Talk: Iron Man 3 (film)

War Machine

The character's name is not "Rhodey Rhodes". Please do not change his name to that. "James Rhodes" or "Jim Rhodes", or either that puts "Lt. Col." in front are fine.
LoveWaffle (talk) 03:24, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

For years the appearances of his Earth-616 counterpart have been added as "Rhodey Rhodes", with no one complaining whatsoever. I can't see the problem.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 03:25, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

This is not set in Earth-616.

LoveWaffle (talk) 03:27, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

I know.

That doesn't mean anything at all. They're a version of the same character with same name, nickname and hero alias.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 03:29, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

But the one here has not been called "Rhodey Rhodes". We should not be calling characters a name they are not.

LoveWaffle (talk) 03:33, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

And? As far as I knew the name given in the appearances is the name/nickname and surename, does it mean that if in a reality Iron Man is never named "Tony Stark" he would be listed as "Iron Man (Anthony Stark)"? I don't think so.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 03:38, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between "Tony Stark" and "Rhodey Rhodes", primarily that the former has actually been used within this universe. But there's a reason we're calling Black Widow "Natasha Romanoff" and not "Natalia Romanova"
LoveWaffle (talk) 03:43, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

This seems open and shut guys. Jim "Rhodey" Rhodes is more than acceptable of a name. He is never called Rhodey Rhodes, but simply Rhodey. Other, more formal instances, he is Jim Rhodes. Combining the two shouldn't be that big of a deal, and it contains all the info in one name. --Spencerz (talk) 03:46, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks, our King Solomon.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 03:49, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

So it's as it was before ADour chose to change anything in the first place. Good to know.

LoveWaffle (talk) 03:51, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

No, it was originally written as "Lt. Colonel James Rhodes"[1]. But as always, you are the one who needs to set fire the ashes... Oh, well, just remember it for the future.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 04:05, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case - [2]
LoveWaffle (talk) 04:41, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

You always rest in your case, even if you have to wrongly use "evidence" to prove it. Never do it again, because I'll know it. You skipped some edits before that one which would make you look correct.[3]

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 14:34, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

"Jim"

Anyone writing up James Rhodes's name as "Jim" on this article is posting false information, effectively vandalising the wiki. He does not use the nickname "Jim" in the movies, he more typically uses the nickname "Rhodey". -- WarBlade (talk) 02:47, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

OK, but that's not vandalism.

LoveWaffle (talk) 03:11, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

I won't have the time to rewatch Iron Man and Iron Man 2, but it's more than obvious "Jim" is the nickname for "James", and as far as I remember he's called Jim. I don't understand why do you have to keep this vandalizing acts when it was already cleared in the past months, inciting the continuation of a dicussion. You can be blocked for this, don't make me do it. And don't make me protect the page either. Stop it now.

UPDATE: USAF Col. James Rhodes called "Jim" by Producer Kevin Feige in an interview. Following, a fraction of the entire quotation:

"When last we saw Jim Rhodes, played by Don Cheadle, he was flying away from Tony at the end of Iron Man 2 wearing the Mark 2 suit that he had taken from Tony’s house."[4]

That's all I need to say. Don't continue this edit war, or there will be a nice padlock in this page, and I don't want to leave other users who make actually important edits away from editing because of someone who apparently has a senseless hatred against other user.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 04:49, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yes LoveWaffle. That's correct. Vandalism. The English language presents names as name-nickname-surname, so when attempts are made to correct a poor assumption, the correction should be verified and left in place. Providing false information is a blockable offence on most wikis, if the misinformation is persistently used to override correct information. Case in point, this sysop also seems to think the 25th is the first release date, when in fact the first public release this time around will be 12:01 Wednesday of the 24th in New Zealand. It's easy enough to check. A bureaucrat really needs to step in on this one, because these override edits are childish, careless, and entirely abusive of the wiki software. -- WarBlade (talk) 12:40, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that's not what vandalism is. Please assume good faith.

