Talk:The X-Files: I Want to Believe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2012

<<However, at a recent convention Chris Carter did comment that the date December 12, 2012 is a plot point.<<

Was he really referring to this film? I think he was saying that a third film would address that. While the date may weigh heavily on Mulder and Scully's minds during the events of this film, it sounds like X-Files 3 would be the true return to the mythology, and this film just paying lip service to it. Gillian's comment about it still being 4 years away supports this. —Simon Beavis

There has been no confirmation of an third X-Files film, I highly doubt he was referring to that. I understand that the film won't take place in 2012, and it will take place now (2008), however 2012 could still be a plot point, even if it will happen in the future. Blackngold29 (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

They their will be a third film if this one does well enough. And if there is a third film, it will be mythology driven. —Simon Beavis —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And if it is mythology driven, people will be happy. This will cause the outbreak of the second hippy era, the peak of which shall occur in 2023. This will lead to worldwide nuclear disarmament, which will in turn lead to invasion by a variety of alien species we will no longer be prepared to stop. Now, if we're quite done predicting the future, perhaps we could get back to writing articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:10, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No crystal ball involved. They said there will be a third one if this one does well enough. They said the 2012 date will be addressed. Someone obviously doesn't frequent AICN.

The ref makes absolutely no mention of the date having anything to do with this movie. The only time it appears there is in this blurb:

"Both Ed and Chris are very cognizant of the looming date 2012. And its affect on the "X Files" mythology. (December 12, 2012 is the end of the work date on the Mayan Calendar, and is mentioned by one of the characters in the last episode as the date for Colonization.)"

They mention the date having an affect on the mythology, not on this movie. The statement about the date should not be in this article. (PS "end of the work date" is a typo, at least I'm assuming it is. Supposed to say "end of the world".)Equazcion •✗/C • 04:20, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)

You can remove it from the article if you wish, however, it seems pretty obvious that 2012 plays a large role in the mythology. Why would they mention this randomly in the middle of a discussion about the new movie, if it has nothing to do with the film? Blackngold29 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the new film isn't all they were talking about at the time, and 2012 is getting closer. Either way, to say it "likely" has something to do with the movie is speculation. The ref doesn't actually say anything like that. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:12, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose we'll find out soon enough anyway. Thanks. Blackngold29 (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw this movie, it's all about organs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.140 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

sequel or movie?

I have concerns about the title of the article, "sequel" suggests it's, perhaps, directly related to the previous film, instead of being a stand alone film. Maybe a pedantic page move is in order? Rehevkor (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that this film would get an official title sooner or later. From what I can tell, it's a sequel in name only. We haven't had a problem with this setup, especially with X-Files 2 redirecting here. We'd be moving it twice, so I would suggest sticking to this for now and moving the article to the proper and final title. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The title that Fox is currently using to promote the film is "Untitled X-Files Motion Picture" which definitely downplays the idea of it being a sequel to Fight the Future.- MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot of Novelization

There was a paragraph recently added to the article: "The plot for the film has now been revealed through the back cover blurb for the novelization by: "Mulder and Scully are back in the thrilling novelization of the summer 2008 blockbuster movie based on the classic X-Files TV show! When a group of women are abducted in the wintry hills of rural Virginia, the only clues to their disappearance are the grotesque human remains that begin to turn up in snow banks along the highway. With officials desperate for any lead, a disgraced priest’s questionable “visions” send local police on a wild goose chase and straight to a bizarre secret medical experiment that may or may not be connected to the women’s disappearance. It’s a case right out of The X-Files. But the FBI closed down its investigations into the paranormal years ago. And the best team for the job is ex-agents Fox Mulder and Dr. Dana Scully, who have no desire to revisit their dark past. Still, the truth of these horrific crimes is out there somewhere...and it will take Mulder and Scully to find it!"

As seen here this is legit, although the paragraph should be re-written in a more encyclopedic format. Thank you. Blackngold29 (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would discourage citing the novelization for the film. Literature and cinema are two different mediums, and it cannot be purported what will overlap and what will not. This has been discussed for some novelizations of major films, see links here. I would recommend waiting for the official synopsis that will be directly related to the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good argument, which I agree with. That being said, I propose a new section be created about the novelization. After the film is released this could also include differences from the film, etc. Blackngold29 (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We sort of have a section for this at WP:MOSFILM#Adaptations -- it's for comparing the source material and the film adaptation, but I think the same argument could be applied for the film and its novelization. Also, for adding the novelization to the Wikipedia article, you could do something like at Road to Perdition#Further reading to show the details. We could add more details about the novelization, though I'm not sure how much film novelizations get covered. We could mention the premise of the novel and let readers decide what they think will be on screen or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

