Talk:Iron Man (2008 film)/Archive 1

message: I'm surprised no one mentioned this. He was offered a role in the movie (not Iron Man himself, sadly). Google it. Mad Jack 05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only seen a rumor originating from this Ain't It Cool News article where Quint relies on an anonymous source.  We don't even know what the offer is for -- James Rhodes or something else.  Has Favreau confirmed anything about Howard on his Myspace?  'Cause Favreau himself said that his blog would be for confirmed news amidst speculation. --Erik 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this rumor has been widely noted in the media, so we should make mention of it in the article, while explicitly specifying that it is, indeed, a rumour Mad Jack 05:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ten news sources isn't "widely noted" as you say.  Search on Google News for "Heath Ledger" Joker -- that's widely noted, why?  Warner Bros. announced it itself.  There are way more results now about Ledger than there were at the time LatinoReview.com broke the news.  If Favreau or the studio addresses this, then it should be added.  The article doesn't need to be filled with speculation and rumors from anonymous sources. --Erik 05:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Erikster. As he's already noted, We can either run like headless chickens scrabbling for rumor after rumor, or we can be more patient, and develop a page based on fact and consensus. Favreau's promised repeatedly on his blog and elsewhere to be straight up with the fans whenever possible, and to listen to them. The best any fan of the impending film can do is return the favor and respect. I support waiting for confirmed information. Should the need to really report a rumor be there, I'd recommend giving any rumor a week to ten days to see if it sustains, or if it drifts off. By that, I mean a rumor that sustains is one in which multiple 'original' sources provide same or similar facts. An example would be if a rumor surfaces based on an on-set report, and then a few days later, a source in the distribution, production, or promotionalcompany confirms the rumore, perhaps by sayign that their office is scrambling to cover the unauthorized leak. An unsustained rumor, ironically, would be the case of Heath Ledger and LatinoReview, where all sources could be traced back to one site. I admit that that particular case wound up being true, but many other rumors occur the same way, appearing to have a wide 'factual' base, but scratch the surface, and it all goes back to one site. Let's be patient andsee what occurs.ThuranX 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrence Howard?

message: The so-called script review recently edited into the article has been removed. Here are a few reasons why: One, the 'review' is incredibly vague, giving only two distinct events of the film. a 'bugatti chase scene' and a description of a movie based on a father/son conflict. Given that Favreau has made clear tha Mandarin is the villian, with appearances by Obadiah Stane (stark's biggest corporate rival) It's unlikely that favreau is using the same sxript the website claims to review. Two, the entire feel of the review reads as generic text. The author speaks in such vague terms that he can excuse the lack of a bugatti cahse scene as a choice during production' or 'eliminated during a script revision' and still claim to be right. In other words, the entire review reads like a CYA review. No matter what the movie comes out like, this reviewer can claim to have known about it, and seen the script. I don't think the reviewer ever read anything related to the Favreau production. Finally, I've yet to see much echoing buzz about this review. I haven't seen any of the usualy movie fanboy sites pickup on this, including AICN, Patrick Sauriol/inescape's Coming attractions, or anyone else. If they believed this review had credibility, they would have run with it. ThuranX 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premise 

message: I recieved my new issue of Empire today, and it contains information on the film in a Favreau interview. It says Stark is forced to build the suit by enemies in Afghanistan before he turns on them. Wiki-newbie 20:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  Any chance you can expand on the reference tag by using the cite news template for the article? --Erik 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information in [[Empire magazine]] 

message: I removed this sentence from the article: "The budget is said to be over $100 million."  While I don't disagree with this amount, as it seems on par with superhero films, there doesn't seem to be a mention of the budget in any of the references (that I could see, anyway).  Also, IMDb says that the budget is estimated at $75 million, though I'm gonna take that one with a grain of salt.  Anyone able to follow up on this? --Erik 15:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Budget

message: Yo is this movie live-action or animated? 199.111.231.67 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The film is live-action, unlike the animated DVDs that have come out.  There will be computer-generated elements of it, obviously. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Judging by the sep 2006 upload date, I'm wagering that that is a Fan Image, and thus completely unsuitable for WIkipedia. Nice job though, but too big on the glare effect. ThuranX 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Live-action or animation?

