Talk:Iron Man 2

Black Widow

Not sure if this changes anything however the Blu-Ray extras of Iron Man 2 states that Natasha Romanoff uses the alias Black Widow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Shes also refered to as Black Widow on the back cover and throughout many of special features.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again!  :)  We've gone through some variation of this with just about every Marvel movie (Kid Omega in X-Men: The Last Stand made for a particularly long issue) and others, including the titles of the films Die Hard 2 and Superman. I can tell you from long experience the consensus has always been that the only canon is what's on the movie screen itself, and that marketing people, publicists, etc. aren't the filmmakers. Trust me on this, or check out the archived discussions. I swear it'll save us all a lot of time! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't involed in those articles, but that seems perfectly acceptable. Also its good to get this out the way here as it will no doublty be brought up.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Stan Lee, Himself or Larry King?

IMDB has him listed as "Himself", which would make the part where Hogan and Stark 'mistake' him for King actually be funny. As opposed to him playing Larry King, off set with no distinguishing trademark suspenders, and simply being recognized. I vote "Played himself and was mistaken for King". Can someone check the DVD credits? Padillah (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. A couple of articles and web searches seem to indicate that he was asked to play Larry King, though IMDB says "Himself." I'll have to rewatch the scene. --Magmagirl (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The scene tells us nothing. It could be interpreted either way. It's simply Happy leading Tony down some stairs and Lee is standing there. Happy introduces him as Larry King and they blow right past. It could be Happy introducing him as the actual Larry King and Tony doesn't care, or it could be Happy is in a hurry and all old men look alike... It's not really clear. The only issue I have is that Lee has never presented himself as anyone of any significance in any other Marvel film. Why do it in this one? I own the DVD but I keep forgetting to check the credits. When in doubt, go to the actual film credits. Padillah (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the film credits on the BluRay and they list Stan Lee as "Himself" so it is a case of him being mistaken for Larry King, not playing Larry King. We've got our answer. Padillah (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to reference the films credits? I removed the ref that was there but I'm not sure how to reference the film credits. Or do we just ref the film?

BTW, the ref that was there went to a pre-release article that speculated, based on content of the scene, what Stan's role would be. Now that we have credits we can refer to we should use those. Padillah (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies: when I edited to post the following comment, I did not see any other comments here after my previous one (don't know why), and did not intend to delete anyone else's comments. So...Update: Jim Salicrup advised me that Stan Lee played himself in both "Iron Man" films. In the first, he was mistaken for Hugh Hefner, and in the second, he was mistaken for Larry King. But he played himself. --Magmagirl (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

All good; we've had some incidents in the past with deletions, so I might have jumped the gun. RE Jim: That's good to know, but of course, we have to use only the film credits as reference since we can't use claimed personal knowledge for anything. I know Jim well myself, but (equally of course) there's no way — and no reason — to prove it. In fact, I could be lying. Which (finally of course) is the point. (Though I'm sure both I and Magmagirl are telling the truth.) --Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am also sure we're both telling the truth. What I didn't get from Jim is whether his knowledge came from watching the films carefully, or conversation with Stan Lee. How cool that we both know Jim! I met him as a mutual friend of Fred Hembeck.  :-D --Magmagirl (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Vibranium

How come the text that links to vibranium is taken out? It's not directly called that in the movie, but the presence of Captain America's shield plus the movie novelization makes it clear that it's vibranium.Kelzorro (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Kelzorro and the ref quote

Kelzorro, just because the person disagreeing with you is an admin doesn't mean they are using their admin powers to force you to do anything. If you had read WP:BRD you would know the proper response for a revert of a bold edit is to take it to the talk page and discuss the edit... NOT throw fits and call people names. Now, I happen to agree with JGreb that the quote is not necessary in the ref. It's enough that the information is in the article and we can find the quote should that information come into question. Now if you have something constructive to add please feel free to engage in productive discussion. If you are going to call me names and tell me how I'm just kowtowing to an admin - save it. Padillah (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not the first instance. Look up above. Director says himself that the "new element" is vibranium. But our Admin friend here wants to see how he can push his powers around and revert the edits. Call it what you want, but it is what it is. I mean Captain America's shield was in the damn movie. That's so obvious that even a blind mole can see it.Kelzorro (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No Kelzorro, it's an interest in keeping with standing consensus not to put material - names in most cases - not used in the film itself in the plot and cast sections. There is also a concern about adding "trivia" to other sections. Adding nomenclatrue from the comics to an artilcle on the film can be trivial, espciially when not dealing with characters.

