Talk:The Expendables 2

Expendables 2 or Expendables II
Because the article is called Expendables 2 and then the first word in the lead is Expendables 2. It needs to be displayed one way or the other, not both. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Travolta and Rourke
Stop adding the poster for this, a poster is not a source for casting information, it's a source for starring roles. Their names not being on the poster can mean they are not huge roles, that they weren't confirmed when the poster was made or that they are not in it. But when multiple, actual news sources are saying Travolta is in it, the poster doesn't override them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The film being a pg-13 because of Chuck Norris a controversy?
I have heard many news about this particular topic and a lot of complaints in the coverage to the point it could be considered a controversy. Does anyone think it can count as a sufficient inclusion on the article. Jhenderson 7 7 7  00:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not until its confirmed, its a rumor based off one interview. I'm not even sure how you'd class it as a controversy, it'd be hard to describe outrage that there is less swearing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw more than one interview. I am not classing it as a controversy on my opinion but in the other reports that catched up on it. Examples of controversy include but are not limited to are here and here but I can understand that it's not ready due to the MPAA isn't out. But I am not really worried about it. If I really wanted it on there I would have put it there without asking. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just think it would be hard to explain. Its upset some people online but there is no indication how it willultimately affect te film or why the choice was made beyond the obvious "widen the audience, make more money". Stallone's is the only official statement on the matter and he doesn't give a reason, just gives the marketing spiel that it will still be awesome. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well this was in the form of a question and I expected you to have a answer. So all it seems I need to say now is good job and keep up the good work. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is Steven Seagal!?!?!
That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He hates the producer, so he refused to do it. He's too fat now anyway.--Leigh Burne (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

TRENCH vs Trent Mauser
This has long been an issue due to people mishearing Schwartzenegger's name in the last movie. But his name is TRENCH. It's on the OFFICIAL movie site and everything. Just go tohttp://theexpendables2film.com/, and look under cast and crew. Why do people still question this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.250.242.180 (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Gunner Vs Gunnar
There is a dispute of the spelling of his name. I'm not sure why considering the credits for the first film clearly list him as Gunner and the website and documents for this film list him as Gunner but somehow, SOMEWAY, people have decided it is spelled Gunnar. This section is for the discussion of why the film and the people making the film are wrong, if users continue to edit it as Gunnar. They can be pointed here for ease. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To save some back and forth:


 * Image of the credits here
 * The website here
 * From the factsheet from Lionsgatepublicity.com here
 * His name is misspelled on the first films website, the film itself reflects the reality as does all the available current material for the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Further I stayed for the credits specifically to see, and he is called Gunner there too. For the IP who can't ignite a spark with a flamethrower and exposed fuel. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My local theater had subtitles for this movie, and it's spelled Gunner too.--  Krystaleen  17:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input Krystaleen. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nepal or Burma
The plot section of the article describes Nepal as the location of the first scene, however the letters on the sigh board on one of the buildings as they are driving past to enter the enemy camp, and the text carved onto the building after one of the vehicles drives though a wooden scalfolding and Hale Caesar (Terry Crews) fires a bazooka are all Burmese characters. Not Nepali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.190.61 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be a mistake by the filmmakers, the on screen text says its Nepal. Somewhere in Nepal but I don't recall where. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the words "General Aung San", "Welcome", government operated "News and Newspaper" sign board, "Doctor" and "Clinic". Most of the sign boards use the text style/font which was popular in Myanmar during 60s and 70s. Alexalden (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the song
what is the song in the airport scene??????????

