Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Spin-off

Should we mention the Magneto and Wolverine spin-offs in more detail here? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Beast before X3

Wasn't there a cameo of the Dr. McCoy on TV (not Kelsey Grammar, obviously) in either the first or second film? Should that be included? As long as we have the Kitty Pryde cameos mentioned... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Steven Basic played the part. Alientraveller 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Influences

In regard to the revert about the film's influences, I'm not sure why Variety should be questioned when it says, "Using several resources that include the Marvel Comics lore, along with the more recent Weapon X graphic novels by Frank Miller, Wolverine mixes action with an origin story about how Logan emerged from a barbaric experiment as an indestructible mutant with retractable razor-sharp claws." Is there something that overrides this? Scripts can change, you know. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Frank Miller's four part Wolverine story with Chris Claremont wasn't about Weapon X. Alientraveller 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wolverine is also known as Weapon X, so it's probably not explicitly about Wolverine's involvement with the program. I think that the recent influence should be mentioned, though, but re-worded to be vaguer and just point toward Frank Miller's work. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Variety may have confused Miller with Frank Tieri, who wrote the most recent Weapon X story, and Jackman said the film wasn't going to revolve around the Samurai backstory.[1] So I think we should leave it there. Alientraveller 16:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, we'll see what new information surfaces. The headline and discussion are here to revisit if there's any more clarification down the road. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wizard Entertainment has some answers. "I’ve been reading Wolverine comics for 23 years," admitted the writer. And while he couldn’t discuss specific elements of his script, Benioff did hint at his favorite Wolvie stories. “I went back and reread the Chris Claremont and Frank Miller miniseries, and the Barry Windsor-Smith Weapon X." There's more information about the film at the link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite is now there. Alientraveller 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

This article could do with a few more images, but other than that it seems to me to meet the good article criteria. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, images would be tough for a film series article... a lot of the information is broad. Maybe we could make a line graph of the first 10 weeks of the box office performance of the X-Men films. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cudmore in X1?

I know Colossus has a cameo in X1, he can be seen sketching in the court yard of the X-Mansion. However, are we sure that it's Daniel Cudmore who plays him? I can't remember even seeing his face. IMDb doesn't list anyone as playing Colossus, so are we sure he was even credited? Paul730 22:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Donald MacKinnon played the young Colossus in X1, sketching in the court yard of the X-Mansion. Although referred to by name in the film itself, MacKinnon was uncredited for his role, somewhat like Boshek. User talk:86.46.250.51 18:11, 16 Feruary 2016 (ROI)

young wolverine

An actor has already been chosen to play young Logan. http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6445 Franshu 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wolverine

Couldn't that section be remade into another article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.125.46 (talk • contribs)

Hi; as per the notability guidelines for films, it shouldn't have its own article until such time as filming begins. Due to the unpredictable nature of the film business, a project may be delayed or end up canceled altogether, even a high-profile project such as this one. So we find it best not to create the article for said film until we know it's almost certain to reach completion (i.e. when the cameras finally roll). Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 09:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For The Love Of God Create an X-men Origins:Wolverine Article...You Have Enough Info For A Full Article About The Movie... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.28.91 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, not until it starts filming, per WP:FUTFILMS. I'm not bothered though to start paragraphing the mini-article now though, as it starts this month. Alientraveller (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Alientraveller. A full article about a film would include the plot, the cast, the production, and various aspects of its release such as box office performance and critical reaction. Considering the delays of superhero films such as Justice League of America and the Superman Returns sequel as well as other major projects especially due to the writers' strike, Wolverine still has not crossed the threshold into production. The threshold exists because the entry into production cannot be guaranteed at all until it actually begins. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The info about Liev being cast as Stryker is speculative. Some sites are reporting that he will be Sabretooth and Michael C Hall (Dexter) will be young stryker. MikeSims (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No it's not, CHUD is just a rumourmill. Alientraveller (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast members interested in returning

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

I'll incorporate these once I have time. Alientraveller 21:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had problems installing Flash (it works on some sites), so could someone watch this Ellen Page interview? I'd sent in a question asking if she'd reprise the role of Kitty. [6] Alientraveller (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Kitty, it was mainly all to do with Juno. Sorry.  Paul  730 17:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Alientraveller (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cast section in future

Is there anyone we might want to leave out for this article in future? The Wolverine cast has its own unique set of mutants, I'm not so sure how many to include, or for that matter how many mutants to include from the previous films. A controversial idea I have is to leave out mutants who only appeared once. Alientraveller (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with the one-time appearances being taken out, but it may be better to move it and make a small paragraph about them. That's if nothings been done yet. Just realised when you wrote this. -- Harish - 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Magneto script reviews

[7] I'm placing these here for safekeeping. When the film is in production and final plot details emerge, these can be implemented to show how things changed. Alientraveller (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Review of Goyer's rewrite. Alientraveller (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Generation X also be included in this list?

It is also an X-men film, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.11.183 (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A failed television pilot: but there's a good quote from Arad about it in a book, so I will add that. Alientraveller (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Budget

Anyone wanna add budget to the table in # 3.1 Box office performance. Would be good.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Too much infobox content

I just removed the Producer, Writer, Music, Cinematography, and Editing fields from the infobox. Why? Because there was a massive amount of information in there, and it caused the infobox to spill over onto the Recurring Characters table[8]. That information is important, yes, but only for the individual movies themselves; when covering the series, we need to restrict it to just the most common elements (such as the stars) or the most important (such as the directors). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

X-Men 4

Why does X-Men 4 redirect to the Wolverine movie? shouldn't it redirect here? since the Wolverine movie was a spin off. --Gman124 ^talk 22:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Deadpool will mouth off?

