Talk:Iron Man 3/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Marvel's in the lead

I was just thinking about this and wanted some other opinions. Since Disney has started distributing the films, they have started to include the Marvel logo above the official film name and logo. They also seem to be calling the films Marvel's ... (ie Marvel's The Avengers, Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Marvel's The Avengers 2, Marvel's The Avengers 3).

So my question and wonderment is, should the lead start out as Marvel's Iron Man 3 (stylized onscreen as Iron Man Three)?

When looking at documents announcing the film, it is a little difficult to tell. For example, in this article announcing the special IMAX poster, the page title and heading says Marvel's Iron Man 3. If you look in the article, at the italics section, this is where it gets a bit tricky. It start's out as Marvel's "Iron Man 3" in the first sentence, then in the next paragraph it's just Iron Man 3. As a comparison, when it lists the upcoming films, it has Avengers 2 listed as "Marvel's The Avengers" sequel, with Marvel's within the quotes. Also of note, the other upcoming films do not have Marvel's next to their titles.

What are other's thoughts on this? (This article states in the beginning Marvel's "Thor: The Dark World" as another comparison). Initially I thought Marvel's should be included, but now seeing how they refer to The Avengers sequel with the Marvel's within the quotes, I would think maybe not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep the name as Iron Man 3. Marvel's presence can be seen with any further reading in the article. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 00:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2013

Please add SAS Institute Incorporated (in addition to Epic Games) as filming locations in Cary, NC in summer of 2012. My sources/verification: I am a SAS employee, witnessed the set at building C on our campus, etc. Also there is a 'thanks' to SAS in the film's credits. Please google 'Iron man 3 SAS CAmpus' for numerous articles about this. http://www.wral.com/explore-where-iron-man-3-was-created/12464932/

Jajohns8 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Only from the source. You being an SAS employee is not sufficient evidence to include, but I have used the source you provided. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision of opening sentence

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to identify the director of the film in the opening sentence? 220.244.44.207 (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2013

Please add " the website the vintage alternative to the list of sources." on the grounds that I am the webmaster of the site and some of the text was taken directly from one of my previous blog posts. Copying and pasting my text without quoting my site is illegal. Thank you. Imustbebored (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - Please point directly where info in this article was supposedly "taken" from your blog, and which blog post you think it came from. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request Dvd and Blu-ray release dates

I thing blu-ray and dvd will be released on 28 August. http://www.arovideo.co.nz/film.php?FilmID=19661 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.93.131.40 (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to second this. It was released in Australia on August 28. Iron Man 3 (3D Blu-ray/Blu-ray/Digital Copy) while we had a special edition available from JBhifi. Swiftnissity (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Plot bloat

It's easy to avoid: Block off the plot with your cursor, copy-paste it to a blank Word doc, and use "Tools > Word count" to see how many words it is. That tells you how many words max you can add. If you're at 700, take a word out before adding a new one. Right now, we're at 678. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wordcounttool.com is also a useful website. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep! Same idea! Good info to have! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin

Why isn't Ben Kingsley listed as "The Mandarin" in the cast list? He's not the actual Mandarin, but it's a part of his character. --KingJFS (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Because no one in the film is credited as "The Mandarin". It is mentioned in his description, but he can't be listed as that character, because 1) he is not credited as it and 2) he's not even that character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Shaun Toub as Ho Yinsen cameo in New Year's scene

I'm pretty sure that I saw Shaun Toub as Ho Yinsen in the opening flashback when I watched the film. Can anybody confirm so that they could implement it in the "cast" section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jal11497 (talk) 03:11 am, 25 April 2013, Thursday (5 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−4)

No idea how old this is (just found the edit, from April), but time stamping so we can archive this incase my adding of the sinebot stuff won't do it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article push

Hey, I've got a little bit of time on my hands over the next week or two and I'm going to try and spend some time cleaning up this article and getting it ready for a GA review. Any help from other editors would of course be appreciated. Cheers -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if there are any alternatives, but it appears Webcite cannot archive boxoffice.com articles. -Fandraltastic (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Try archive.is. They have been a useful archiving site for myself. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to give that a try. Neither WebCitation nor Archive.org worked. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

