the character's role. Black's quote specifically designates Killian as the Mandarin and this connection between the terrorist persona should at least be mentioned as said persona was actually a critical part of the film. If what you say is true (specifically how you mentioned that the wording does not summarize Killian's role), then I would honestly like to ask you to please provide what you think would be a better summary of Killian's role without excluding his involvement and identification as the alter ego of the Mandarin. Demented-P (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not said twice, and if the only thing you're going to say is "it's redundant" then there's no reason to continue discussing it if you're only going to repeat that. That's not cause to remove information you don't like, and if it were said twice, that wouldn't be the part to remove, the quote would since relying on quotes to relay all the article's information is just sloppy. So again, there's no reason to remove that first instance and plenty of reason to include it, so it's not going to be removed. - SudoGhost 16:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not said twice because twice would be redundant. Black himself says Guy Pearce is the Mandarin. There's no need to say it a second time. By definition, saying something a second time is redundant. It's redundant to say something a second time. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

LoveWaffle is correct. The Shane Black quote gives the facts from the horse's mouth succinctly and makes perfect sense in context. Adding additional plot information to the cast section about it is redundant. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not "additional plot information", it is a character's summary. It's not "additional plot information", and the quote makes little sense without it; why would Shane Black have to "specify" without first clarifying what is being specified? That is horrible writing, even ignoring the excessive over-reliance on quotations. - SudoGhost 16:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Black is saying it, and better that the director/co-writer say it than an outsider making that observation. If the director/co-writer is saying it, there's no reason we have to say it as well. Redundancy is a mark of "horrible writing," to use your phrase.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not rely on quotes to write the article for us, that is sloppy, and if there is redundancy that is somehow so critical that it warrants removal, the WP:QUOTEFARM is what needs to go. The "second time", which you keep saying is the problem was removed, yet you reverted it so I'm interested in what the actual reason is. - SudoGhost 17:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC

One quote is not a "quote farm." And in cases of contentious or controversial issues, as the Mandarin switch-up is, we're supposed to provide supportive quotes. As for your lack-of-good-faith comment "I'm interested in what the actual reason is," I gave it. I'll redundantly give it again: "[B]etter that the director/co-writer say it than an outsider making that observation. If the director/co-writer is saying it, there's no reason we have to say it as well." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Only there's not only one quote there, and now you've completely lost me. How is it a "supportive quote", yet you want to remove the thing it's supporting as redundant? If you remove the thing it's supporting, it's just another of several quotes which make up over 2/3rds of that paragraph and is no longer a supporting quote. Please also see WP:AAGF for future reference. - SudoGhost 17:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

After everything you've said and done, you cannot possibly throw WP:AAGF at anyone. Your aggressiveness and hostility come through with virtually every post.

Black's quote supports the plot synopsis, which says the person posing as the Mandarin is not the Mandarin. I hope you're not saying it's not a contentious issue, since this talk page is one of a multitude of sources indicating that it is. With a contentious issue we're encouraged to find a supporting quote — and in this case it's straight from the horse's mouth: the director and co-writer, the single best person in the world to confirm this fact, even more so than the co-writer who's not also the director. We have the most definitive person possible saying that Pearce is the Mandarin. There's nothing else needed to confirm or ascertain that contentious fact. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to ask you: if you truly believe that I am doing these things, then take it to WP:ANI. Otherwise, your own behavior is destroying any credibility for those claims, especially since you continue to fail to WP:AAGF. Take it to WP:ANI, or drop it, because if you continue to make these baseless attacks without actually addressing them where they can be dealt with if they exist, that only reflects upon you, no one else.

As for the content: such a quote, if quotes were needed, would be wonderful for a "controvery" or "reception" section to address the displeasure at this individual being "Mandarin", since that quote is not about the actor, it's about controversy surrounding the character. It doesn't belong there and isn't redundant, especially since it's somehow a supporting quote that you don't think should support anything. When almost all of a section is quotes they stop becoming "supporting quotes" and become the content itself, and that's not okay. - SudoGhost 18:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for a Controversy section. I'm serious. Then we can remove both comments from this Cast section and everybody's content. I'd support that move.