Why does it say that Ryan Renolds will "regain the ability to mouth off" in Deadpool? Did RR want to mouth off and they didn't let him? Did the character mouth off in the beginning of Wolverine and something happened to stop him from mouthing off? Does Deadpool mouth off in the comics but not in Wolverine? Anyway, it's a weird sentence with an ambiguous phrase that someone who knows more than me should fix. Thanks. Kansaikiwi (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In Wolverine, Deadpool's mouth is stitched up by Stryker to shut him up, so in the new film he will have this undone & get the ability to mouth off again, any way that doesn't matter, what happened to the section about Deadpool's film? it's gone, has someone thought it would be funny? It was smat? or some idiot thought that it was a rumour? someone re place it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captcrash182 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

X-Men Origins: Deadpool confirmed.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/theampersand/archive/2009/05/06/x-men-origins-deadpool-confirmed.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has mentioned for over a year now the studio's interest in his own film. Alientraveller (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully they don't screw it up like they did in Wolverine. 98.31.7.138 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)EF

Okay, I'm just curious about this. I know they've confirmed the Deadpool spinoff but has it been confirmed as X-Men Origins: Deadpool? I know I'm probably just being obsessive or maybe even anal retentive but I'm just curious. ONEder Boy (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1) To the IP, WP:TALK. 2) ONEder Boy, I've removed the section header since all that is known about the project is appropriately mentioned in the Wolverine section is that the studio would like a spin-off for Reynolds. If something more concrete like a director/writer came up, it could easily go under a Deadpool header. Alientraveller (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone looking up information on the Deadpool project and turning to Wikipedia would not know to find information about it in the subsection of a different movie. We may not have much information on the Deadpool movie (thus explaining why it doesn't have its own article) but with it being announced it CERTAINLY deserves it's own section --206.170.91.220 (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Put the Gambit and Deadpool sentence in its own section. :) Alientraveller (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Gambit's a different matter. We have no information about a spinoff being in the works for him, while there's article after article after article out there put forward in the past couple days about the next Deadpool movie being on the way. Gambit's future was just idle theorizing. --206.170.91.220 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO, they're just as likely as each other: the studio may reiterate its interest but neither of them have a script or director. Anyway, I'll leave you to take care of it. Alientraveller (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They're not just as likely as each other. Deadpool has been officially confirmed and Ryan Renolds has signed a contract to reprise his role as Wade Wilson/Deapool. At this point in time a Gambit movie is just wishfull thinking on the part of the producers. The prior can also be said for the Wolverine sequal, it's been officially confirmed, Hugh Jackman is signed on, so it requires it's own section, regardless of weather or not it's been mentioned in a diffrent article. 86.150.144.20 (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

They're all wishful thinking on the producers' part. ;) Alientraveller (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not when contracts have been signed. 86.150.144.20 (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah dude, only Deadpool has been confimed, the Cajun would be cool in a film, but this is just our hopes, Deadpool is almost definetly going to get his own film, while Gambit may not, if we're lucky he might appear in any upcoming X-films & in the future maybe his own, Heck if I could I'd write the Script myself, I'd do it For the Deadpool film too, but that's allready got a script in early development, just hope they keep it comedic & not a 'family' film where they have a comedic character, then ruin it by putting a really serious ending, like Marly & Me, or the Wrestler. --The One & Only (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

fox's x-men rights

the lead says that fox got the right in 1994. but for how long did they get it for? also since disney owns marvel now and they want to do it with their own studios after deals expire would that mean that they might restart the franchise? should those things be included here too? Gman124 ^talk 17:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fox continues to hold the rights to X-Men as long as they produce a film every few years or so. They're rebooting Fantastic Four because I believe the rights would have reverted back to Marvel/Disney if they hadn't gone in on production by the end of 2014, which why Daredevil went back to Marvel. Wildroot (talk)

Merging Magneto with First Class

I think it's safe to say that the Magneto spin-off will never get made, and elements from that script are being merged into the First Class storyline, given Singer's comments in that Los Angeles Times interview. Should we just merge the two sections together? Wildroot Improved (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox for X-Men: First Class film

I have created an sandbox for the X-Men: First Class film here for future use. You are welcome to edit and expand on it if you like. Thank you! Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's perfect! It's time to put it online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.42.87 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not yet! An article about the film can't come out until it starts filming. But thank you! Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

First Class Filming

Lauren Shuler Donner said that First Class would begin filming in August here. Does this mean the First Class article can be created on the 1st of September--121.217.213.95 (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it means that the article can be started when we receive word that it has actually started, not when it possibly may start filming.-5- (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Incubator for The Wolverine

This is just a notice that an article for The Wolverine is being incubated at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Wolverine (film) until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

X-Men (film series) → X-Men in film – With a lack of continuity and different offshoots (a spin-off and a quasi-reboot), calling this topic a "film series" seems inaccurate. Using "X-Men in film" will adjust the scope so we can write about the fictional team (or its members) with ease. Similar move has been done for Batman in film, Superman in film, and Spider-Man in film. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The five films seem to share a continuity, or at least claim to, don't they? Powers ^T 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose they are a film series, and claim to share continuity (along with many retcons between issues). If you want to write a bigger article on films not in the film series (such as the animated films with no relation to the film series other than source material), then go ahead. This should remain focused on the film series. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whilst I understand Erik's point that the move will allow for greater scope, at the moment this article is about one specific series of films. I would prefer to see this article kept where it was, but see no reason why an umbrella article of X-Men in film can't co-exist. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if these films are part of a series. All the films are part of the 20th Century Fox franchise, but we have a spinoff and a prequel/reboot with more of both to follow. It's not the same thing as having X-Men 1-5 with X-Men 6-7 on the way. There does not appear to be any total grouping of these films in home media, either. We have box sets for the trilogy, yet there is no box set for the "series" that includes the trilogy and the Wolverine film. The title "X-Men in film" allows us to discuss the topic in a scope broader than continuity or rights ownership. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  In addition, the fact that the studio wants to ignore Deadpool from the Wolverine film and make an unrelated Deadpool film shows the lack of direction (in terms of continuity or overarching premise) a series would typically have. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  Who said that Deadpool is part of the series? It doesn't even exist yet, you're being very WP:CRYSTALly in determining that a future unmade film makes this not a series. Even if the future Deadpool isn't part of a series, does not make this not a series. Not every film based on a Marvel Universe character is part of the X-Men film series. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  So why should we be covering Deadpool here if it is not part of the series? Do you think we should migrate the discussion to Deadpool#Film instead? That is why I am suggesting the adjustment in the scope, so we can discuss everything X-men and film-related here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  Well, in those two paragraphs, the first one is about a derivative of Wolverine, and the second is about a non-derivative. Clearly information about the cancelled derivative film is part of this series. The non-derivative's status is not clear. It could be a retcon, it could be something else. So the second paragraph should be moved to the Deadpool article, since it's WP:CRYSTAL to link the unrelated Deadpool here. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  The first four films were released as a "quadrilogy" (sic) here in the UK. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  Okay, okay, I'll concede that. :) I guess marketers find a way... what circumstances would "X-Men in film" suffice under? If Deadpool really gets made (even though the discussion seems misplaced here), do you think it should still be a film series article? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  The status of the Deadpool movie has absolutely no bearing on whether the five existing films compose a series or not. You can delete the second Deadpool paragraph to solve your issues. (though in reality, people usually discuss related material to some extent, in articles) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2007). "The X-Men Film Franchise". May Contain Graphic Material: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Film. Praeger. ISBN 0275993868.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Gardner, Eriq (2010-11-29). "Fox Sues to Stop Film and TV Script Leaks". The Hollywood Reporter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildroot (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/bryan_singer_says_x-men_first_class_sequel_could_be_set_during_vietnam/
• http://screenrant.com/xmen-first-class-sequel-ideas-schrad-117120/
• http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/05/27/x-men-first-class-sequel-cast/
• http://collider.com/james-mcavoy-x-men-first-class-sequel/94462/
• Zeitchik, Steve (2011-06-07). "Bryan Singer: An 'X-Men: First Class' sequel could be set in Vietnam, or amid the civil rights movement". Los Angeles Times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.37.64 (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Generation X

