Jump to content

Talk:Iron Man 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 45.51.166.54 (talk) at 22:33, 23 May 2020 (→‎Runtime). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleIron Man 2 has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 29, 2012Good article nomineeListed
April 5, 2015Good topic candidatePromoted
November 18, 2019Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

Correct Character Names

This has been edited several times, but the character listings on this movie are not complete. Black Widow should be listed as such, seeing as Scarlet Johannson was indeed casted as Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow for the movie, in multiple press conferences. [1][2][3]. Her undercover name, Natalie Rushman should alternatively be listed in the description as opposed to the character name. It is revealed within the movie that the name she used to begin with what a guise in order to spy on Tony Stark. Along with this issue, shouldn't James "Rhodey" Rhodes' character also list the 'War Machine' mantle as well? The War Machine armor is referenced within the film, and was marketed as such; as well as the declared so by the director of the film on multiple occasions - specifically at Comic-Con. [4] Other issues include the lack of Mickey Rourke's character alias being absent from the listing, even though the director, and actor both referenced him as 'Whiplash' leading up to the film's release. These are the inconsistencies on Wikipedia that create confusion. I say they aught to be fixed. - Burningblue52 (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not pertaining exclusively to this but to any page in general, you should keep in mind that we only list names that the characters are called in the specific film that the article is about. In the past, you have tried to add names to characters in film articles that they are only called in the comics or in other films. There is a clear difference between the comic version of a character and the film version. Just because a character is called something in the comics does NOT mean that they are called that in the films.
For example, Mendel Stromm might be a supervillain called the Robot Master in the comics, but he is never called that in Spider-Man (2002 film), so we are not about to call him that. Another example is that Wolverine might be called James Howlett in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but he is never called that in X-Men: The Last Stand, therefore we will not call him that in that article. DarkKnight2149 18:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are valid, but when Rhodey is called 'War Machine' in the movie, by Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man ("You wanna be the War Machine?....") that completely contradicts what you are getting at. War Machine is the name of the armor. The marketing for the movie itself also referenced the character as such, as well as the director of the film. In regards to Scarlet Johannson's character her undercover name really wasn't used very much in the film at all, and yet it is listed as her name. Taking that into account, the director as well as press-releases confirming her casting as 'Black Widow' this should be added as well. In various interviews with the press she talks about why she signed on to play 'Black Widow'. It even has a quote of her saying so right within the paragraph of character description. This isn't like the previous X-Men edits I did that you are referencing. I have solid sources referenced for all of this listed below.

Rourke also calls his own character 'Whiplash' in interviews... By keeping these edits un-adjusted, it makes Wikipedia inconsistent, and actually confusing to the general populous who may come to the page to learn more about the movie. Your second example of Mendel Stromm in Spider-Man is irrelevant because he never becomes such in the films. Scarlet Johannson plays Black Widow in Iron Man 2. Cheadle plays War Machine. Rourke plays Whiplash. When there are solid references, I don't see the debate. Burningblue52 14:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that Stromm never became Robot Master in those films, but you'll be surprised how many editors will attempt to make that sort of edit anyway. As for this, if the characters are called that in the film, interviews and sometimes the promotional materials, then I don't see why it can't be included. You'll have to ask the people that keep removing it. Consensus tends to vary from article to article.
I will say this though: casually making a reference to a character's identity ("so you want to be a war machine?") isn't the same thing as a character assuming the said identity. This same principle applies to The Dark Knight related articles, where I keep having to remove instances where editors call Harvey Dent "Two-Face" simply because the film casually mentions that some people call him that as an insult. DarkKnight2149 18:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these characters are not called "War Machine" or "Whiplash" in the film. Having the actors/director call the characters that in interviews is a bit irrelevant, only confirming that they are indeed the comic characters War Machine and Whiplash (comics)#Anton Vanko. Nothing is inconsistent with this formatting, as we are labeling as they are called in the film. Someone watching the film, and seeing the name 'Whiplash' might become confused (however unlikely), because that is never said in the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I've seen the film but I also don't recall them being named in the film. I think we both agree that the casual "So you want to be a war machine?" doesn't count. If memory serves me, they were named in the novelisation, but novelisations have a habit of contradicting the films that they are based on. DarkKnight2149 21:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
Once again, I edited this to be correct because not only has the directors and actors stated their name as such -- specifically on the Iron Man 2 back cover, Rourke's character is named Whiplash! Look at your own copy of the film, and you'll see it. Not only did the director and actors confirm the roles that they were cast in; but a lot of marketing went into the films in order to establish that the characters were War Machine, Black Widow, Whiplash, and Iron Monger (in Iron Man). To continuously delete my edits, with valid numerous references is deconstructive and unnecessary. Burningblue52 (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well those actors aren't credited as those characters, beyond the fact that they aren't called that in the film (as we keep telling you). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Burningblue52 you completely missed a certain word that changes everything. In the movie it clearly says "So you wanna be "THE" war machine". Not "So you wanna be "a" war machine". Big difference there buddy. And that itself proves the armor is infact referenced specifically as the "War Machine".----User:TwoNyce 22:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^This comment is also pretty revealing. What is the purpose in reverting edits now? Take a look at the references I just gave. Official images of official Hot Toys' renderings of the characters, with their specific character names right on them. How can that be denide?! The characters are who they were in the comics, whether editors seem to like that or not.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, Pietro Maximoff and Wanda Maximoff (played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen in Avengers: Age of Ultron) are known as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in the comics. They are never referred to those names in the actual movie, only nods to the names ("that little witch" by Tony Stark and "that quick little bastard" by Clint Barton). However, due to them being marketed as those names in trailers, toys, TV Spots, websites and various merchandise, Wikipedia is willing to let that one slide. Yes, while the end credits have them listed as "Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Pietro Maximoff / Quicksilver and Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch", they technically aren't called that in the actual movie. Like 2015's Fant4stic. Never called those names from the comics, (Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman, Human Torch, Thing, Doctor Doom) those last three only being jokes and nods to the comics. So, it shouldn't matter if they're not called that in the actual movie, we know they're called that in the comics, and don't give me that whole "this isn't the comics" stuff. We know this isn't the comics, it's based off the comics. It's Marvel, for crying out loud. Spider-Man2017 (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between only being called something in the marketing and actually being credited as such in the film. DarkKnight2149 20:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^ This is a great point. There are plenty of movies where the character are not 'called' their alias in the film. Besides that fact, these movies were the earliest stages of the MCU; my point being they hadn't gotten into the routine of what they were officially going to do (future film's directly naming villains). With all the references included previous, shouldn't these be constructive edits?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently discovered this argument, and with the citings of the director, and actors calling themselves these characters - why the debate? If I recall correctly - even the official action figures for the character mentions that he is Whiplash. Regardless of the fact that his name is not spoken, he is the Marvel Cinematic Universe version of Whiplash. See figurine official name here and here for Whiplash; here for Iron Monger (for Iron Man); here for War Machine and here for Black Widow - both of whom are in Iron Man 2. The comment made previously by an editor about Tony saying "you wanna be the War Machine" -- without it being spoonfed to the viewer, I think it's common knowledge that he was referencing the armor - especially given the fact that the character has made further appearances in the MCU with that name. Given all the valid and reliably sourced references, what's the hold up on not having the character's aliases listed?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cast list is meant to identify characters that appear onscreen, not in merchandise or marketing materials. Think of it as a playbill. If the character is not referred to by the name in the film, then it wouldn't help readers match the actor to the role. In other words, it's a superfluous detail and quite fannish. That's not to say that, we can't refer to the character by those names elsewhere in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I for one disagree. When the characters are promoted and marketed and OFFICIALLY called by their aliases by those creating the film - how much better of a reference do we need? There's nothing 'fannish' about being accurate. Also what's with having Black Widow's name as Natalie Rushman....the movie reveals that's not her real name, but her cover name while undercover working for Stark.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Accurate" would be to not have the names since they are not included in the film. It's fannish because you are using knowledge outside of the plot to make this identification. Put it this way, if you had no other knowledge then what was shown onscreen then you'd still have no idea who Black Widow is.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical success?

