Talk:Mandarin (character)

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MykulClaymaw (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)The article contradicts the actual origin given in the comics. I have corrected it repeatedly based on a close and careful reading of the actual comics. Yet someone keeps reverting it to a copy of the old flawed OHOTMU article. Can someone give me a good reason for going with the OHOTMU over the actual books?[reply]

Could you please state what comics you are getting this from? Also, you should know that this article is being discussed here Cerebellum (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Suspense story #62 titled "The Origin of The Mandarin", I have yet to find anything in-comics that contradict it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MykulClaymaw (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you put it back in, please add citations and I think no one will have a problem with that. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I will wait until the end of the day for someone to bring up objections, then I am editing the Tales of Suspense #62 origin back in.

In the 1990's series, it was the Mandarin who captured Tony Stark and forced him to create the Iron Man armour: the role originally played by Wong Chu.24.57.249.250 (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Heart of Darkness section, there are three uses of the cite comic template [1] which don't work. It seems to be written correctly, but it just has the information there, instead of at the bottom in the proper section. Dream Focus 19:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an old Marvel fan who just happened by, but I can't help noticing that this article is in serious need of editing. There are many broken run on sentences and writing problems that need attention. I changed one example. Andacar 16:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andacar (talk • contribs)

The movie's plot seems to imply this. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the movie. And don't read my comment below. :P Konjakupoet (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to watch the movie I assure you. Although I don't think we can have contradicting material on this Wikipedia. This says Mandarin is the main antagonist while this says otherwise which seems to be more correct. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna spoil the movie for you, but it's debatable. I think it'll be a little while before any reliable sources show up that are willing to spoil the movie, though, so we've got a problem with sourcing. Konjakupoet (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please avoid spoiling a movie that hasn't even been released in America yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dp812 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to. But the problem is that the article now contains false information. And we are not obliged to write articles from an

American point of view. Even articles on members of the United States House of Representatives should be written so that people around the world can still read them comfortably, and if Disney saw the film as being "just for Americans" it wouldn't have been released everywhere else first. Konjakupoet (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I made an account exactly to come here and say this too. I haven't seen the movie yet, and was reading this article to have, without warning, in the opening paragraphs, the movie (regardless of the claim's correctness) spoiled. Something like that should definitely be under a "spoilers ahead" section, not in the opening section. It is very aggravating, to say the least.Asoplata (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a huge problem to avoid editing an article so it spoils the movie for a large number of people for a period of one week. Reading this article for background on a movie character, it was very disconcerting to have what appears to be a huge spoiler in clear view with no warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.22.173 (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to "spoil" readers (hey, guess what,

WP:SPOILER!), then just don't have the claim in there at all; readers aren't hurt by the page "waiting a week" to have info on the movie. There is absolutely no excuse for posting blatant lies to the article.72.12.219.170 (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a bunch of nonsense... it's not blatant lies. Calling Ben Kingsley "The Mandarin" is a fact that is seemingly lost upon people that saw the movie and don't understand what Killian was saying when he said "I am the Mandarin." Ben Kingsley's role in the film, in every sense, most closely represents the Mandarin. The reality is that this article totally spoils a key plot point for a film that came out two days ago and it does so without any warning. Personally, while I feel that it's worse because the movie just came out, I hate Wikipedia's position towards movie spoilers in general in their articles. You should warn people when they're at risk of having a form of art spoiled for them if they hadn't already witnessed it. 69.141.162.148 (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does reveals spoilers, and that's mentioned in the disclaimer. There's nothing to do about that, unless the policy is changed. However, I disagree with the whole "Killian is the true mandarin" angle: that was just a badass boast during the battle. If the Mandarin turned out to be just a decoy leader, it doesn't mean that someone else is the "true" Mandarin, only that the Mandarin is not the real villain, period. By the way, this source does not say that Killian was the Mandarin. Cambalachero (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article does need to be changed. Killian saying he was The Mandarin was him saying he was behind all the terror going back to the first movie (as in all the trouble caused by the Ten Rings was just a ruse created by him) not him saying, "my name is The Mandarin." Ben Kingsley is the Mandarin, it's a big reinvention of the character, but that is still the character that correlates to the one in the comics. I'm surprised people can't see something so clear. Even the article that's cited in the film section says "the idea of the Mandarin" created by Killian is the "uber terrorist" played by Kingsley, the "I've been this guy since I was born" refers to Killian with his villainous acts. Parralax (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And by way of Shane Black's explanation, Killian IS the Mandarin; in particular the MCU's version of him who's simply given a "real" identity by way of Aldrich Killian (practically a nobody in the original Extremis comic). It's heavily inspired by one of his modern stories (if you people actually bother to search in the main comic biography, it's in the "Government infiltration" sub-heading). Just because some people feel upset by the twist, it doesn't change the fact that Killian was designated as the MCU's version of the Mandarin. There's no roundabout way of saying it. Shane Black specifically says that they DO give the audience the real Mandarin, and he specifically say that it's none other than Guy Pearce's character. Why would he even bother to mention the dragon tattoos if it meant nothing at all? The specific line mentions that the actor merely embodies him, acting as a proxy FOR Killian. It's a clear-cut line, it doesn't get any more simpler than that. Whatever opinions or qualms you people have with the twist doesn't change the fact that they've designated the Mandarin under the alter ego of Aldrich Killian in the film version. Nothing needs to be changed. Kingsley portrays an idealized image of the classic Mandarin but it's in no way the literal depiction of the film version's take on the character. On the other hand, Guy Pearce is actually shown as portraying a proper modern iteration of the Mandarin character simply with the alter ego of Aldrich Killian; in which he is using the terrorist persona as a proxy to cover his illegal activities. Demented-P (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Shane Black specifically says that they DO give the audience the real Mandarin, and he specifically say that it's none other than Guy Pearce's character." Please link a source for the specific quote. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, I already provided the original source and switched it with the one from ComicBookMovie.com Shane Black specifically says that he does "give the Mandarin" but that it's "Guy Pearce's character". Also the interview continually emphasized on "Pearce's Mandarin" so it doesn't get anymore legitimate than that. Demented-P (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to spoil the new movie, but, I'm pretty sure the Ten Rings featured in the first two films had next-to-nothing to do with the character in the third film who is specifically referred to as the Mandarin. I don't usually edit articles on recent films, so I'm not sure how we should deal with this: at present the new film is probably the closest to thing to a

The name of the group in the first movie is a reference to the comic character, this is confirmed by the director in the source, and in many other interviews. Whether or not the third film builds on it doesn't retroactively change that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the upcoming Marvel-One Shot will feature the Ten Rings once again, should we reconsider adding them back to this article? Richiekim (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a reference to his rings more than him. Yet the topic of his rings is placed here. So I am nut sure it should have been removed IMO. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the lead image should be some image with the rings more visible or prominent (as they are the main thing of the character) and without the distracting rain. Cambalachero (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The picture is perfect. And the rings are not his main thing. The rings are third place, at best.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103090304/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/81.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/81.html

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.

• 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) 18:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 27. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]