LoveWaffle (talk) 14:23, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I just cheked and I'm wrong about the release date. Pity me! Call Ghost Rider so he brings me to Hell! Now, joking aside, you're continiously vandalizing this page by changing "Jim" to "James", that really IS vandalism. And I won't hesitiate to protect the page or block you, specially after your supid childish attitude of "I don't want you writing in my message wall". This is my last warning, Jim Rhodes stays Jim Rhodes or your editing privileges will go away along "James" for a 1-week vacation.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 14:39, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

...Why the hell are we still arguing over War Machine's nickname? Of all the things on the site people could be contributing to, this is, like, last on the list. He's War Machine. Outside the armor, he's Lt. Col. James Rhodes. It seems pretty simple to me.

Being an encyclopedia of all things, I feel that "Lt. Col. James Rhodes" is a more professional, and, more importantly, a more informative term than "Rhodey Rhodes" or "Jim Rhodes". Lt. Col. James Rhodes also lends more presence to his roll to the narrative of the Iron Man trilogy: He's a military man. He is the high-ranking go-between for the United States armed forces, and the rich playboy that built a himself a wearable weapon of mass destruction. Furthermore, outside of Tony, and perhaps Pepper, how many people actually refer to him as "Jim" or "Rhodey"? He is more often than not recognized by his formal military designation, "Lt. Col. Rhodes". If I'm missing something that explains why this non-issue is still such a major issue, please fill me in. Otherwise, let's move on.
--Spencerz (talk) 15:10, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of this discussion, as it was already settled in the previous discussion in this talk page, of which WarBlade was totally abscent. And I can really feel this discussion is about more than just problems with pages but about personal differences, after that childish attitude WarBlade showed to me when I posted a message in his wall and he removed it just because "[he] didn't want messages of [me] in [his] message wall".

And about his more professional name, it is written in the cast section. But also, we generally put more "informal" names in the appearance categories since a long time. "Jen Walters", "Steve Rogers", "Tony Stark" and "Johnny Storm", instead of "Jennifer 'Jen' Walters", "Cpt. Steven 'Steve' Rogers", "Dr. Anthony 'Tony' Stark" and "Jonathan 'Johnny' Storm".

So again, I don't think this discussion should continue as it was already settled in a conversation WarBlade was abscent.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 16:15, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

@Spencerz. I completely agree. Your take on how this entry should be displayed is exactly right, and the page should reflect that, rather than reverted to prioritise character nicknames, especially apocryphal ones. -- WarBlade (talk) 23:07, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

"Apocryphal ones". You're unbelievable, negatively. Specially after I proved he can be perfectly called "Jim Rhodes". But still, to be repetitive: you're unbelievable, negatively.

And as I already said, the "more informative term" is placed in the cast section (in case of movies) and/or the character's page. That's why we don't go around writing:

Featured Characters:

• Dr. Anthony Edward "Tony" Stark (Main story and flashback)

Supporting Characters:

• Resilient
  • CEO Virginia "Pepper" Potts

It wouldn't make sense to be superinformative in one appearance and then leave the rest normally.

And this issue of how to list Rhodey's name has already been solved, if you weren't there to take part, not my problem.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 23:24, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Jamie has something to say on the matter. But, for what it's worth, I think that you're taking the arguments on being "super informative" to extremes. No, we don't use "Dr. Anthony Edward Stark" to refer to Iron Man, but we use honorific titles like "Dr." or military rankings when applicable because they are often important to the story. Which goes with what I pointed out about Rhodes being defined mainly for his military role in the narrative. --Spencerz (talk) 02:38, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

Yet, we still not write Lt. Col. James Rhodes in the appearances of his Earth-616 counterpart, even if he being a pilot is one the main aspect of this character, not to mention 90% of his appearances are linked to his status as a liaison of the Army to Stark's company.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 02:58, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

But in that superinformative example, wouldn't Tony be written as "Iron Man (Dr. Anthony Edward "Tony" Stark)" since we use the CODENAME (REALNAME) format in appearances? SeanWheeler (talk) 17:48, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Flashback