Not that I really agree with the move, but now that we're dealing with X-Men films on a broad scope should we include Generation X (film)? I'm guessing not since it's a TV film, but I thought it was worth mentioning. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Move

I don't think that the move of this article from X-Men (film series) to X-Men in film was justified. The move was discussed but no consenseus was reached. There has also been no official announcement that all the films are set in one continuity (not to imply that continuity defines a film series), unlike the given examples of Batman, Spider-Man and Superman. At the very least, there should have been more discussion before this page was moved. --124.184.165.154 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I'm going to move it back. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 20:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

X-Men Origins: Magneto a canceled film?

I don't understand why X-Men Origins: Magneto is listed as an unproduced project. It seems clear that the same basic storyline was made into X-Men: First Class. Heck, even the article itself implies this. It says "the story was moved forward to 1962, and involves Xavier and Magneto battling a villain" and also that "concept art for a younger Beast was designed." Both of these elements ended up in the final version of X-Men: First Class so it's safe to say that Magneto was simply a first draft. Furthermore, this website (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/complex-x-men-first-class-182356) states the writer of the Magneto script did receive a story credit for First Class. If the "unproduced" part refers to the original draft, then I see no point because several films change from the first draft to the final product. So I hope we can reach a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunchmeets (talk • contribs) 04:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The two sections need to be merged. It's obvious that the Magneto spin-off resulted into First Class. Wildroot (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

XM:FC sequel title

Is it X-Men: Days of Future Past or simply Days of Future Past?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Good question. It seems as if the sources are saying the second option although I wouldn't be surprised if X-Men is later revealed to be part of the title just to let the audience know that it is a X-Men movie. You think we should change it? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be whatever we can verify.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it not X-Men: First Class - Days of Future Past? Frogkermit (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be clear yet. If we find a source saying that without citing this particular source we could possibly use it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Incubator for Days Of Future Past ?

I wanted to see if someone might be able to set up an incubator for Days of Future Past, just until we get solid info on it, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.174.132 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a problem with having the current section in this film series article? We would pretty much export that section to a "Production" section in a new film article and likely extract a "Cast" section as well. I think having an incubator makes it tricky to keep up both the version in the incubator and both the section in this series article. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not very difficult, you just update both concurrently. The incubator just eases the transition when the time comes and we're able to hit the ground running.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I see your point Erik but I think most fans might enjoy a place to nurture the article while we get more information in the months ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.174.132 (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Prequel Series

The article referred to two prequel trilogies, however, it only mentions two films for each prequel series! While there is a reference that supports the 'First Class' trilogy, nothing seems to suggest a third 'Wolverine' film; and therefore this prequel series is a 'duology'. I have replaced the word 'trilogy' with 'series'.Glevum (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Indications

I see indications that X-Men: Days of Future Past will be told in flashback.

Anonymous173.57.37.111 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wolverine Films

I would just like to point out, how can we call the Wolverine "series" a prequel "series" if one of the films in it takes place AFTER the original X-Men trilogy. Also, is it accurate to even call it a Wolverine series? The Wolverine has been specifically been called a stand alone film by it's creators, to try and make clear that it is not a sequel to X-Men Origins: Wolverine, just another installment in the X-men franchise. That is specifically why it is called The Wolverine, and not X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2. They are just films inside the franchise that focus on Wolverine, but they don't create their own sub-series. Frogkermit (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree on the prequel series part, but not on the sub-series part. It's clear these two movies are Wolverine-centric (much moreso than the original three films), and if anything should qualify as a spin-off series.

LoveWaffle (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Potential Sequels" section

Is that section of the page still necessary? Or at least where it is (under the entry for X-Men: The Last Stand? The Wolverine is confirmed to take place after X3, and it appears X-Men: Days of Future Past might as well with its multitude of actors from the original trilogy. Wouldn't both of them qualify as sequels to X3?
LoveWaffle (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

well Days of Future Past is a Time Travel movie... so while the X-Men 3 Characters may be in it it may take place before or during X-Men 3 because its a Time Travel... so its not really originally set as a X3 Sequel persay as the Time Travel Aspect can put it anywhere in that sequence of events or even before that. the X-Men Days of Future Past Comics confirm the Time Travel thing and all that (the Days of Future Past Comics have been around before the Movie was even a thought just FYI) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.229.56 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

release date for X-Men: Days of Future Past

I saw an article from Thursday on mtv.com. It's an interview with one of the actors in the movie:

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2013/02/07/shawn-ashmore-talks-icemans-return-in-x-men-days-of-future-past/

It gives the release date as July 17, 2014, whereas the Wikipedia article says July 18th. I changed the Wikipedia article to say "17 or 18 July" but mistakenly gave a wrong reference when I did it. Hotwiki reverted my edit. We discussed it, but he seems certain that the 18th is the "official" date:

User_talk:Hotwiki/Archive_8#release_date_for_X-Men:_Days_of_Future_Past

User_talk:Hotwiki

As you can read, he gave me another reference for the July 18th date, but I wasn't convinced that it was greatly more reliable or more "official" than the MTV article. It also seemed to date from late 2011.

I did look on the official site, foxmovies.com, but it didn't work properly on my browser and I didn't find out anything about this movie there.

One of the guidance essays, Wikipedia:CHERRY-PICK#Deletion_or_debate says

Contradiction may justify deleting contradicted information more weakly sourced, but often it justifies presenting both sides of a topic, as by leaving intact the original statement and adding a new statement, so readers can know multiple perspectives.