I think saying that the film was a critical success in the lead is a bit misleading and inaccurate. These two sources [[5] [6] both state that the film received mixed reviews. The first source seems reliable, but I am not completely sure about the reliability of the second one. Any thoughts? JaciFan (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The film received generally mixed-positive reviews and is fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, which counts as a critical success. It clearly isn't a critically acclaimed film, but I don't think our wording implies that. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, Thor: The Dark World also received a similar reception to Iron Man 2 (generally mixed-positive reviews) and is also fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, yet the lead in its article states that it received mixed reviews. Would Thor 2 then be regarded as a critical success? Also, the articles of Marvel's better received films, like Iron Man, The Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Captain America: Civil War, all state in their leads that they were critical successes. So wouldn't saying that Iron Man 2 is a critical success sound a bit misleading in light of all this? Now I'm not saying that we should change "critical success" to "mixed reviews" in the lead, because I now see how one could argue against that, given that the film's reviews were leaning to the positive side and how it is certified fresh on RT. However, I do think we should definitely change "critical success" to, perhaps, something like "generally positive reviews", as was stated above by adamstom97 earlier. Any thoughts? JaciFan (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is unnecessary and you are comparing apples to oranges, but I wouldn't object to "received generally positive reviews and was a box office success". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds good. JaciFan (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Iron Man 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Iron Man 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Runtime

Hello, I believe there is an issue with the runtime listed on the page. it lists 119 Minutes as the runtime. checking the link provided for it as proof of that only says that that is an approximate runtime and not the exact. the issue is that Boxofficemojo here lists a runtime of 2 Hours and 4 Minutes which translates out to be 124 Minutes. is there some version of the film that has 5 Minutes cut out of it or something or did someone just assume approximate meant exact or what exactly? 45.51.166.54 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Mojo is not reliable for runtimes, the British Board of Film Classification is. El Millo (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

may I ask why Box Office Mojo is not reliable for runtimes? I'm assuming it's because of it's association with IMDB, which most state is more or less reliable for the past but not as reliable for upcoming things. Since Iron Man 2 is the past, that means it falls into the more or less reliable part of it. also how is the British Board of Film Classification saying Approximate (which you can see here) run time accurate? last I checked approximate only meant that it's around that general area, not the exact run time, meaning that using that as a source is inaccurate as well in this case since it only gives an approximate and not an exact. Googling Iron Man 2 runtime (seen here) also comes up with a runtime of 2 hours and 4 minutes or 124 minutes. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

looked into it some more and Amazon gives a runtime of 124 Minutes (seen here), and the Apple Movie store gives a runtime of 125 Minutes (seen here). If these sources are also deemed unreliable, I can go and find more sources stating the same thing if you would like me to. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb isn't a reliable source. El Millo (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you've seen the discussion above. the edit is to change the runtime from the currently listed 119 minutes to 124 minutes. sources and such are provided in multiple places above. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it's needed to be below the request instead of above, here are the sources:

the source El Millo is using:

the sources I'm using:

  • Box Office Mojo. From what I understand of debatable accuracy.
  • Google. I've used before on here and it's been seen as reliable.
  • Amazon. Has a digital download of the movie listing a runtime.
  • Apple/Itunes. Has a digital download of the movie listing a runtime.

if needed I can also look for and provide more sources. 45.51.166.54 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iron_Man_2&oldid=958458215"