But holy cow! Archive.is works! GREAT tip, Favre! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I have to thank Darkwarriorblake for making me aware of it. I do know, however, that there was an RFC about the site, as it appeared the owner was using an unregistered bot to spam links and previously archived material. I quickly glanced at it, but based on the outcome, I think it is fine to use. It is also extremely helpful to make add the bookmarklet to quickly archive sites. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Good to know someone else wants to add a green shield. I've already done plenty of work, adding tidbits from the commentary track and such, and will try to improve some more. igordebraga ≠ 23:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I just sort of dropped this, been really busy with some real life stuff. I don't think the article is that far off from a GAN. I'll try to finish cleaning it up over the next few days. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's on my to do list as well, but something else always seems to get added to it or draws me away. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: I see you've nominated this, and added some additional material. If you still have the time to work on this, can you please try to unifiy the references you added to how the majority are on the page? (ie naming, archiving, and moving to the bottom of the page). That will help the quality of the page whenever it gets reviewed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've got a little time, I can work on the references. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iron Man 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Corvoe (talk · contribs) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:

• Plot could use a little copy-editing ("When Stark Industries security chief Happy Hogan is badly injured in one such attack..." doesn't sound very encyclopedic). In "Development", the part "and in March it was announced that he would have as a co-writer Drew Pearce" definitely needs to be rewritten. Throughout the article, people are referred to by their full name after having it already said in that section (particularly in "Writing", "Filming", In "Writing", "Both the opening and the ending of the film were reworked in various ways." should be a new paragraph. In filming, "The Port of Wilmington was used for oil tanker in the climactic battle" doesn't make any sense, and I have no idea what that sentence means. In "Post-production", "through the film's wrap" should be "through the end of filming". "Iron Man is 6″5′." is also wrong, as that means 6 inches 5 feet. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Done: Plot may need some more copy editing, but I believe I fixed everything else. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

• I take issue with "It is the sequel to 2008's Iron Man and 2010's Iron Man 2, and the seventh installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, being the first major release in the franchise since the crossover film The Avengers." I would remove the bit about the Avengers. It makes it feel cluttered. Further, I think the information from this sentence, "Shane Black directed a screenplay he co-wrote with Drew Pearce, which uses concepts from the "Extremis" story arc by Warren Ellis", should be mentioned earlier, as it's more important than the fact that it features "the Marvel Comics character Iron Man" and was "produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures." This information is too much for the lead, and the fact that it features Iron Man can be easily deduced. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Partially done: Removed the Avengers bit, but let the rest as is, as that is the layout used on all other MCU films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a valid reason. I hadn't checked other MCU films. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

• The sources themselves are fine, but some notable information from them is missing. The source used for DMG in the infobox states that the film is a Chinese co-production, but the lead calls it "American" and the United States are the only production company listed. This should be fixed. The source after DMG Entertainment should be removed from the infobox and used in prose, and the film's Le Grand Rex premiere date can be completely removed in order to minimize the infobox citations. Lastly, the sources for the "Accolades" section don't need their own column: just put the source after the name of the award show. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

All infobox requests completed, as well as fixing the Chinese issue. I did not touch the "Accolades" as I believe this as been an issue on the page, with favor going towards a separate ref column. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say it's worth opening a discussion about that. It's not visually appealing and it's easy to miss the source. Most accolade pages feature the format I was discussing, so I don't see why this one shouldn't do the same. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

• Brief edit war appears to have ended, no other notable edit wars. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

• The cast section could use photos of the primary cast (Downey, Paltrow, Kingsley, Pearce and Cheadle). The photo captions throughout shouldn't have periods at the end. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why shouldn't the captions have periods? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for that one, I misinterpreted MOS:CAPTION. Only the "Previsualtion" caption shouldn't have one, since it isn't a full sentence. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pass/Fail:

• Very well done article! Congratulations to all who worked on it, good job! A little more work (particularly on grammar) and I'm sure this will be ready for an FA nomination. Corvoe (speak to me) 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK

Hi, congratulations on the recent GA. I have nominated this for Did you know, which will hopefully result in the article appearing on the main page. The link is Template:Did you know nominations/Iron Man 3. However, I couldn't find which reference backed up the worldwide gross of $1,215,439,994, would it be possible to add it please? Thanks, Matty.007 17:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's sourced in the infobox. However, I think the hook needs work. It's not really the "catchiest". In addition, you should credit Darkwarriorblake and Tenebrae. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning big money usually works, have you got any alts? Thanks, Matty.007 21:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd try an do something regarding the Mandarin/Trevor Slattery plot point. Possibly DYK "that in Iron Man 3, Ben Kingsley portrayed Trevor Slattery, a failed actor, after being marketed as Iron Man's rival, the Mandarin?" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really follow that hook. What does it mean marketed? I don't think this will catch any non-Iron Man fans, I had to have a look at what the Mandarin was. Thanks, Matty.007 19:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

All marketing material portrayed Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin, only for the film to reveal that he was just a front to the organization run by Aldrich Killian, who had assumed the name of "the Mandarin". And I don't think simply stating the amount of money the movie made will catch anyone. It is also an extremely short hook in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Favre1fan the current hook isn't very catchy after a quick glance at the article how about this:
...that director Shane Black compared Tony Stark in Iron Man 3 to James Bond?
...that director Shane Black changed the characterization of the Mandarin in Iron Man 3 to avoid the Fu Manchu stereotype?
...that Iron Man 3 was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects at the 86th Academy Awards?
...that Iron Man 3 is the second highest grossing superhero film of all time?
--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the best of those is the last one. Thanks, Matty.007 21:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the problem with revealing the Mandarin plot twist in a "did you know" thing, is that anyone who has seen Iron Man 3 did already know that. And anyone who hasn't, gets the twist spoiled. It's also, not a particularly interesting random fact, as many films have twists. But I agree, the second highest-grossing superhero film one is good. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I can live with the last one. It was just the fact that a monetary amount is not really noteworthy in my opinion, unless you are Avatar. I'm also partial to the second one Triiiple suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess the other thing with the second one, is that it's not entirely true, as there has been a number of different characterisations of the Mandarin by Marvel over the years. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 People's Choice Awards still not added to Accolades?

Since the page is still under semi-lockdown, can someone registered take care of this? Kind of surprised that it's still not listed after all this time.

Iron Man 3 was nominated for Favorite Movie, Favorite Movie Actor (Robert Downey Jr.), Favorite Movie Actress (Gwyneth Paltrow), Favorite Movie Duo (Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow), Favorite Action Movie, and Favorite Action Movie Star (Robert Downey Jr.). It won the awards for Favorite Movie, Favorite Action Movie, and Favorite Action Movie Star (Robert Downey Jr.).

Award ceremony telecast was on January 8, 2014, and official website with list of winners is here: http://www.peopleschoice.com/pca/awards/nominees/

98.154.156.168 (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Sorry for the delay. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

President Matthew Ellis.

With the release of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the character's first name has been revealed. There is some debate as to what should be shown here. I feel that it requires a discussion. For example, Nick Fury wasn't credited in the end of Iron Man and yet, he is in the cast list. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sadler was specifically credited as "President Ellis" here. An Easter Egg elsewhere doesn't retroactively change the content of this film. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is Nick Fury listed on the Iron Man page, then? He isn't listed in the credits, there. Eric Savin is specifically referred to as "Savin" in the credits and yet, we have his first name here. Why not Ellis'? I'm okay with what you decide, I just figured that it was worth a conversation. Thank you for taking the time to discuss it, though. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick Fury is listed on the Iron Man page because that's an Easter Egg within that film, not a different film, and the filmmakers (as well as other reliable sources) identify him as Nick Fury, as you can see via the references on that page. You're right about Savin, I have corrected that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Then, overall, I am glad to have at least helped in that correction. Apologies for not realizing not to add the first name. Thanks for teaching me, for future reference. :) Have a nice day. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

Ccccmccc (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ccccmccc: Please provide what you would like to change/add/remove, what your requested edit is, and WP:reliable sources. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Is there a reason why many references are defined within the body of the article, not within the reference section like most other MCU articles? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone did it that way, and didn't take the time to go through and change them. Iron Man and THI are also like this, but that is just due to their age. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ellen