With novelizations, it's a case of innocently summarising them. The guidelines exist for book to film adaptations because people get so bogged down in their own views of the changes that often people don't research and make the article inform why changes were done. With a novelization, it's obvious the author has made his/her own view of the story by reading the scripts. Alientraveller (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates

I have again delinked the dates in the article, as per MOS:SYL (for some reason it was also the guideline stated for relinking the dates), it states "Such links should not be used unless following the link would genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully; see WP:CONTEXT." So far there is no genuine need for the links. Rehevkor ✉ 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No. That quote is referring to "Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month". See the sentence above the one you quote. Linking the full date, as I did, allows the MediaWiki software to format the item according to the date preferences of each individual user. MOS:SYL is quite clear on this. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. It seems the guideline was updates since I last looked at it. Apologies. Rehevkor ✉ 14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New Trailer

Not sure if it matters or not, but on a new trailer it showed Mulder and Scully kissing. David stated it was just a rumor, but why is it being shown in the previews? Should that be included under Plot? Zombified22 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the trailer? If it's not a major plot point, I don't see why it should be included. --GSK (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No I saw it on tv, Ill look for it. It doesnt seem like its a main plot so it really doesn't matter. Zombified22 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast reveal by Duchovny

I just read on the newsstand today in the U.S. in Men's Health magazine with David Duchovny on the cover, an interview inside in which he says, "There's no Cigarette Smoking Man or Krycek, but Walter Skinner is back." Since the movie opens tomorrow in some places, there's no point in adding this cast reveal to the article. 5Q5 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

CORRECTION: In my haste to get the above info time dated on Wiki, I erred a little in the facts. I went back to the newsstand and checked the issue and while it has the big Men's Health red magazine logo at the top of the cover, beneath that behind Duchovny's head is the actual title of the magazine: Best Life. It's apparently a spinoff magazine. The August 2008 issue article can be found on their website here, but the quote with the cast reveal only appears in the magazine on page 86 in a page bottom extra box of questions to him. He was asked if the movie would pick up where the series left off and he replied: "You won't see Smoking Man or Krycek, but Walter Skinner is back." Also, the cover of the issue pictured on the website is different with regards to the title/logo than the one on newsstands. 5Q5 (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so then add it today since the movie is now out in some places. I just wanna know what the movies about! Zombified22 (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Then go see it. It's not out until tomorrow in most overseas countries, and not in the U.S. until July 25. Don't spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet (most likely because they haven't been able to due to their location). Or you could go look at the summary for the novel. --GSK (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Insert a plot into the plot section

Can we please get the plot up? The movie is out and this plot section describes nothing of anything relating to what occurs within the movie. Im sorry many fans of the series may not like it "being spoiled" but you will have to deal with it. 121.221.99.164 (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

How do you suggest we do this with no information on the movie? It was released in a few places today so hopefully someone will add something. Until this we have to just wait. Zombified22 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that REALLY the best excuse you can come up with? Its been played all over the world, and yet strangely everytime the plot is revised and edited, it suddenly gets deleted. Try again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.156.234 (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you add it? After all, "Its been played all over the world" ;) Blackngold29 05:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And more pathetic responses, who didnt see that coming. People HAVE already tried to edit it and insert a description of the plot, but users like yourself keep reverting those edits. Take a look below, or are the various complaints about this not enough for you. It has been opened accross the world. I once again went and saw this movie for the second time in three days. Instead of replying with pointless, practically idiotic remarks, you could instead agree to allow people to edit the article and allow for a plot section and defend it from those who revert. But more than likely youll ignore the repeated discussion about those who "revert insertions of plot description". 124.178.181.123 (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

I did not revert anything. I was just confused why you would complain about the absence of info, when we all knew it would show up within hours. I suppose none of this matters anymore. Blackngold29 01:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

New images available

I found these two pictures on two of the foreign Wiki versions of the article. Add them to the article if you can. 5Q5 (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_X_Files:_I_Want_To_Believe

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:X-Files_-_Voglio_crederci_-_Trailer.png

These aren't new - the first is the original teaser poster, and the second is from the first trailer. --GSK (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, I meant new to this article. 5Q5 (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute

The following text was added earlier today:

"In reality, however, these comments were calculated disinformation, as the film's major subplot is indeed a romantic relationship between Mulder and Scully, and they are depicted as though they have apparently been secretly living together as a couple for some time, including a scene with them in bed together and discussions about their love for each other. Indeed, although the producers were true to their word about the movie's key mystery plot bearing no connection to the original series' alien conspiracy "mythology", the film does however heavily tap into the continuity of the later seasons of the series as regarding Mulder and Scully's relationship, to the potential confusion of viewers only familiar with the early seasons."