And this is the last time I'm going to ask you, who started the contentiousness by coming onto my talk page to make an unsupported allegation, to start assuming good faith yourself. In this case, I've agreed with you about starting a Controversy section, so I'm not sure what you could object to in that. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about it the better that seems, as long as there are enough sources to support an entire section about it, which I'll look into in a bit. However, I'm not going to bring it up again, but I am assuming good faith; just because I don't think you're doing it in the best way doesn't mean I don't think you're trying to improve the article. - SudoGhost 18:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how tempers seem to have cooled, I'll go rescind the ANI you suggested I post. --Tenebrae (talk)

Or, well, I was going to, but since you responded, I guess we'll have to let it continue. And, yes, accusing someone of edit-warring after one edit is harassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

See the AN/I discussion for my response. - SudoGhost 23:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Readers should be able to look at a cast list without having the plot given away. The plot section serves that function. The Cast List should not go into the casting history for the role - we usually have the Casting section for that. The current Guy Pearce and Ben Kingsley list entries are much too long - a lot of their material, including the Shane Black quote, should be removed from the cast list, and probably put in the Development section, discussing how the script evolved. A Casting section should be carved out - in this article it only currently exists as an unlabelled part of the Pre-production section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

At least on that first part, these two comments on another movie article sum it up well; From WP:SPOILER: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." That's not limited to merely a plot section, that stipulation exists for all content on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to argue that it absolutely should stay or not, only that it shouldn't be removed just because it might be perceived as a "spoiler". - SudoGhost 04:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not serving the needs of an encyclopedia or its readers to put spoilers in a Cast List. The list on this article is far too detailed with info that should be in other sections, as said above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not even about spoilers, the cast list is just that, a cast list. It should list the actor, the person they are playing not revealed to be playing and it should have a brief description of that character, not plot revelations. That is why there is a plot section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:Spoiler covers this, information should not be restricted just because it is a spoiler. The cast section is exactly for this type of information and as it stands as "who is the true alter ego of the Mandarin" suits the purposes fine. Don't forget that for an article to reach GA it needs to be detailed and sourced correctly. WP:FILMCAST Is quite clear on the subject. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between a Casting section and a Cast List. This page needs to carve out the former, as said above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Casting sections are absolutely disgustingly organised. They are useful when a film is in pre production, but when a film like this is established and has a set cast, then it get's put into a cast section with casting information within it. MOS is quite clear that it is one or the other. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Phrasing, opening plot paragraph

Re: "Disabled scientist Aldrich Killian offers them a place in his company, Advanced Idea Mechanics...." Now, is he really offering the rich, famous, powerful tony Stark "a place in his company"? Wasn't it more along the lines of seeking investment or support? This makes it sounds as if he were offering to hire Stark. Also, did he have a company, or just the idea for a company? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2013

you missed the killing of eric savin and also pepper seeing Aldrich first time and her having mixed feelings and maya and pepper go to search for tony and maya betrays her and rhodey and tony meeting at the bar and tony having a panic attack an go into a little more action detail with killian fighting tony,extremis soldiers, and the suits Mathhewbenavidez (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You need to propose exactly what content you think should be added or changed. The request should be made in a "Please change "X" to "Y"" format indicating the exact text you think should be added or changed. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 00:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

clarify

"Marvel Entertainment's new corporate parent, clouded the timing and the distribution arrangement of a possible third film.[46]" development section. Who is the new corporateparent? Itis not apparent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.129.15 (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look right before where you copied this text from, it say The Walt Disney Company. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Wrong information in the article

After watching Iron Man 3, i found that it was filmed in Bern, Switzerland; Wilmington, North Carolina and Florida (as it was mentionedn whenever the part in thier respective loaction plays).

But in Wikipedia's article it was written that, it was also filmed in Beijing, China; Hyderabad, India and Bengaluru, India. In the film not a single part of those locations were there.

Also lastly (in the film) it was revealed that the original Mandarin was not Ben Kingsley it was Guy Pearce. But in Wikipedia it was written that it was non other than Ben Kingsley.

