Talk:Iron Man (2008 film)

Resemblance?

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

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

Reviews

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

Citations to use

• Robert Downey Jr.: Back from the Brink -- second page, second and third paragraphs
• Iron Man not average super hero movie -- political views
• INT: Jon Favreau -- rating information
• Iron Man's Favorite Cellphone -- more marketing detail
• A hometown hero -- general tidbits
• Jeff Bridges goes bald for role in 'Iron Man'
• Talking to the 'Iron' giants
• Jon Favreau rose from obscurity to direct ‘Iron Man’
• Will Iron Man be the summer's strongman? -- pre-release prediction

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

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

Mandarin is an Indonesian terrorist?

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

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

Iron Monger

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

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

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

Cool, I guess it works fine in the effects section that we know the filmmakers called his armor Iron Monger. Alientraveller (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And you bring up a good point -- it can't hurt to include a footnote confirming that was the unofficial name the SFX artists used. I've got the hard-copy notes in front of me, so I'll cite page #; I assume, but will check, that the online version matches. Good catch. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've linked to the online notes. The Mahan quote is on pp. 39-40 of the hard copy (which is from Paramount), but since the online notes' footnote is multiple-lettered, I couldn't find a way to break out Mahan without going back and for consistency giving page numbers for all the production-note cites. Online's just fine with me! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

They identify him as Stane. In the comics, Stane was the Monger. avoid Synth. ThuranX (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps I misread it then; can someone else corroborate this? (FWIW, both imdb and Marvel Studios list him as such. [1]) Mechasaprophyte (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan?

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

Paltrow and her husband's Iron Man comics.

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

Pepper's first name is "Deborah" in the film

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

Pretty sure he just says 'Pepper'. Planewalker Dave (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe me and this guy: [3] should form a support group for people who see and hear imaginary things in movies. - Richfife (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I heard 'Deborah' too, I have no idea why though. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Another vote for Deborah: [4] - Richfife (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Pepper. Daniels sighs as he speaks, leaving a bit of ambiguity, but Parsimony says it's more likely that they use the character's name, and the actor's style makes it mildly unclear to a small minority, than that they have such a trivial fact thrown in in such an odd manner. ThuranX (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

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

Individual editor opinion is split on that, but current Wikipedia-wide policy is not to use spoiler warnings. Steve ^{T • C} 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You can add a spoiler warning to the article, but the editor Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival will remove it. --Pixelface (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fury cameo in plot section

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

Agreed. I think i've edited that in the plot a couple times, but I'd just as soon see it out. However, with the number of new IP editors trying out wikipedia on this article on the opening weekend, it may be better to let it sit a week or two more, then remove it. ThuranX (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Pacemaker?

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

Name: AlbertOvadia Date: 050508

Who took down Canada?

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

"Naturalistic" vs. "Realistic"

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

With the wikilink, as you've done I see no particular problem, although the statement is only mildly supported in the filming section. I think your choice of vocabulary ,supported by link, is more precise, but I also think that it might need a bit of supporting throughout the article, because of the general unfamiliarity with the meaning. ThuranX (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess it can't hurt, and you gots it! As always, TX, it's good working with you! -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Uniform Positive Critical Reception

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

I can't see anything wrong with stating that the NY said it had a depressed atmosphere, just cite it, and incorporate it in a way which doesn't reflect your personal distaste. ThuranX (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal feelings aside, 'near-universal acclaim' seems a little fawning - 78-80% from metacritic and movietab is good, not great. And having 91% positive reviews is not the same thing as giving the film 91/100, it just means that 90% thought the film was above average. If no one objects, I've tempered the intro accordingly. Silent Badger 01 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it has near universal exclaim, there is no harm in adding a summary of an extremely negative review from a notable film critic. It adds interest to the article to see what the harshest words spoken about it were, whether the majority of other reviewers disagreed with those words or not. Besides, having only positive statements is unbalanced. JayKeaton (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler warning?

Given that this is a brand-new movie, shouldn't there be a spoiler warning before the section that pretty much spells out the ENTIRE plot of the film???