I've tried to remove it several times as it contains speculation as to the producers' intentions and the "off-screen" details of the plot. It has been repeatedly restored by an IP, despite explanation of the problem. So as not to disrupt the article, I'm leaving it here for the page regulars to discuss. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot Details

I saw the movie and I have a few plot details. Since everything from the plot keeps getting removed and I have no sources, I'll put a few things here: The movie IS about Mulder and Scully's relation ship, Mulder is called in to help find a missing F.B.I. Agent, the psychic is a registed pedophile (thats also in Robert Ebert's review I believe) and of course Mulder believe him, Scully doesnt. It has a little bit about Mulder's sister and its awesome. Zombified22 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen it yet, but a reviewer today said Scully makes a long statement about Mulder's sister Samantha Mulder. An editor familiar with the movie should mentioned her in the plot section in the article in case if their is a next film about aliens/2012, she could be part of that film. And yes, there could be a next film because only $30 million was spent on this one so the investors will easily make a profit with worldwide and DVD sales. Maybe the next will be a big budget effects movie. 5Q5 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

Its been over a day and still no summary? Why is this? Is it because every time even a little bit is added to the plot, some douche takes it off? Movie needs a plot. Zombified22 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of countries where this hasn't been screened yet. That's why it gets removed.203.33.160.49 (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That fact doesn't seem to apply to most new movies that get detailed plot outlines. Most of us take great pleasure in spoiling the movies for ourselves, and Wikipedia is a great place to read about them. It's practically impossible to prevent people from spoiling movies for themselves, and holding off on details isn't what this site is about. How can someone accidentally read the plot? They know what their intentions are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.17.228 (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is innapropriate to remove content on the basis that it is a spoiler, per Wikipedia:Spoiler. Quote, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." Quit it. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We go by the american release date put the info up.LifeStroke420 (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A reviewer in one of the NYC papers said yesterday to stay for the end credits. 5Q5 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... "There are plenty of countries where this hasn't been screened yet. That's why it gets removed." How about no.

We are not here to cater to those who dont appreciate plot spoilers. That you, and those reverting everytime someone goes to the effort of providing a plot description, believe we shouldnt simply because not everyone around the world has seen the movie yet or that it will spoil the movie for those who havnt seen it, is of no consequence. We do NOT have to wait until those of you complaining have seen it. For the umpteenth time, we are NOT here to remove plot spoilers, if anything we are here to provide them. 124.178.181.123 (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

Ok the complete summary has been added. Zombified22 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

recommended watching

If you liked Silence of the Lambs and detective movies in general, I recommend it. WHo was this Randy Stone guy the movie was dedicated to? Was I the only one who caught the name A. Gillian on Mulder's cell phone?Majoro4 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Randy Stone was the guy responsible for casting David and Gillian into the X-Files, and a few other actors/actresses for Millennium. I guess without him, David and Gillian wouldn't be agents Mulder and Scully. --GSK (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you think that the Stone info is notable enough to add to the article? I would think so. I noticed the Gillian reference too, cool easter egg. Blackngold29 05:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

4million on opening day..is that good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngates87 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

4 million what? Do you have a source? Blackngold29 19:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Standards on something like that the discussion page is not meant for people to talk about stuff, it is where questions go, not for socializing. And no $4 opening day isn't very good, but its not doing horrible, its made back 1/3 of its money in three days so it should pull out well. Oh and I dont really care about socializing. :) Zombified22 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DId you realize that this is a place for discussing articles, not for your silly opinions? Sure I like this film but really. go post your opinions somewhere else.

Daily box office

U.S. and foreign box office receipts for the film: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=xfiles2.htm. 5Q5 (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Guard Dog?

Was that guard dog in the film two-headed? StevePrutz (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Mulder killed only one of the heads... I guess it was the natural head... because the body was immobile from that point on. DMighton (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Should this fact be added to the plot outline? StevePrutz (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be, since people were being experimented on and so were dogs, so I guess it could just be added. Zombified22 (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If Fox/Carter had shown one brief shot of the two-headed dog in the trailer, we might be seeing $100 million box office right now, and I could have gotten a screen shot for the article. 5Q5 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Who knew that the clue to $100m+ box office was simply to show a two-headed dog in the trailer? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Actaully on the tv commerical I see near the end right before it shows Mukder with his arms up and then the title it does show the dog! I think it just shows its mouth though. Zombified22 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Caption needed for image - urgent

Urgent, before August 7, 2008 deletion: Can anyone who has seen the movie compose a more specific caption for this screenshot, describing what is taking place. If so I will restore it to the article. Here is what it looked like in the article with a caption that wasn't good enough. 5Q5 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Image:X-Files_I_Want_to_Believe_screenshot.png

Too late. The image has expired from the server. 5Q5 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

X files?