I watched the video, and I'm pretty sure Downey confirmed that he was in negotiations for a fourth Iron Man, not to mention he believed that more movies would be announced in the near future by Marvel. I think this should be added to the article(s). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that at all. Here is the video. Opening statement, (my paraphrasing) "there are discussions in the pipeline for projects, and negotiations blah blah blah." Ellen says "so yes?". Now here's the part to watch: First he says "yes" quickly, most likely in response to the question being in regards to the other projects, then quickly realizes she meant for IM4, and says "Okay yes." To me, that "Okay yes" was stated in a fact just to please Ellen's inquiry, and not "Hey America, I'm announcing Iron Man 4 right now" kind of "yes". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is that she flat out asked him if there will be an Iron Man 4, he tried to avoid the question with "negotiations, Marvel movies, yada yada" etc. and she realised this and said "so yes?" to which he replies "Okay yes", admitting that there will be an Iron Man 4 and that he was just trying to evade her. Therefore, though it isn't a big announcement or anything, and definitely wasn't planned, he still confirmed that the movie is happening. If he is to later come out and say that this was only to avoid further questioning or something, then it could probably be removed, but that is currently not the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, he has now confirmed that this wasn't the truth, and has clarified that he meant more Marvel movies, not more Iron Man movies, so it doesn't need to go on the page. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about say, he's been going telling everybody, including Howard Stern and David Letterman, during the press tour for The Judge that there are no plans for Iron Man 4. So why cherry pick his Ellen comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Mandarin Twist

Hello, I was wondering if we could create a section addressing the controversy over the Mandarin twist in this film. Reliable sources including Forbes ([1]) and IGN ([2]) have talked about it, so it's not as though it's only limited to a minority of comic book fans. Thoughts?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I support the decision, as long as it's from the media/critics' point of view. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ben Kingsley being listed higher on the cast section.

I mean the section on which it talks about the cast members and who they play. On 2013 in film a long time ago, it had the following order which I think describes the actual order better. Robert Downey Jr. Ben Kingsley Don Cheadle Dwyneth Paltrow Guy Pearce James Badge Dale Ashley Hamilton Rebecca Hall Jon Favreau Paul Bettany Stephanie Szostak William Sadler

For the most part (a couple exceptions) this list makes way more sense. I honestly think Ben Kingsley, despite that twist, was still more important than most of the characters. I mean really, does the female ALWAYS have to be listed second — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.166.144 (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately, while I partially agree with the proposal, we have to use the poster's casting order. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Simpkins in billing

I ask for permission to be added more roles in section - Cast-. — Preceding NnelimM (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC) comment added by NnelimM (talk • contribs) 10:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

- one of them - Harley Keener - Ty Simpkins (Nominated – Saturn Award for Best Performance by a Younger Actor)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NnelimM (talk • contribs) 11:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 

Per WP:FILMCAST, only actors listed in the billing block of the film's poster are in the infobox. Simpkins is not in that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Number of months after Battle of New York

User:Hijiri88 made a very good point in a citation request that I'm now placing here for posterity and discussion:

This film is explicitly set in late December, but nothing in either this film or "The Avengers" implies that film takes place specifically in June. If "six months" is taken literally, that is not elaborated in the films themselves and requires a secondary source. Or does "six months" just mean "approximately half a year" and we are assuming "The Avengers" took place at roughly the same time of year as its US release? If that's the case, it's difficult to interpret as such; "several months" would be better.

Since the exact, precise, specific number of months is WP:INDISCRIMINATE minutiae irrelevant to non-comics fans, and since "several" is vague, I've gone with the above editor's overall reasoning and simply removed the word "six." --18:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Interestingly enough, I didn't get your ping. I think it might have something to do with your having dated your post rather than signing? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I must have only hit three tildes rather than four. Anyway, I'm hip to your very good point. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Iron Man 3 Is Not Set in 2013

Hello everyone. I am BEJT, a top user on the MCU Wiki and the main user behind the whole timeline on the wiki. I have devoted time every day for the past several years to working on the MCU timeline, combing through all 20 films, all almost-300 TV episodes, every web series, every canon comic, and every one-shot, as well as compiling all evidence from outside the content and reasoning everything together to find the best solutions. If you want proof of my insight, contributions, and qualifications on the MCU timeline, see pieces I have written such as this, or my list of contributions here.

Iron Man 3 is not set in 2013. When the page was edited to say this months ago, I waited for someone to correct it, but no one ever did. Eventually, I decided I had to create a Wikipedia account and edit the page to correct it, providing all the evidence necessary. I assumed everyone would see that and understand, but apparently not.