Again these chinese actress were not featured in the film Yao Chen and Fan Bingbing.  Himanis Das   talk  06:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know how much you know about movies, but there is a difference between "Filmed In" and "Set In". In other words, the films are set in those places, but do not have to be filmed there. I believer you are correct though in revealing that Guy's Character should be revealed as the Mandarin. MisterShiney ✉ 08:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment You should also known that there was another version of the film released in the China market, which has been noted and explained in the article, that most likely utilized the footage from the shoot in China and India, and appearances by Chen and Bingbing. In regards to Kingsley getting the Mandarin credit, he has (and was) officially billed as playing that part, thus he is credited as it. If a reliable source can be found officially crediting Pearce as Killian/The Mandarin (not just saying that he turn out to be him), then we can make that change. I think that topic has been discussed in multiple threads on this talk page already. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on the cast-list credits I saw onscreen, Kingsley is credited only as Trevor Slattery. Just sayin'.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Transcribed from my talk page:

Skyfall lodge in Skyfall is named as Scotland, but it was filmed in England. Just because it's subtitled as something doesn't mean it's not actually something else. Similarly, at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises, Bane boards a plane somewhere in Africa (if I remember correctly), when it was actually filmed in a field in Surrey. The plane takes off, and they're flying over Scotland, but it's still meant to be over Africa.

 drewmunn  talk  12:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Another note on filming locations

The SAS Institute PR team sent me a ping noting that the beginning of the Production/Film section covers the filming at each location in North Carolina, but doesn't mention the filming at SAS, which is used as the headquarters for Stark Industries. This local broadcast in front of the SAS campus is focused on a semi-confirmed "rumor" that parts of Iron Man 3 were being filmed at SAS. (also mentioned here) This brief article suggests the production team was scheduled to "potentially" go to SAS after Epic Games in the timeline. The "rumor" was recently confirmed by SAS here, where the company says SAS headquarters were used as the headquarters of Stark Industries.

Since I have a COI and am not aware of the norms for movie articles, figured I would pass it along. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Jarvis

There is an ongoing discussion at the Edwin Jarvis talk page regarding the way we refer to Tony Stark's computer system. Could I please ask for your views on the matter? Thanks.  drewmunn  talk  10:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Video game

So, a user keeps creating the page Iron Man 3 (video game) without any sources, beyond the one already present here. The game does not appear to be notable, as it was released on mobile platforms as a promotional item for the film, and only a few sources exist. The ones that do exist appear to indicate short-term interest, tied only into the game's relation to the film. The user has contended that pages for other mobile games exist, which is true, however these generally have established independent notability, which this game has not. Notability requires verifiable evidence that there exists significant coverage of the game. I'm hoping that we can discuss the game here instead of continuing to edit war over the page. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that other mobile games, such as Temple Run, Call of Duty Zombies, Call of Duty: Black Ops – Zombies, Angry Birds, Batman: Arkham City Lockdown, etc. have article pages, this one should as well. Also many of the other Marvel video games are mobile games as well and have article pages. Until a decision is made we are going to keep the page showing the descriptions and all, showing how well put together it is and how much more information can be added through sources and references.Brian82027 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Since its seems Brian82027 is insisting, I have nominated the page for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Iron Man 3 (video game).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please give the article another look. The game is clearly notable, it just seems no one put the time into writing it properly with sources and everything. I've rewritten virtually the entire thing, all with reliable sources. Its an entirely different article now. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, its already been speedy kept due to my cleanups. Sergecross73 msg me 22:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 June 2013

Simple request, in the Cast section, can we alter the cast member listing a little bit? Instead of Downey Jr., Paltrow, Cheadle, Pearce, Hall, Szostak, Badge Dale, Favreau, Kingsley, Simpkins as it is originally, can we make it Downey Jr., Paltrow, Cheadle, Pearce, Hall, Kingsley, Badge Dale, Szostak, Favreau, Simpkins (and possibly switch the 8th and 10th billed) so that the list can better reflect the cast members and their respective character's importance and involvement with the film? Sorry! I tend to be a bit OC about things. And anyway, I was late for this movie, so correct me if I'm wrong about how much I think someone's character was involved in the film. I'm not making a request to make the same alterations to the listing in the info box since it's the film's official billing (but would you mind placing a "with" and "and" before Favreau and Kingsley respectively?). Thanks for your time! Nickrp (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --ElHef (Meep?) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)