As for the "blind mole" comment: Fan based assumptions about content is original researc. And that is exactly wht you adding your evaluation is.

- J Greb (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

And even aside from these content issues, I think it's important to note, Kelzorro, that there's no need for uncivil talk and insulting comments. Unlike Congresspeople and talk-show hosts, we don't have to play to an audience, and we can discuss things politely like civilized people. Throwing accusations around — really, why do that? It never helps advance one's position. It just never helps. So why do it? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Being civil, yeah. But I don't like it that J Greb gets to be the only one to add info to the article and remove info that he doesn't seem fit of being "standard." Like his recent edit removing the info about Thor's hammer from the article. He's doing nothing but removing stuff for no reason. Sometimes it's not about "consensus" but about what has been stated. It is the hammer of Thor and it ties into the Marvel movie universe.Kelzorro (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for listening and taking my point with seriousness. Anyone who's been around Wikipedia long enough really learns to appreciate a calm discourse. Honestly, it really isn't just J Greb or another editor simply doing their own personal preferences arbitrarily — a lot of these issues have been discussed at length; they really have.

But that doesn't mean there's not room to polish the detail. Now I think you're right, given that we have post-credits scenes in the plots of Iron Man (film) and X-Men: The Last Stand, that it's reasonable to make a case for doing the same here. I'll go along with you on that — the scene happened, it's part of the movie's plot, we should include it. And until WikiProject Comics can decide on exactly where — and I've asked WikiProject Film for advice — I'd say it doesn't hurt to leave it where it is, live and readable, until we do. I'm sure other editors can meet you halfway on this.

The issue of Thor's hammer, though, has been exhaustively discussed, and it comes down to one thing: You and I may "know" it's Thor hammer, but the movie itself doesn't say it. So if you or I say it, we're using our own personal knowledge as fans. And personal knowledge, without citation, isn't allowed. That's considered original research. And it protects us — I don't know anything but rattlesnake venom, and so I wouldn't be comfortable reading a claim in the rattlesnake venom article that wasn't cited. (And this is all aside from the fact that maybe it's a fake hammer, a clone's hammer, some other god's hammer, whatever. You know comics.) The Thor movie will be out soon, and all questions will be answered.

That's the thing about an encyclopedia — we want to be both absolutely sure ourselves, and sure that readers who don't know anything about the subject will feel equally sure. I can see, very clearly, that you're committed to accuracy, so I know you can appreciate what I'm saying.--Tenebrae (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to treat the scene as part of the plot of this movie instead of a tacked on teaser for something else, then let's treat it as plot. Comments that should not be in the plot section are those about:

• Naming what is found;
• The "grand tradition"; and
• Where/when the scene was filmed in relation to the rest of the film.

In all honesty, those can be relocated to Iron Man 2#Filming. And expanded on slightly to indicate that the scene is a bridge to Thor.

- J Greb (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head: That's what seemed off — the commentary, cited though it was, does not belong in the plot section. I don't know why I was looking right at it and didn't see that. That's exactly the problem, and that's exactly how this was different from the other two examples. J, as always, you cut through the bullshit to clarity!

I'll make that change and see what comments we get. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Someone beat me to it! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. Coulson, in the film, was pulled from watching Tony to go and check out that spot. So technically, it does affect the plot of the movie in some way. So it should be left alone. You guys need to quit changing the article so much and go with what's established, not because you think it's not "right."Kelzorro (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Taken to it's illogical extreme, casting Robert Downey affected the plot. As did the replacement of Terrence Howard. As did the use of CGI... The list could go on and on. This also assumes that, without this scene (and the reasoning behind it) Coulson would not have been pulled off duty for any one of a number o reasons the writers contrived to get him the heck out of the way. The scene is after the credits and is presented as a throw-away scene. If you did not see this scene you would never know. That is what eliminates it from affecting the plot. Padillah (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Locked?

Why is this protected? There is no mention of the reason.