(emphasis added)

24.24.214.15 (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, FOX hasn't announced that they moved the release date to July 17, 2014. There are a lot of reliable sources out there that FOX gave the movie a July 18, 2014 release date. You can go to Box Office Mojo, Yahoo Movies, IGN, MSN Movies, Rotten Tomatoes and they still have the July 18, 2014 release date. So let it go. And my source "SuperHeroHype" is a reliable source and its been giving credible news since 2003. Just because you saw it on the website of MTV, it doesn't make it official.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The production studio is a more reliable source than one of the actors in an interview. It is entirely possible that the actor misspoke or was simply mistaken. It is MUCH less likely to be a mistake in the multitude of sources that list the 18th. A compromise would be to list the date as the 18th, but make a comment that one actor in the movie has said otherwise. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Separation of series

Is it really necessary to separate the series into "primary", "Wolverine" and "First Class" series?

• I'm pretty sure Mangold has stated that The Wolverine is not intended to be a sequel to XMO:W but a stand-alone film so that cannot really be considered a series.
• I have never heard the FC-DOFP films refered to as the "First Class series". That name seems to have been created for this article.
• There is clearly a lot of overlap. From the direction DOFP is heading in, I'd say it will fit as well into the "primary" series as the "First Class" series.

I propose moving the first five films into a "Film" section and moving the "The Wolverine", "DOFP", "Potential sequels" and "Other" into a "Future" section. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I merged all the films in 1 section. With Deadpool and potential sequels to "Potential films" section. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wolverine retcons X-Men Origins?

In the trailer, we saw scenes that take place during the World War II and it seems that they will not fit with X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

MarcFernando77 (talk) May 27 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but they are all still part of the same series.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought the same too, but we can't guess about it. The Wolverine was always going to be a stand-alone film, maybe it does completely ignore the events of the previous film, and so will X-Men: Days of Future Past. I and probably a lot of people would prefer that. But guess we'll have to wait and see if there is a confirmation or something. Charlr6 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"focuses on Wolverine"

That's a POV assertion, and a tenuous one at that. Wolverine is not more than an ensemble character in the first three films, and appears for a meaningless few seconds as a joke in First Class. The dichotomy of Xavier and Magneto is the thematic cohesion. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And Professor X and Magneto are the focus of X-Men Origins: Wolverine and The Wolverine??? He got two solo movies, thats enough to include his name.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Then we'll remove the Prof. X and Magneto part if you feel that's POV as well. It is absolutely inaccurate to say the X-Men film series focuses on Wolverine. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

X2 is concentrated enough in the Wolverine's past. With Xavier "dead", Wolverine clearly became the protagonist of X-Men: The Last Stand. The series is not focused only on Xavier and Magneto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.251.177.202 (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing clear about that. That's personal POV. In any case, the simplest and most uncontroversial solution has already been taken: The sentence was removed, so there's no POV about Woverine,Prof. X or Magneto. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are gonna remove it to save face, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and The Wolverine heavily focuses on Wolverine. That is just not my point of view if you have seen at least the trailers of those movies or know the plot of the movies.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Two Wolverine movies, one of which may not even be in canon, cannot in any way be said to make the X-Men series "focused" on Wolverine. And your presumptuous comment about an edit that actually went along with your own suggestion is both uncivil and ungrateful. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

X-Men Origins: Wolverine not being canon is not confirmed. And as of right now, it is still part of the X-Men film series. So thats just your point of view.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I said "may not even be in canon," so we're actually in agreement on that. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources, please. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That's missing the point: Whether it's in canon or not is irrelevant. Let's say it it absolutely is in canon. That still doesn't mean the X-Men film series is primarily about (i.e. "focuses") on Wolverine. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's essentially what I was trying to get across, and it was directed more at Hotwiki than at you. Allow me to restate — Reliable sources that say the film series focuses on Wolverine, please. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I'm with ya, brother! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha lol.... And as if there was reliable source stating that Professor X and Magneto were the focus of the film series. I'm with ya, bro!--SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The former presence of one unsourced datum in the article doesn't justify you wanting to reinstate another unsourced datum. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, but don't directly tell me and not Tenebrae that I should post a source, I can definitely do some research if I want to prove that Wolverine is one of the focus of this film series. After-all, he's the only character that has his name attached on the title of 2 X-Men films. The thing is that sentence was written without a source, even before Wolverine's name was removed. So if you have a problem with me not using a source, then you should also tell that to Tenebrae.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen Tenebrae advocating for the inclusion of unsourced material in the article. Anyway, I'm not going to dig through the article's history so I can figure out which fingers to point where. And regardless, everyone here has the same two options: (1) Use reliable sources, or (2) Don't add anything to the article. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I removed unsourced X / Magneto information when it was noted to me, and instead of behaving in a collaborative, collegial manner, -SuperHotWiki chose to insult me instead. So that's the kind of person we're dealing with. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You only removed that unsourced information when I complained about why you removed Wolverine from that sentence when in-fact, he had two films part of the X-Men film series focused on him. If I didn't say anything, that sentence would have still been in the opening paragraph.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That's exactly what I said: "I removed unsourced X / Magneto information when it was noted to me." --Tenebrae (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

X-Men: Apocalypse

There seems to be some dispute if this is a film or a potential film. Even though the film has a release date, that does not guarantee that the film will be made, only more likely to be made. Release dates can change and even suspended indefinitely. WP:NFF says "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Release Dates for FF2, Wolverine 3, and Untitled Fox/Marvel film.

Release dates for Wolverine 3 and Fantastic Four 2 are set for March 3, 2017 and July 14, 2017 as well as an Untitled Film scheduled for release on July 13, 201871.188.30.224 (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Need split

We need split the confirmed future movies and the potential projects on a different sections.OscarFercho (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Legacy" section needed: X-Men costumes officially donated to U.S. museum May 2014

I'm not a regualar editor to the X-Men articles, but it seems to me the following is worthy of a mention in a new "Legacy" section, similar to the Star_Wars#Legacy section over at that article. Patrick Stewart donates 'X-Men' costumes to National Museum Of American History, May 17, 2014.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Costumes from the "X-Men" movie franchise are now part of the National Museum of American History's collection. Patrick Stewart, who plays Professor X in the globally popular movies, was in Washington Saturday afternoon to donate the costumes. Among the selections are costumes worn by Stewart, Ian McKellen as Magneto, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and Halle Berry as Storm. [more].
If anyone agrees, then give it a go. I likely won't be back here to comment further. 5Q5 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Quicksilver returning for X-Men: Apocalypse

As confirmed by Simon Kinberg via HitFix/TotalFilm. 98.110.7.195 (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Film deviations from comics

A lot of this is POV, but it's something I think needs consideration.