The main events of Iron Man 3 are set in December 2012. Well, technically it's set in January 2013, with Tony recounting the events from last month to Bruce Banner. But where the article gives the date, for where the main events of the film takes place - yeah, it's 2012.

The misconception that it takes place in 2013 comes from the "December 23, 2013" newspaper that appears in the film. However, the argument that because of this, 2013 is the year that the film itself says it takes place in, does not work. Because the year the film itself says it takes place in is 2012. Iron Man 3 is set at Christmas time, with the final battle the night of Christmas Eve-Day. December 31, 1999, as shown in the Bern flashbacks, is referred to as being 13 years ago, when Killian states, "You know, I invited Tony to join A.I.M. 13 years ago," and Tony says to Maya, "And here you are 13 years later." 13 years after New Year 1999-2000 gives New Year 2012-2013, and with this being Christmas, Christmas 2012 is therefore only a few days out from 13 exact years, as opposed to Christmas 2013 being just a few days shy of 14 years. Tony also says to Maya earlier in the film, "Please don't tell me there's a 12-year-old kid waiting in the car that I've never met." They slept together on December 31, 1999, which, if she had become pregnant, would have meant she gave birth around September 2000, making the child 12 years old from September 2012-September 2013 - and with it being December, again, it must be December 2012. So the "film itself" tells us it is 2012, and so even just within the context of the film alone and not the wider MCU, 2013 is a mistaken date.

But now for the list of all the evidence:

• Killian: "You know, I invited Tony to join A.I.M. 13 years ago." 13 years since December 1999 gives December 2012.
• Tony: "And here you are 13 years later." 13 years since December 1999 gives December 2012.
• Tony: "Please don't tell me there's a 12-year-old kid waiting in the car that I've never met." December 1999 + 9 months = born roughly September 2000, the December where the child would be 12 is December 2012.
• Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Season 1, Episode 1 - Pilot is firmly set in September 2013, as is fully explained here. I don't wish to start fully explaining why it is set in September 2013 on here, because I will start going off on massive tangents, but you can see the reasons it is concretely set then at that link. It follows up on the release of Extremis in Iron Man 3, showing that Iron Man 3 is set before September 2013 - again, December 2012.
• Marvel's The Avengers is firmly set in May 2012, for all the reasons explained in this article I have written. There are dozens of reasons that I've listed, a mountain of evidence. Again, I do not wish to go off on a tangent.
  • Iron Man 3 is set "some months" after Marvel's The Avengers.
  • Iron Man 3 is set approximately "6 months" - not said by Feige, but discussed with him - after Marvel's The Avengers.
  • Iron Man 3: Junior Novel mentions that it has been "months" since Marvel's The Avengers. In the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon U.S., there used to be a feature where you could search "months" in the book and it would find the page and quote, thus allowing me to prove this, but sadly, the pages beyond the first couple have now been copyrighted and don't show. All I can show to prove this in the meantime is this, and the fact that if you search "months" on the Look Inside feature, it shows that it is mentioned twice in the book, just does not show you the actual quotes.
• Marvel have actually provided confirmation. This official Marvel book was released recently, containing this page. "The most recent film in the Iron Man trilogy arrived in 2013. Mainly set in 2012, the movie introduced..." And to anyone who doubts this is official enough, Marvel Studios approved it.
• The newspapers in the MCU are so commonly wrong. For example, Marvel's Agent Carter: Season 1, Episode 1 - Now Is Not the End has a newspaper saying it is late April 1946, then another one saying it is June 1946, and that Colleen O'Brien was born on May 23, 1922 and died aged 24. However, in Episode 5 - The Iron Ceiling, it is said that "April 27th" is "less than 2 days from now" and then Episode 8 - Valediction is said to be "May 8th", the first anniversary of V-E Day. This clearly puts the premiere at the very latest in mid-April 1946 (if you look at the minimum number of days that pass), overruling the props. The paper mentioning Colleen's death also shows dates from 2009 and 1996, despite it being set in 1946. This does not mean though that it has to be set in at least 2009. They're mistakes, and the MCU timeline is more full of them than you could possibly imagine.