message: the logo has been revealed on the marvel comics site so hopefully we can get it on here soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkknight13 (talk • contribs) 21:41, December 26, 2006
:The logo can be seen at the official site, which is in External links.  Is there really a reason to have it here? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: I don't see any contradiction, but in stead another mark on a timeline of the history of the project. The first Paragraph ends with 2002, the next opens with rights changing in 2003 and progress in 2004. where is the contradiction? please explain, Wiki-Newbie. I'm sure that one of us is mis-reading something or whatever. Thanks for answering here. ThuranX 20:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I added the production history, I'll explain.  New Line Cinema already acquired rights in December 1999.  When I was putting the history together, I had 2003 as the earliest date at first, but I found an earlier date (1999).  So when I added the material in, I still had the 2003 citation, which wasn't necessary anymore.  If you think the wording needs to be clarified for that, feel free to fix it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok. Nope, all good, got it now. ThuranX 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production > New line 2003 

message: I've had to foul two references tags in order to save anything to the page, includign the ref tag. I don't know how the GIPU did it, but he got around it. I had to corrupt two ref tags, in order to keep the refs in the page. sorry, no other way anymore. JImbo needs to fix this mess. ThuranX 12:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The GIPU edited only one section, Cast and characters, in which there were no Myspace links, so he was able to save.  However, it looks like you edited the whole page, so the Myspace links were force-saved, causing the corruption.  I've given Chris the two links, and hopefully he can add them to the spam whitelist. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: THe myspace link was killed again, by another Admin. I've asked him to replace them, per the whitelisting of the links. Hard t say what'll happen, you might have to ask Chris to intervene again.ThuranX 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myspace blacklisting kills page. 

message: Came across this citation via Comics2Film.  Doesn't seem like the information will hang out for long, but it has plot details and character descriptions.  Any idea how to work this into the article? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't come across anything about that.  If he does, I'm sure we'll include it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand, but we can't put something like, "Stan Lee will likely have a cameo in this film because he's done cameos before."  While it may seem like a sure thing, it's only our assumption.  We need to tie it to an attributable source that will say he will be in the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We keep this page pretty up to date, so I'm sure that when there is confirmation, we will add the information using the appropriately attributable source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the article, cameo information has been found and added.  Wasn't too long of a wait. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Casting call

message: *
Sounds like speculation regarding influences nine paragraphs in, but if Marvel published it could it be worthwhile? WikiNew 19:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's speculation.  I've noticed news articles about upcoming films always try to draw summaries from the source material (comics, books, etc.) to speculatively define what the film could be about.  I think we're better off without the assumption. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spotlight on Iron Man 

message: *
:Has some more information about Howard's character. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrence Howard 

message: *
WikiNew 14:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bald head, silver goatee for Stane's look. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Writer's perspective. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Robert Downey Jr.'s thoughts on Tony Stark. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Some talk about the main character and the film's themes. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Principal visual effects house. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Improvisation on-set. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No idea.  I don't put much faith in script reviews; not exactly the best idea of the final product. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Might be worth noting that this film is one of Marvel Studios' first two trailblazers out of ten planned films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for use (add here) 

message: There is no official confirmation that Shaun Toub will portray the Mandarin.  This rumor started at /FILM, which has a disclaimer: "We have no official confirmation on this, so for now, treat this as rumor."  Wikipedia is not a rumor mill of unverifiable information. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mandarin 

message: Check it out here; think it should be included in the article? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Veracious Rey said images should not go right below the section headers.  Also, can we re-upload the image without the IGN watermark on it?  The image is available on other sites without any kind of mark on it.  I suggest we put the image next to the passage about the people working on the armor. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark 1 armor 

message: USA Today has a new image from the film, and I've uploaded it here.  Any idea where it could go in the article?  It'd help illustrate the human side of Iron Man. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my issue is that it doesn't display well there.  Nor would it display as well anywhere else. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me.  It's tough to fit photos in articles that have yet to develop.  Just about a year to go... a lot can happen.  And yeah, the red-and-gold armor would be ideal. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second image

message: I read that Jon Favreau is planning to show it in the comic con. I think it was in superherohype. I´ll post a link in a minute. franshu190.137.23.30 20:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already seen this, it's also been used as his denial about Samuel L Jackson. ThuranX 22:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  trailer at san diego?