Maybe I'm just picking everything apart, but I think there needs to be some mention of how/where the movie differs from the comics. Did the movie's writers/directors ever read an issue of X-Men?

ex:

-Pyro an American teen and best friends (for a while) with Iceman? Pyro is an Australian adult and has always been a villain.

-Wolverine being 6'2" He's like barely over 5' in the comics

-Rogue being a whiny priss? She's supposed to be an in-your-face bruiser.

-Rogue and Bobby having a romantic interest? No. Rogue and Gambit, yes. Rogue and Magneto, yes.

-Kitty and Bobby having a romantic interest? No. Kitty and Colossus, yes.

-Jean killing Cyclops and Xavier? Never happened during any Phoenix storyline.

-The original X-Men were Cyke, Jean, Angel, Beast, Iceman yet Angel was an afterthought, Beast was like decades older than everyone, and Cyke and Jean were "senior members" where Bobby was just a newbie.

-Way too much was made of Wolvie's and Jean's feelings toward each other. Yes, there was something in the comics but nothing like they made it out to be in the movies.

All of that said, I fear they might have reconned a lot of stuff to make the movies more true to the comics. I still only collect up to the mid-90s and everything I listed never happened in Uncanny X-Men or any derivative thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerotta (talk • contribs) 14:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to this section, and get to the macro point. It really bothers me, even though I'm trying to convince myself that it doesn't, that 20th century Fox has spent so much time trying to alter the back stories, personal histories, and ages of the characters. I understand many people want to have some artistic license to make adjustments. But, most of these changes seem to be done out of a sense of just wanting to be assertive statements, for the sake of making assertive statements. It developed to the point that the movies are not based on the X men, but are movies inspired by the X men. I guess this would have be allowable since I think this was just going to be a short project. But, over the years, the franchise continues. As of today, all these attempts of changing things purely for the sake of doing so, have caused a "Shooting oneself in the foot effect." The film makers now have so much pressure on them into incorporating all the hundreds of X men story lines into the movie franchise. And, they are doing this while trying to fudge everything into making sense, which is a huge burden since all the back stories of these characters are so a skewed. If they would simply allowed the characters to be who they were, then they would have made the transition from the books to the movie so much easier and they would not created the basis for so many problems for a growing franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pross001 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it useful or notable to say that Blink was Asian in Days of Future Past but wasn't in the comic books??? User talk:86.46.250.51 18:16, 16 February 2016 (ROI)

Chronological Order

Putting the films in chronological order seems like something that would be good for this article. However Days of Future Past reboots the series post-1973. I recommend that the chronological order section either be edited to address this with two timelines branching out of the past segments of DOFP, or the section should be done away with. Orcson11 (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, its not needed, if readers read the content regarding in the films section, they would know the chronological order.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Someone recently started a section titled "Fictional Chronology". I've just removed it, for a couple of reasons: first, the chronology is far from straightforward (X-Men Origins: Wolverine takes place in several time periods, and Days of Future Past takes place in two time periods and two timelines). Second, it was unsourced; yes, it's fairly simple to deduce from watching the films, but that still constitutes original research. There are reliable sources which discuss the films' slightly complicated chronology (I think I saw one on IGN), and if people decide that a section on this is worthwhile, they could be used as sources. But with no sources, and no clear consensus that such a section is even necessary, I think it's best left out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please stop Taniya from adding back the chronology? I already removed it twice and she keeps adding it back. Plus, the article already stated that X-Men leads to X2, then X2 leads to X3, then The Wolverine then DOFP, while Origins and First Class are prequels set before X-Men.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 questionable contrbibutions

I'm just gonna say it out here that Adamstom.97's contributions recently for this article are absolutely unnecessary

• Stating that First Class and The Wolverine were well received because of their subtexts has no back up source
• Three spin-offs sounds more accurate than "several spin-offs why so change that?
• He removed the information that the home media releases are released by 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
• Then the cast section, its so bloated, like we don't need an indicator here, save that for the separate cast section and keep the section simple, and do we really need to put the codename in smaller text size and use a br to split the birth name/codename?
• Putting the plot before the brief information like release date/principal photography/writer without an explanation whatsoever.
• Renaming upcoming films to "Future"
• Putting home media releases before tie-in materials and reception
• He also removed the updated box-office gross that I posted
• Then for the info boxes, "The Last Stand" "Days of Future Past" "Wolverine" and "First Class" are in smaller text size? Like whats the reason for that?

Anyway, here's my last recent edit for the article, [9] if anyone wants to follow my edit and fix Adamstom.97 questionable contributions/edits, just follow that link. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering you only decided to come here after going three other inappropriate places is rediculous, and the fact that I have explained most of this is also rediculous in that you continue to ignore me.

• I have re-written the lead to reflect your correct point about the reception info.
• Outright stating three spin-offs is presumptive and reflective, and several even sounds better using proper English.
• Once again, I did not intend to remove that info, you can easily restore it without readding what you know I intended to revert.
• I have cleaned up and simplified the cast section, making it easier to read and navigate, more aesthetically pleasing, and more like other alike tables on similar pages.
• If you hadn't noticed, the plot always comes before the production info in film articles, which these sections are summaries of.
• Upcoming films is incorrect. this is a section about future possible films, as well as future possible directions for the series. Future is the most apt description, and is also what is used on similar pages.
• See the third bullet.
• They way you had it was messy - the large titles did not fit inside the cells, and so were not showing on single lines. By making the subtitles smaller than the titles, this issue was fixed. Again, this format is often used on similar pages.