The intro and end credit scene book end the movie in such a way as to structure the entire movie as a flashback. I think realistically that shouldn't be used to define all of the character appearances as flashbacks. I propose that only the 1999 Switzerland scene and any historical photo/screen appearances (if any constitute an appearance) use a flashback template. -- WarBlade (talk) 17:11, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Or we can consider those scenes being in a flashforward (which is like flashback, but the opposite). I've been thinking of discussing about adding templates for when some things appear in flashforward (in the same way as we have {{Flashback}} and {{FlashOnly}}), because Brian Michael Benids uses flashforward a lot. This might be a good start.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 20:28, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Bambi Arbogast

Who was that?
LoveWaffle (talk) 17:20, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

She is Tony's secretary in the old comics, as well as from Stark Resilient and onwards. He greets her in the film, but she's off the screen. May be a receptionist or similar here. See Bambi Arbogast. KrisCrash (talk) 17:32, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Chad Davis and Taggart, Killian's Extremis Soldiers?

The claim has been made that these two are part of Killian's mercenary group despite Taggart not being shown to be a murderous thug, and Davis actually hinted at possibly working against Killian once the 'bombings' became public. Can someone provide a source for this assertion please? If it can't be verified, then it's nothing more than assumption, and therefore they shouldn't be listed as villains. -- WarBlade (talk) 05:28, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

The film clearly shows them both as Extremis soldiers.

LoveWaffle (talk) 17:49, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

At no time within the movie were either character ever demonstrated to be working with Killian. Taggart's position was unclear and he could have gone either way, but the main thing is that he wasn't demonstrated to operate in a villainous capacity, nor was demonstrated to be operating in a military capacity. Davis was in possession of evidence against Killian and appeared to have tried returning to civilian life after his recovery. They should not be arbitrarily assumed to be Extremis soldiers, and definitely should not have been marked as villains. -- WarBlade (talk) 20:05, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Both were soldiers enhanced with Killian's Extremis virus. They both went hot. Taggart went hot meeting with Killian's #2, even. Doesn't matter what their personal motivations were, they're both Extremis soldiers.

LoveWaffle (talk) 22:42, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

What matters is the role they played on screen, and only that. Any further assumptions are beyond the scope of the movie, and should not be documented. -- WarBlade (talk) 05:21, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

And the role they played were Extremis soldiers.

LoveWaffle (talk) 05:25, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

In order for that to be true there must be a scene that demonstrates them running around and acting in the capacity of enforcers for Killian. There is no such scene. -- WarBlade (talk) 06:04, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's not necessary. The necessary details are being (1) soldiers whom (2) Aldrich Killian exposed to the Extremis virus. Both are met. That Taggart didn't do much and Davis later having a change of heart doesn't change that.
LoveWaffle (talk) 06:08, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

If all of the Extremis-enhanced soldiers and agents are to be in one group, then the entire group should be outside of the Villains listing, and that is just as awkward. Personally, the list looks much better if only the known villains are listed as villains. That's only four people. It gets easier to implement if mentions of Extremis are removed. With "Groups" as a subheading (because there are enough of them in this film), Extremis still remains out of the mix because it's a virus rather than a group. Yeah, I'll set that up and see how it looks. -- WarBlade (talk) 06:41, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

If all Extremis-enhanced soldiers are to be in one group, than it should be under "Villains" as AIM and its Extremis-enhanced soldiers are the primary antagonists of the film.

Also, don't make edits blatantly against the wiki's style.

LoveWaffle (talk) 06:46, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to correct false information. You've done nothing to help that cause, but use the revert button to push your opinion. And that's all it is - a disputed opinion that should be hammered out on the talk page before any further use of the revert function is applied. -- WarBlade (talk) 07:41, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

False information? Chad Davis and Jack Taggart are Extremis soldiers. That's not opinion.

LoveWaffle (talk) 09:23, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Are they under the influence of Extremis? Yes. Should they be listed as villains? No. If the only criteria for them to be listed under the Villains/Extremis soldier list is that they were under the influence of Extremis, then by that logic Pepper should be listed there as well.--CoolTrainerTerry (talk) 01:33, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Which is partly why Extremis should be treated as an implant and not listed as a single unified group. -- WarBlade (talk) 01:45, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well, Pepper's not a soldier, and she wasn't voluntarily exposed to Extremis. That's why being under the influence of Extremis isn't the only criteria.

LoveWaffle (talk) 02:55, June 4, 2013 (UTC)