After the edit back-and-forths, I realised very quickly that getting the page to say 2012, despite all of the above evidence, is going to be difficult. So I am not necessarily advocating for it to say "2012", but rather "present day". While I think explicit confirmation from Marvel is enough to prove it is set in 2012, there is clearly some dispute nonetheless, and that is fine - there is evidence for 2013, even if it's vastly overruled. But what is indisputable is that it's set in "present day", as the film explicitly shows on-screen. And I don't understand what the problem is with saying "present day". The Wikipedia articles for Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, Thor: The Dark World, Ant-Man, Captain America: Civil War, and Black Panther all say this - especially with Ant-Man, Captain America: Civil War, and Black Panther all also saying "present day" on-screen. Why, with this one, where again that is all that it says on-screen, is there an insistence on saying "2013"?

Thank you.BEJT1 (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This needs changing, it's long overdue. Even if you purely want to look at "what the film says", it's "present day". The film specifically says present day, and as I've listed, implicitly tells us it is 2012 three times, with one mistaken 2013 prop showing.BEJT1 (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Are we using the correct poster here?

I don't think there was ever any discussion, but I was just curious why the version we have now has been kept over this version. The one I have linked features the film's release date (which the current one does not), and I've seen the one I've linked used more so when referencing the film, and it was on part of the film's home media covers. I didn't want to outright change it before at least seeing if anyone had other thoughts on it, because I think arguments can be made for both being the "theatrical release" poster of the film. I'm also going to see if I can get more answers on both of these posters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

And FYI, the BBFC uses the version I've linked to that is not on the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is like that, and I agree that the version you have linked here seems more appropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That's the imax poster.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

And there we go. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Onscreen title

Onscreen title is Iron Man Three. IMDb states this, but it was reverted when I tried to post it that way here, seemingly without aq good reason. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no difference between "Iron Man 3" and "Iron Man Three" worthy of being prominently highlighted. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Section about Air Force one

Isn't the fight on the plane a simulator, so it wouldn't be considered a real part of the story? Ft763 (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"Iron man 3" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Iron man 3. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 23#Iron man 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-addition of non-RS

This self-published non-RS,[3] as explained in the edit summary of its revert which pointed to the guideline, was re-added. Can the editor explain why? Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:14B6:711A:E2C2:19A9 (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a basic description, with the quote covered by Yahoo! here and IGN here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's proper to use RS refs. It is not proper to use non-RS refs. (Otherwise, of course, we have a problem with the spamming / self promotion of non-RS refs, to drive readers for improper purposes to non-RS blog sites). The quote should remain with the proper RS refs. But the non-RS ref should not. 2603:7000:2143:8500:14B6:711A:E2C2:19A9 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

But do you consider Yahoo! and IGN appropriate as substitutes or not? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thanks. And to be clear, all that was ever deleted by me was the non-RS ref. Not any text, not any quote. 2603:7000:2143:8500:14B6:711A:E2C2:19A9 (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that IGN and Yahoo! are both pointing to the interview at Showbiz 411, the same source we are using in article, which is why we are using it in the article, as it is the originating source of information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There are also exceptions to the rule when examining unreliable or self published sourced, as in this case, the website is interviewing the actor in question. If this was not a direct quote from the actor, and the site was making up this statement, then, yes, the source shouldn't be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's fine to use IGN and Yahoo as refs, as they are RSs. Showbiz 411 itself cannot be a ref however, as it is not an RS. Self published sources themselves can never be used as independent sources about living people, other than about the writer of the self published source. 2603:7000:2143:8500:94D2:447:CF44:F53 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• See here.[4] "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people.... " That's as clear as can be. 2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a direct interview with the subject, not being written about the subject, which means this is not correct. If Showbuzz411 was writing about Dale then Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. would apply. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    • It's about what a living person said. Our guideline specifically prohibits using a self-published source for that. For the rationale, see what that guideline also says - "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources". Nobody picked it up. Perhaps because of the poor reputation of the author.2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I replaced it with this source by MTV, citing the Showbiz interview. —El Millo (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Awesome. Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:DDB2:A4E1:CCC1:91F3 (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Poster

Isn't this the more official poster for the movie? https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/File:Iron_Man_3_IMAX_poster.jpg

If we have to use Homecoming's disaster of a poster, I don't see why this one should be any different.

That is its IMAX release, specifically for that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion of Paramount and DMG.

Besides Paramount Pictures having studio credit, the studio was in association with this movie alongside DMG Entertainment.

XSMan2016 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

References