Jet Li
User:Dibol is WP:EDITWARRING over the following sentence: "Schedule conflicts with Flying Swords of Dragon Gate meant Li could only participate in the film's opening" arguing that because he wasn't in bulgaria and because, shockingly, this action sequence involved stand ins and doubles, the sentence should read "portions" of the film opening instead of just the film opening. He argues that he is being technically correct, I argue he is being factually incorrect and technically pedantic. Li appears in the film opening, the sentence and section is not dedicated to filming locations or stunt doubles and the situation is discussed in the Development section, specifically the visual effects section. He can have shot his scenes in the underwater city of Atlantis, he still only appeared in the film opening due to scheduling conflicts. Further edits of this nature will be tagged and flagged as edit warring without further discussion having taken place. DWB (talk) / Comment on 'Dishonoreds FA nom! 23:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yu Nan
Yu Nan is being omitted from the main cast section on the grounds of her not being on the billing block nor the starring block of the poster. According to Darkwarriorblake, the cast section is "based on the billing block matched with the starring block." But it's not; Scott Adkins, Charisma Carpenter, and Amanda Ooms are all also omitted, despite their presence on the billing block. Plus, Nan is listed above Carpenter and Ooms. So if this billing block/starring block principle can be altered, why really keep Nan separate from the main cast? Not having her alongside them implies she only has a minor role, which is incorrect. Bluerules (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yu Nan is not omitted, she is in the cast section, your issue is she isn't in the list. The list is a formatting style, she is not required to be in it. According to "me", the cast section is "based on the billing block matched with the starring block". Adkins, Carpenter and Ooms are not in the Starring block, only the people in both are listed in the starring field, and part of the list for teh sake of not having an endlessly long list. This style uses facts and logic, your complaint, I believe, was that Yu Nan should be there because you have personally perceived she has more screen time than others and so she is more "starring" than some of the others. I'm afraid this is not a measurement we typically apply here. She is still present in the cast section, being prose in the exact same order she'd be in a list is not detrimental to her. Not having her alongside them does not imply she has a minor role, that is not what the list is defined by. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your personally preferred style does not work for a number of reasons. First, it's pretty rare to for an actor to appear in the starring block, but not the billing block. So what's the point in using "only the people in both"? You might as well only use the actors who appear in the starring section. Now if you stuck to that style, the cast orders would be laughably short. For example, Captain America: The Winter Soldier would only have four main cast members and Sebastian Stan would be omitted, even though he plays one of the title characters. Furthermore, this style implies the starring block takes priority over the billing block; after all, it's only the starring block actors who appear in the main cast section here. However, their order is based on the billing block. What's up with that? Why does the billing block's order take precedence over the starring block when the starring block is being used to decide who appears in the main cast section? Then again, there are some discrepancies between this style and things you've done before. You previously justified Yu Nan's omission on the grounds of her being in "neither" the starring block nor the billing block. Why "neither"? If she has to be in both, as you claim, it wouldn't matter if she was in just one. The main cast section of your The Incredible Burt Wonderstone page includes James Gandolfini, even though he's absent from the starring block.
 * Now it's a stone cold fact that Yu Nan has more screentime than Jet Li, Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Liam Hemsworth. Li is only present in one major scene. Norris appears in only three scenes. Schwarzenegger and Willis are in about five scenes. Hemsworth is killed off before the movie reaches the hour mark. Nan shows up about 23 minutes into the film and appears in almost every scene afterwards. She's not a background character either, many sequences put a special focus on her, such as when she's hacking into the safe. And screentime/prominence, regardless of placement on the billing block or starring block, is a measurement used here. Gal Gadot, Joaquim de Almeida, and Elsa Pataky all appear in the main starring section of Fast Five, even though none of them are on the starring block or the billing block. Likewise, Ty Simpkins is in the main cast section of Iron Man 3, but not on the billing block or the starring block. Eric Roberts, Chin Han, and Colin McFarlane don't appear in the billing block or starring section of The Dark Knight, yet they're all in the main cast section.
 * Not having Nan in the main cast section does imply she has a minor role. The actors above her all have their own paragraphs. There's a specific focus on them. Nan is placed in the same paragraph alongside Carpenter, Ooms, Noel, and Simeonov, all of whom have minor roles. In short, being alongside performers with minor roles implies she too has a minor role. Bluerules (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Expendables 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-china-expendables-dark-knight-rises-spider-man20121010%2C0%2C3607540.story?track=rss&dlvrit=71043
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C20591824%2C00.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CDmHYSov?url=http://collider.com/the-expendables-sequel-sylvester-stallone-bruce-willis-super-villain/46297/ to http://www.collider.com/2010/08/29/the-expendables-sequel-sylvester-stallone-bruce-willis-super-villain/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Expendables 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-china-expendables-dark-knight-rises-spider-man20121010,0,3607540.story?track=rss&dlvrit=71043
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20591824,00.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CDmJxrfA?url=http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2011/09/07/expendables-2-arnold-schwarzenegger-bruce-willis/ to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2011/09/07/expendables-2-arnold-schwarzenegger-bruce-willis/
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6A8TbAlnf?url=http://www.lionsgatepublicity.com/epk/theexpendables2/docs/pro_notes.doc to http://www.lionsgatepublicity.com/epk/theexpendables2/docs/pro_notes.doc

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comic Con Poster vs. Theatrical Poster
Guaranteed, this is going to spark an edit war, so I might as well bring up the issue here. It makes no sense to keep the Comic con poster simply on the basis that it looks more "visually interesting". Where's the logic in that? It made sense to use it at the time before there were any theatrical release posters but now since there is one, the theatrical poster should be the main poster to use for the article. Per WP:FILMPOSTER, the theatrical poster should be the ideal poster to use. Granted, it's not mandatory but nearly every film article uses theatrical posters for the infobox, not convention posters. Even the articles for The Expendables (2010 film) and The Expendables 3 use their respected theatrical posters. So why should Expendables 2 be exempt from that? It has the billing credits and is the far more identifiable image given that the DVD/BD covers are based on the theatrical poster. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The DVD Cover and Poster for Ghostbusters (2016 film) differ, but there is no argument to replace the theatrical poster with the DVD cover. The main goal of the infobox image is to identify the article, not to corroborate home media covers. The Comiccon poster provides all the same information as the replacement poster you are adding, but it is, I would say unequivocally a better poster from a visual perspective and still identifies the film title, stars and shows members of the cast. It has sufficed since at least 2012, so that is just over 7 years without an issue being raised regarding the identifiability of the article. I would argue strongly that given the first example I thought of (ghostbusters 2016) does not match the home media cover, the argument that your preferred poster matches the DVD cover is moot. In a vacuum where both posters offer the same information, the one that's been there for 7 years should remain.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Poster change ?!?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1764651/mediaviewer/rm207348736 this is more official poster