Isn't the correct title X files instead of X-files? At least that's what shows on the movie poster... Evert (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the series has always been X-Files, even if the poster doesn't have it. The show does and so does the first movie. Zombified22 (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's right. Look at the title shot on the TV show's page, and poster on the first movie. There's never been a hyphen. Wow. -- AvatarMN (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Never say never. The homepage for Season 8 DVDs show a hyphen. [1] --GSK (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Where? I don't see it at that link. -- AvatarMN (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In the title of the page and the paragraph, as well as the links at the bottom. Sure, it's not in the official logo, but it's there, no less. --GSK (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So, it's not official, but... it's not official. I acknowledged that it's called with the hyphen all the time, but not by what is usually taken as the bottom line on the subject. -- AvatarMN (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not in the official logo, but it's on an official website created by 20th Century Fox to promote the show. --GSK (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So some marketers and webmaster hired by someone in the parent company know better than people who actually made the show? -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm done arguing. I attempt to make a point and I get chastised at every single angle. Thanks. I'll be sure to avoid any discussions with you in the future. --GSK (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to chastise you, but I am trying to make an argument. I believe I may have something here, and I'm just trying to hammer it out through debate. By all means, try to make your point and I'll try to make mine. No offense intended, I don't believe I was uncivil. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is, it's been written like this in thousands of sources for the last, what, 15 years? Why change it now? --GSK (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When I've seen this kind of conflict come up in Wikipedia talk before, the way that a title is written on the show's title page, posters, DVD boxes has usually won out. That's why I bring it up. Actually I didn't, though, someone else started this. -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, think of all the logos that slightly differ from the spelling (Korn with backwards K, "SliPKnoT" logo). The logo shouldn't be used as the typeset of the word because the logo is oft dressed up to make it look cool and having a hyphen in there wouldn't help it. If you access the official site there is a hyphen used on the title bar. If you wannna take the hyphen out then there should be a circle around the X because that's in the logo too. Blackngold29 16:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Graphics like that is not meant to really change the way something is spelled, when when a backwards K and a circle X is not a real letter, obviously. It's very easy to use or not use a hyphen in everything all the way down to ASCII, so why not do it the way that the original source by the original creators intended it? I don't buy that a hyphen would make the logo ugly. I haven't heard anyone rail against the ugly hyphen in countless X-Men logos. I just think it's interesting that common use goes against official use, and this is a perplexing potential conflict between the common name guideline and the truth. I don't really know what to do about it myself, and if I can't get consensus I'd be satisfied to let it go. -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the U.S. Copyright Office submissions for the original series, submitted by 20th Century Fox on behalf of Ten Thirteen Productions, spelled the series "The X-Files." I've seen hard copies. With some digging, we could probably find online versions. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here you go — quickest thing I could find; I'm sure there's more. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Along with the trademarked "circle X" graphic is the "wordmark" The X-Files (with "The" and hyphen), here and here. There's a good search function here for future queries.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian experiments

The Russian experiments mentioned in the film could be based on Experiments in the Revival of Organisms. We might need a citation if we are to add this, however. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess a more likely source (though not discounting the above as an ancillary source) is Vladimir Demikhov's work, which is discussed at head transplant. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality, pedophilia and transgender

Hi, I noticed that someone "toned down" a statement that I added concerning this movie's conflation of homosexuality, pedophilia and transgender, particularly its implication that children who are sexually molested by pedophiles will turn out to be gay later in life. This statement was sourced (actually double-sourced), and I'm not sure why it needed to be toned down? Steve Carlson^Talk 18:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Because all three topics are extremely touchy, that's all. It's easy for us today to discuss things in ancient history, but hard to objectively and dispassionately discuss things that happen today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

About the budget

Hi, I am working on the french page of this movie and I was wondering if the 30,000,000 budget include or not the publicity? Elronir (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont believe it does but Im not completelly sure. 216.12.107.183 (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Randy Stone

Should the dedication to Randy Stone be mentioned anywhere in the article? I believe it should, but am having a hard time thinking of an appropriate placement. It's really not part of the plot, and I don't think it's significant enough to place in the lead. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide gross discrepancy

The site boxofficemojo indicates a domestic gross of $20,941,101 and an international gross of $21,354,421 for a worldwide total of $42,295,522. Whereas the site the-numbers indicates a domestic gross of $20,941,101 and an international gross of $43,445,451 for a worldwide total of $64,386,552. There is clearly a large discrepancy here and both these sites are used as sources at one point or another. How can we resolve the discrepancy or know which site to trust more? This discrepancy bothers me, because it feels a little bit like cherry picking facts to create a narrative.75.82.133.69 (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Boxofficemojo now shows the same worldwide gross as the-numbers. But for references sake, BOM is the standard. Problem solved. -MichiganCharms (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Wave to audience"

POV. Open to interpretation whether they're breaking the fourth wall that way or, more likely, waving to the in-universe helicopter pilot passing overhead, the way boaters passing each other will often wave at each other. Whether that's accurate or not, it indicates that "wave to audience" is just one POV interp.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)