Though consistency is no longer required on Wikipedia because not everything can work exactly the same, it should still be aimed for when possible, and changing things just for the sake of doing it different to everything else is not a good enough reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried to revert some of those things back but was reverted again, by 3RR whatever. so do it yourself. Anyway, your contributions are questionable, just saying. If you are gonna bring up MOS, you might as well know how to edit film articles, right? Also putting an indicator isn't the best way for reading, because the reader will have to look up at the indicator list to see what "C" "Y" "O" mean. And doesn't matter if large title doesn't fit inside the cells because they do FIT just not how way you want it to be.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"3RR whatever"? Are you so arrogant as to accuse me of not knowing what I am doing when you don't understand the basic rules of Wikipedia? Just because you have questions about my contributions, doesn't mean I don't know how to edit film articles. There is a reason why these formats work, and it has nothing to do with my personal opinions. If you hadn't noticed, the indicators are references - all you have to do is click on one of them and the page will explain what it means. It is a far more efficient system than both what was here previously, and what you use on the actors page. And if something fits, but it looks messy or is difficult to read, and we can fix that, then we have a responsibility to do so. if I am looking for information on Wikipedia, then I don't want to wade through a lazy mess to try and decipher the information. Encyclopedias are meant to be informative and professional, not a simple fanboy depository of information subject to the prejudices of the wider amateurish community. How about doing a simple bit of research by checking out some of the other similar pages I have pointed out to you, and seeing not only how well these formats work, but how issues are dealt with there as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You know what, I stopped bother reading your entire post after I saw the word arrogant. Have fun editing articles here, most especially typing br in infoboxes and decreasing the text size of the movie titles and codenames and changing the order of sections like as if MOS approved it. Thank you for your cooperation--SuperHotWiki (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well that was mature and entirely necessary. If you can't admit that your personal opinions do not match the consensus across Wikipedia, or that your accusations were undermined by your own flawed knowledge, then how about not starting ridiculous arguments for no reason, and let us who wish to improve this encyclopedia do so without hours of time-wasting. The last thing I want to be doing at 1:30 in the morning is trying to get out of a pointless argument with someone who doesn't even care. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Have fun with your newly found playground aka the X-Men/Fantastic Four film articles. I will stop cleaning your mess and just roll my head in disbelief.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is great to discover just how mature and supportive my fellow wikipedians are. Good luck to you my friend. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Channing Tatum has not yet signed a deal

As Gambit and to appear in X-Men: Apocalypse. Here are the sources backing it up:

• [10]
• [11]

So before anyone added that Channing Tatum has signed on for the role and to appear in the upcoming film. Well flash news, its not yet a done deal. Wait for the official announcement.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

he actually IS signed on to play GAMBIT in (a) FOX Marvel film. It just has not been decided at this point wither he's going to be featured in a solo film, or Apocalypse', and here's a source to back this claim. AND here's another source, just incase you were confused as to the verifiability. 2601:C:780:234:91E7:D1FA:7372:258E (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are speculations from the authors of those articles. So far, its not yet a done deal as of June 2014. if he's gonna play as Gambit in the future, then why can't just people wait for an official announcement from him or 20th Century Fox that he joined the film series.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

X-force before gambit

Will you idiots stop putting gambit in front of x-force. It is not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.219.27 (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

First class is a "semi-reboot"

Given how it contradicts the other films, and how it has been nullified by DOFP, why can't we just say the First Class is both a prequel and semi-reboot of the franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.62.199 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Because "semi-reboot" is a nonsensical, made-up term — something either reboots a franchise or it does not, just like you can't "semi-reboot" a computer — and there's no citation to verify the concept. It's personal opinion and original-research synthesis that the cited sources don't share.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Rogue in Gambit

None of the cast members of the Gambit have been confirmed so Rogue should not be added to Gambit. I have left the movie itself in there for now, but I suppose it could be removed completely for now. 83.163.203.51 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

X2

I changed a subhead to read X2 since the title of the movie never was X2: X-Men United. As the film's own article states, that was a name sometimes used during promotion. It was never a title of the film. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

X-Men: Apocalypse filming schedule

I found through two sources that the filming schedule for X-Men: Apocalypse would start on April 27, 2015 until September 4, 2015. Through Global News here, it was revealed that the working title is named Akkaba. I went to check a website that updates weekly which film or TV series, filmed in Montreal, is in production as well as contact information. This shows, under Akkaba, the filming schedule of the movie. I am unsure if this would qualify as sourcing or speculation? Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 21:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Untitled 2018 Film?

How come the film isn't added to the 'Future' section or even mentioned at all? Here's a source for its inclusion, I'll try adding it a little later. Npamusic (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh please don't... I'm very aware of that release date however, its never been confirmed by 20th Century Fox that the date is for a X-Men film. Its a placeholder date for a Marvel Comics film adaptation from Fox, thats it.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Npamusic (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Recurring cast and characters - Cleanup the order in the wikitable of films

As of now, all films are listed in the Wikitable as "Films", and to be honest it looks kind of messy. When you look at it, you really don't get a sense of which movies are part of the main series and which are spin-offs. I suggest that we split the Wikitable into 2 heads at the same height, one called "Main series", and the other called "Spin-offs". The main series is of course X-men, X2, Last Stand, First Class, Future Past and Apocalypse. The spinoffs are all the Wolverine films, plus Deadpool and Gambit. Sounds good? --Jonipoon (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. They're all part of the same movie universe. Would you split the marvel cinematic universe into Captain America films, Thor films, iron man films, etc.? I say leave it as is. Rcarter555 (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wolverine 3 title

I've seen this go back and forth a few times over the past few days, so I think it warrants a bit of discussion. I don't think that the "Wolverine" logo at SDCC 2015 was final or meant to indicate that the title of the film would be "Wolverine," for a few reasons. There has been a lot of hype surrounding that film lately, because Jackman revealed that it would be his final time playing Wolverine. While I don't expect a press conference dedicated to the title alone, I would think that Fox would want to more officially and more elaborately reveal the title. Basically, I don't think that a logo shown at the end of a CC panel that is not mentioned by any of the panel members really constitutes a title being announced. It's just meant to show that there is a Wolverine movie in the works, because the title is likely to contain the word Wolverine. Another thing, though... I suppose that it's not against the rules or anything, but it doesn't make much sense to me that Fox would release a Wolverine movie called "The Wolverine" and then a sequel to that film called "Wolverine." They're too similar. But, Fox showed another trailer at SDCC this year for the sequel to The Maze Runner, which is titled Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials. That doesn't confirm anything regarding "Wolverine 3," but it does give weight to the idea that Fox is dropping the "The" and will add a subtitle to the sequel's title. For now, I think that it should be listed as "Untitled Wolverine Film" or "Untitled Wolverine Sequel," until we hear something a little more concrete. Rmaynardjr (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy

In the character box why is Wolverine's name given as Logan/Jimmy? Shouldn't it be James Howlett? I know the name Howlett was never used on-screen but that was his name in the comics and Jimmy is a nickname for someone named James. Emperor001 (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is merely for the films, not the comics. Howlett was never used-on screen, thats why its not written, plain and simple.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

