Talk:The Expendables 3

Useful sources

• http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=153018 Darkwarriorblake
• http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/16/jason-statham-dubbed-a-bad-a-after-escaping-horror-accident-on-the-expendables-3-set-4028404/ (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• http://collider.com/the-expendables-3-set-visit/
• http://collider.com/patrick-hughes-expendables-3-raid-interview/
• http://collider.com/sylvester-stallone-expendables-3-interview/

Edit request on 3 September 2013

Put Robert Davi in as he was confirmed on IMDB, with Nic Cage, Mila Jov and Jackie Chan also the names for the new Expendables character's 82.13.84.198 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done IMDb is not a reliable source in the slightest. STATic message me! 00:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not, but which is why I don't rely on it solely. However it has remained on IMDb for some time now, and has been confirmed on other online movie news sites. Not to mention Milla Jovovich was confirmed a while ago and there's no mention of her being in the cast according to this site either. Just saying. --SnakeChess5 (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are reliable third-party sources that support additions or subtractions then adjust the article accordingly. IMDb can never be used as a stand-alone source no madder how long the information remains present there. STATic message me! 06:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Acting names

Here is a source, [1], the names are true

76.188.116.60 (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a blog and a fansite, it's like the ugly step child of everything we do not use as a source, and given its status where did it get this info? More than likely...IMDb! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Better source

[2] and [3]

76.188.116.60 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Max Drummer

I have a source that says Harrison Ford is Max Drummer

76.188.116.60 (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Expendables Incorrect Art/Copy on Expendables 3 Wikipedia Page.

My name is Sarah Stevens and I work directly with Lionsgate on Expendables 3 at Mindshare (We plan and execute their media).

It looks like there is some incorrect art/copy up on the Expendables 3 Wikipedia page. Please use the below link to the Sylvester Stallone Official Character Poster.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sylvester+stallone+expendables+3&sa=X&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=SKSkU7OTGpPMsQSDooGIDg&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=643#q=sylvester+stallone+expendables+3+character+poster&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=hFOG9zBZ88HAPM%253A%3BDF6GRYK6OR4wvM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcollider.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252Fthe-expendables-3-poster-sylvester-stallone.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcollider.com%252Fthe-expendables-3-rating-pg-13%252F%3B3038%3B4500 Also, we’d like to update the official synopsis to the below.

Is there someone that you might be able to connect us with today so that we can get these updated? We’re also going to try to edit directly on our end.

We really appreciate your help!

Thank you!

Synopsis: In THE EXPENDABLES 3, Barney (Stallone), Christmas (Statham) and the rest of the team come face-to-face with Conrad Stonebanks (Gibson), who years ago co-founded The Expendables with Barney. Stonebanks subsequently became a ruthless arms trader and someone who Barney was forced to kill… or so he thought. Stonebanks, who eluded death once before, now is making it his mission to end The Expendables -- but Barney has other plans. Barney decides that he has to fight old blood with new blood, and brings in a new era of Expendables team members, recruiting individuals who are younger, faster and more tech-savvy. The latest mission becomes a clash of classic old-school style versus high-tech expertise in the Expendables’ most personal battle yet.

Lionsgate and Millennium Films present a Nu Image production.

209.90.32.254 (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Sarah

If you have a link to the image I don't mind updating the cover art, but we can't use that synopsis, it's a WP:COPYVIO to copy and paste content like that, that's why we rewrote it here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=sylvester+stallone+expendables+3&sa=X&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=SKSkU7OTGpPMsQSDooGIDg&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=643#q=sylvester+stallone+expendables+3+character+poster&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=hFOG9zBZ88HAPM%253A%3BDF6GRYK6OR4wvM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcollider.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252Fthe-expendables-3-poster-sylvester-stallone.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcollider.com%252Fthe-expendables-3-rating-pg-13%252F%3B3038%3B4500

Here is the link. Can we call you? or can you call me my phone number is 310 309 8564.

Thank you!

According to Template:Infobox film, the starring parameter of a film infobox is supposed to contain "the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.", so I think we should really put them in the way they were from the poster

Larry1996 (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Cast

Now that we have the production notes, we should remove the other sources for the cast. First, they are no longer needed, and second some of them contradict, for example the sources for Robert Davi.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Piracy

Might be noteworthy to include:

"A DVD-quality copy of actioner The Expendables 3, starring Sylvester Stallone, has been downloaded via piracy sites more than 189,000 times over a 24-hour period—three weeks ahead of the U.S. premiere."

• Spangler, Todd (July 25, 2014). "Expendables 3 Leaks Online, Pirated Copy Downloaded 189,000 Times in 24 Hours". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

23W 07:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:LEAK, illegal content should not be advertised on Wikipedia. STATic message me! 14:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: I wasn't proposing to advertise the source of the leak; I was merely saying that we should mention that the film was leaked before premiering, per the source. The sheer amount of downloads is pretty noteworthy. 23W 00:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's already in the article. 23W 00:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you see WP:LEAK it makes it clear we should not, unless A) the studio/producers/director/actors significantly respond to it or B) The release is moved up. Can we get some discussion here about this, WP:LEAK makes it clear we should not be spreading this information unless we really have to. STATic message me! 05:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm totally with you that we should not advertise it, which is what we are doing now and which we should remove. But i guess including into the "Commerical response" subsection later on would be appropriate. According to various third party sources, the film is expected to suffer a huge loss from the leak due to the demographic group it aims at etc., which I would consider relevant for that section.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Its recieving "broad" media coverage, allready, millions of people knows of this, as seen by the large numbers of people downloading it, it also beat the previous leak holder wolverine

Glad you agree DasallmächtigeJ, unless we get any comments that actually address WP:LEAK soon, I will be removing it again. If it significantly effects the box office (it might, but it might not by too much), then it can be mentioned there. As for the other commenter, broad coverage has not been supported and you obviously did not read WP:LEAK, just because people know it does not mean we should violate Wikipedia guidelines. STATic message me! 17:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"or the leak itself receiving broad media coverage" Unless this is changed this is pretty clear to everyone that reads it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigggan (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet this claim of broad media coverage has not been substantiated. The coverage should not only be significant, but time lasting. Not just spur of the moment coverage. STATic message me! 00:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How has it not been substantiated? A Google search of "Expendables 3 Leak" yields 230,000 results. That's pretty substantial. You have not provided a link to any Wiki policy, guideline or even an essay, which states broad coverage has to be "time lasting". That's not what WP:LEAK says. The quote can stay until you prove your claimed definition of "broad media coverage". Dkspartan1 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:GHITS. No it does not say it in WP:LEAK, but see WP:NOTNEWS. Everything in an encyclopedia should be time lasting, we are not a blog or newspaper. You still have yet to address the reasons why we should not contain the information in WP:LEAK. STATic message me! 19:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A Google search is currently at 546,000 results. So it passes Wikipedia:GHITS. Not that it matters, because Wikipedia:GHITS and WP:NOTNEWS are for deleting the article itself, not the text in the article. The content of the article is allowed to have current information in it. This is only the second time this has happened with a film. It's a notable event. Take it to dispute resolution if you want. Dkspartan1 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, Google fluffs up the result number, and Google results is in no way a judge of notability. General internet popularity means nothing when including it on Wikipedia. This is not as cut and dry as you think, since I am not the only one that has disagreed with its listing. This is much to early for dispute resolution, I do not see the problem with just discussing it. STATic message me! 19:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I just want to add that, obviously the leak is noteworthy and should be mentioned in the article. It received a lot of media coverage and the media call it one of the most prominent leaks in recent years. Weeks before the release date and near DVD-quality; it's a no-brainer. Lots and lots of reliable sources. Basically another example of Deletionists destroying Wikipedia. In my opinion not including this information is also censorship, plain and simple. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Airplane type

Anyone knows which type of airplane they fly? I guess it is the same type as in the previous movies. Misibacsi (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Expendables Wiki at Wikia says in E3 they used an "An-26B", a variant of the Antonov An-26.[4] Aircraft spotting websites concur and also mention: c/n 47313905, reg LZ-ABR, produced in 1984.[5][6][7] --82.136.210.153 (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer! Misibacsi (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Shall we create the full plot?

The movie is premiering in London, shall we add the full plot of the movie?

Larry1996 (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Full plot added.

M.D. Finley 17:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)(talk)

Consistency of Sequel Descriptions

In many articles that describe media sequels, every successive title is given attribution to the title before it. That is not the case with this article. I think is should be specified that Expendables 3 is a (direct)sequel to Expendables 1 and 2.

Thank you,

M.D. Finley 17:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDFinley (talk • contribs)

3D version?

fandango has a listing for a 3d version: https://www.fandango.com/the-expendables-3-3d-174444/movie-overview Impasse (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)