But it's still pretty logical that his real name in the films would be the same as the comics. I can't recall any instances in the films of them changing characters' names and typically films based on comics keep the character's real names with the exception of sometimes giving names to characters who previously were unnamed (such as Leech being given the name Jimmy or Rouge becoming Marie). I'm also pretty sure the closing credits of X-Men Origins: Wolverine identified his parents as John and Elizabeth Howlett (the article for that movie refers to all three by the name Howlett; why shouldn't this article?). Emperor001 (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Just double-checked and the closing credits did reference John and Elizabeth Howlett making him James Howlett like in the comics. Emperor001 (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Still not credited as James Howlett in the film. Plain and simple.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

He was credited as James, his parents were credited as Jon and Elizabeth Howlett. How much do we really need to split hairs? The article for the Origins film calls him James Howlett. Emperor001 (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that we'd want to write his name as "James" (and only James) if that is the extent of the information we're given. However, it sounds like there's compelling evidence to suggest that his last name is Howlett in the films. Since this article is about all of the films, we can use a composition of his names from the credits of each movie, in case any more information is given there. @SuperHotWiki don't forget that credits do not always provide the full extent of a name. In Man of Steel, Henry Cavill was credited as playing "Clark Kent/Kal-El," but he also played Superman. Just because the credits don't explicitly state something doesn't mean it's not true or reliable. - Rmaynardjr (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I was actually about to suggest changing Jimmy to James as he is called James in the films and credits. I agree that there is compelling evidence to say that his last name in the films, like the comics is Howlett. It is not like Magneto where there is no allusion in the films at all to his real name, Max Eisenhard, but rather he is constantly called by his alias Eric Lensherr (it is unknown if this is an alias in the films to or if they just want to keep it simple and not note that he has an alias), but with Wolverine it seems they intended to use his true name. When I get back to town I can also check the DVD commentaries to see if he is called by his full name or not. Emperor001 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Big no to your assumptions, if the name wasn't mentioned in the film or listed in the film credits, don't put it here. Doesn't matter if they mentioned the surname of his parents.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally got around to checking the DVD commentary and they expressly said that in his early years he was known as James Howlett. Can I add his full name now? Emperor001 (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sources

• On X-Force film: [12]. Hula Hup (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Television shows should not be under the "Films" section

Simply because TV shows aren't films, is that so hard to get? and yes I know that both shows are connected to the films and that the TV shows/films exist in the same universe. There's already a tie-in material section to the series, so Television shows should stay under that section. And again, this article is for the X-Men film series - not the X-Men Cinematic Universe.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think X-Men Cinematic Universe makes more sense for this page than X-Men (film series) anyway. Seeing as this page also talks about the TV-series and properties like Deadpool, Gambit and New Mutants, which are set in the same universe, but aren't really X-Men movies. 213.208.210.166 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No, because the title "X-Men Cinematic Universe" is coming from a fan NOT from the company that produces the film series and the TV shows. Anyway, just like the tie-in videogames and books that were released before, the TV upcoming shows such as Legion and Hellfire are also tie-in materials (in a form of a TV show) to the film series. So in my opinion, lets just leave it at that. No need to get carried away because of a TV show which is obviously a tie-in to the film series. This is about the film series in the first place.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

May I add, Deadpool, Gambit and New Mutants are indeed X-Men films, actually they act as spin-off films. Deadpool and Gambit already appeared in another spin-off film (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) and a character from X2/The Last Stand/Days of Future Past is appearing in the Deadpool movie. They don't need to have the word "X-Men" in their title to be seen as a X-Men movie, they are set in the X-Men world, and that makes them a X-Men movie period.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

As a note to that point, Deadpool is a separate legal franchise. There's plenty of information about it on this very article in fact, so you are going into risky territory calling it an "X-Men film". It certainly shares the same universe, but it's just as questionable as calling "Captain America: Civil War" a Spider-Man film or "Suicide Squad" a Batman film, or indeed if they ever did another version of the Fantastic Four set in this universe, they wouldn't become X-Men films. It is the part of the X-Men world, that makes it part of the X-Men film series and continuity, but not quite enough to make it an X-Men film, just a film featuring the X-Men. Really pedantic point, but it has to be made.

For the topic at hand, Legion has already been confirmed to have nothing to do with this shared universe. No word on the other one yet though. Ruffice98 (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have since created a 'Television series' sub-section within the page. It has now been confirmed by Bryan Singer that both TV series will actually link to future X-Men films. With this in mind I have stated that the page needs to be retitled to X-Men (franchise) or X-Men (cinematic universe) seeing as it is now no longer just a film series, but will feature in other media forms as well (tv series). Whether the original plan was to have Legion separate or not cannot now be determined, for if it was, the plan is for it to now be a part of the X-Men film universe. Burningblue52 (talk)

Wolverine in Deadpool

Hugh Jackman does not appear as Wolverine in Deadpool. I am unsure of the standards as to what counts as a cameo but I highly doubt that a cutout mask of Hugh Jackman's face from a magazine counts as a cameo. If it did then so many other actors and celebrities would have to be credited as making a cameo in movies because of this. Unless the United States has a different cut than those overseas, not sure on this as I have not seen any reports, then it should not count as a Wolverine appearance. Brocicle (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that Hugh should be given credit, for the fact alone that the filmmakers put his face into the film to reference the character. Whether it's a speaking, non-speaking, or simply a photographic cameo (like his is in Deadpool) is irrelevant to the issue. The fact that he is included in the film, should rightfully be given credit. Burningblue52 (talk)

Terms of Character Appearances

If a character only appears in two films but is played by three actors in total, can they be mentioned as recurring cast? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.250.51 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Promotional Videos for Deadpool

Are they really that notable? I vote to delete.Rcarter555 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed them for now. If they are to be mentioned anywhere it should be on the Deadpool specific page under promotion and marketing but not for the X:Men film franchise as a whole. Brocicle (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Cameo

Anna Paquin as Marie//Rogue in Days of Future Past should be marked as a (silent?) cameo. Or did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.228.197 (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you missed something. In the extended cut, she had a major role, such a major role that the extended cut was known a the "Rogue Cut". (User talk:86.46.250.51 10:16, 17 February 2016 (ROI)</

I see. Thank you for the reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.228.197 (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

William Stryker II / William Stryker Jr.

As William Stryker I / William Stryker appeared in First Class, shouldn't the other one be called William Stryker II | OR | William Stryker Jr.?

~~Comment added by Special:Contributions/TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2016 (ROI)~~

That is WP:SYNTH, you need a reliable source saying that his name is William Stryker II or William Stryker Jr. if you want to add it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Logan was never called James Howlett in his solo film, yet his parents were called that name, while Logan was just "Jimmy". We got "James Howlett", by giving what Jimmy is normally long for with the surnames the actors playing his parents were credited with. Don Creech was credited as "William Stryker Sr.", making the charcater played by Brian Cox, Danny Hutson and Josh Helman "William Stryker Jr." If this is not the case, then Logan should not be credited with his surname, Howlett, as only the actors playing his parents were credited with the name. By extension, the cast list should say "William Stryker Jr."

~~Comment added by Special:Contributions/TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2016 (ROI)~~

Stop trying to change the subject. We are talking about William Stryker. If you don't have a reliable source stating that his name has a "II" or a "Jr.", then adding it is against Wikipedia policy, and nothing else you say will change that.adamstom97 (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wolverine III

Is THIS the confirmed title?

"Proof":

http://screenrant.com/wolverine-3-rated-r/

http://io9.gizmodo.com/it-begins-fox-says-wolverine-3-will-be-rated-r-1759434090

http://www.slashfilm.com/woverine-3-rated-r/

The Part Confirming the 3rd Wolverine film's "R" Rating also confirms the film's name as "The Wolverine III". If this is the case, then the three Wolverine films should be re-classified as a trilogy.

Comment added by (User talk:86.46.250.51) 10:14, 17 February 2016 (ROI)

Sources do not confirm an R rating, they speculate that it will be which is not confirmation. All sources provided contain rumour material which they explicitly state, saying that Fox wants it to be R rated is not confirmation that it will be. Also the poster doesn't confirm the title either. Batman V. Superman didn't have the Dawn of Justice attached to teaser posters, it was just "Batman Vs Superman Brocicle (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hollyweird is looking for that cash and once deadpool broke records left and right they are thinking they will get a R-rated Wolverine, it is interesting, but I don't understand why call it Wolverine III? when they are trying to separate themselves from the Origins movie, Wolverine II would be suitable. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

News sites have to call it something. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Colossus Motion-Capture Actors

@Adamstom97: I cannot see any reason why you see it as unecessary to mention the people who brought Colossus to the big screen. Yes, they were uncredited, but that is no reason at all. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine was uncredited in First Class, and Ian MacKellen and Patrick Stewart were both uncredited for their roles as Magneto and Professor X respectively in The Wolverine. Despite this, they are still credited on the cast list. You claim to have given your reasons, but in the History of this page, all I see is a large amount of information being deleted WITHOUT reason.

Whatever you reasons are, please list them here.

Stefan Kapičić^V

~~TotalTruhTeller24~~

References

Well, you didn't look very hard in the page history then, as I found the reasoning I gave pretty quickly.

Anyway, there is a big difference between an actor reprising their role in another film for an uncredited cameo appearance and us listing all of the people who were used behind the scenes and in post-production to create a CGI character. Do you want to list all of the animators who crafted and rendered the model from frame to frame? After all, they are also "people who brought Colossus to the big screen". No, it is way out of the scope of this article to be listing every person that had a part in creating this CGI character. It is obviously notable for the Deadpool page, because it is a part of the process of producing that film, but here that sort of minutia is not something we list.

So if you seriously think it is notable to mention every single person who had a hand in creating Colossus for Deadpool, then go ahead and add them, but you have to include everyone or you will be just picking and choosing who you want to include based upon your own personal feelings, which is against Wikipedia policy. That means every CGI modeller, animator, lighter, renderer, supervisor, the lot. And that is ridiculous, I know, so we need to look for a way to split off those that aren't notable enough for this franchise overview table, and the only objective way is off of the official credits, who list Kapicic as portraying Colossus, with everyone else helping in the background. That is why the Deadpool article credits the character with Kapicic, and just notes these others in prose. And that is why we only list Kapicic here.

That is the expanded form of the reasoning I gave when I removed the content several days ago, and as you can see, it is fully backed by Wikipedia policy. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

James Bamford claim

There is a footnote at James Bamford's entry in the chart, under Gambit, that makes no grammatical sense. It reads: "This was later cut from the film was not released on the DVD." Unless someone can clarify this, and give an citation for the claim, I don't see how we can make a claim that this person played Gambit in a movie. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I have now gone to the talk page of anon IP User:86.46.204.120, asking him to discuss his issues here. He has been making unsupported claims about actors not in the film, or scene in the backgrounds of stills, etc., and aside from one claim about Greg LaSalle verified by Collider, he has offered no RS citing. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Sorry, never saw this. I got the Bamford claim from all other Gambit page on Wikipedia, from X2 itself, Gambit in other media, the Marvel Movie Wikia and the X-Men Movie Wikia. Also, finally read what I wrote, and what I meant to write was "This scene was cut from the film, and was not released on the DVD". The problem was a typo, and I skipped over the word "scene". Bamford confirmed his role as Gambit on his website, but it is no longer online. Also, the scene is mentioned in the novelization of X2. Comment added by Special:Contributions/TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2016 (ROI)

Scene was filmed as far as I am aware, but not included in the final product, or deleted scenes. Probably doesn't make it very relevant for this article. 2001:982:4947:1:A891:F14:8558:E748 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@2001:982:4947:1:A891:F14:8558:E748: Do you have proof of Bamford in the role? I have been trying to find a source other than his off-line website. ~~Comment added by Special:Contributions/TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2016 (ROI)~~

He has a Twitter account. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingspossibleforapossible: Can you ask him if he did film the scene? I don't have a Twitter account. {{Subst:unsiged|TotalTruthTeller24|21:29, 2 March 2016‎ (UTC}}

@TotalTruthTeller24: Please see Wikipedia policy No original research. This means that contacting a subject to ask them questions is not an acceptable means of sourcing information in an article here. We must use published, reliable, independent sources. General Ization ^Talk 21:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization:, but it's okay to source Bryan Singer's tweets, just as long as they haven't been in reply to someone? We seem to pick and choose what tweet is acceptable and what is not (even if the person's firmly involved in a film's production). -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There are some very specific cases where use of Twitter posts is permitted, but this isn't one of them. I wasn't discussing any use of Twitter as a source except the use proposed above. General Ization ^Talk 23:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My primary point was that we should not be prompting subjects or related persons for information via Twitter, or any other medium. We are observers, not researchers. As suggested, read WP:OR. General Ization ^Talk 23:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)