Jump to content

Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Video games

The video game section is being treated as canon, and it's obvious that this is the case, as some other games that are being kept on the page, but are put in the other media section. Seems like a nightmare trying to keep them just for fan service. The only game that's worth keeping is the one that connects X2 and Last Stand, other than that they aren't important. Wolverine's Revenge may be a tie-in, but this is just to make money from the X2 film at the time. Aside from the fact that none of the video games are canon, what's more important that it makes the page look like a mess having some video games up one end of the page and others at the bottom. You shouldn't be playing favourites. Marvel Cinematic Universe only has the LEGO video game based on it, but with good reason as that's referring to the franchise as whole. It doesn't include every single individual game. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

this isn't a shared universe article FYI. Canon or not, it doesn't matter. The article is being changed to Fox franchise, so every X-Men product that has the Fox's logo or at least serves a tie in material for the film will be included in the article. Again this isn't X-Men Cinematic Universe. Just an article with X-Men products that Fox was attached to, that's why Legion is here again, despite being separated from the continuity of the films, its a Fox product just like those videogames.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
While X-Men Destiny and X-Men Mutant Academy contained elements from the films but those weren't products of Fox nor they were tie in materials for the film/s, that's why they are under outside media section. I am not the one here who is playing favorites. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to add, Google the back covers of these videogames: X2: Wolverine's Revenge, X-Men The Official Game and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Fox's logo is plastered there! So yes, its a 20th Century Fox product and perfectly fitting for a X-Men (Fox franchise) article.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a little more sense. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Though we disagree on the aspect of Legion being a part of the continuity, Hotwiki, I'm glad to see that you are adding to other elements of this page once the RfC is completed. Thanks, yo.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Just showing how it should be done. Since I don't want this to be moved to X-Men (Fox franchise) and for it to ONLY benefit the TV shows and that the article would be merely about the films/TV shows which shouldn't be the case IF this article does get moved to a new title.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing as per WP:SNOW; overwhelming consensus is to keep HalfShadow 03:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC) HalfShadow 03:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


X-Men (film series) → X-Men (Fox franchise) – Some editors want the article to be about more than the X-Men movies, and to create a continuity including TV shows and possibly other media such as videogames. Other editors want to have separate articles covering X-Men movies (the status quo), X-Men TV shows, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussion was an informal discussion that someone tried, inappropriately, to declare as an official move request roughly a week after it began. That is not the proper, ethical way to do a move request. I started this one clean, and have been notifying numerous editors who I know disagree with me — you were the very first editor I notified — so by those very actions I am not "owning" the discussion. Please stick to your opinion of the issue and stop these personal attacks on another editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
My opinion and position remain. This move discussion is as informal and unproper as the previous. Cheers. -- AlexTW 01:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But as with Donald Trump, saying something is "fake" doesn't make it so. I followed all the rules. Look them up. I've done this many times before. Everything is 100% proper and aboveboard. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, yes, because you are the editor that knows all and be's all. I find it funny how when you start the discussion, only the opposition joins in. Also noted how you're only notifying registers users, and not the regular IP editors as well. Not half an agenda there. -- AlexTW 03:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no agenda and I'll thank you not to show bad faith and make groundless assumptions. You know very well there's no guarantee that an IP used by someone one day isn't being used by someone else the next. It is not standard practice on Wikipedia to notify anon IPs since there's no way to know if the editor in question will ever see the message. That's one reason Wikipedia encourages us to register. And think on this: If I had an "agenda," why did I contact you first, and also contact editors like User:RodgerTheDodger and User:DisneyMetalhead and others whom I know perfectly well disagree with me? Now please stick to the facts and stop making personal attacks on me.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I would show you good faith, but over the past month, I've seen you attack a multitude of editors based on their number of edits and length of time here, so I don't believe you deserve it. Agenda noted. Carry on with your malformed request. -- AlexTW 04:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The move request is formed properly and appropriately. I follow rules. Feel free to point to any policies or guidelines you believe were not adhered to. Please note that you are the sole editor making bad-faith claims against me and this move request.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Mm, yes, but not against your behaviour as a whole. Cheers. -- AlexTW 04:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Tenebrae, regardless of how long you have been an editor, your reputation within this discussion precedes you^. Forive us, if more than one editor here is growing tired of your demeaning, elitist, hypocritical behavior. I know I am.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm going to sound like a flip-flop hypocrite, but I was agreeing before to bring an end. I understand fully that you want to see some unification of the franchise, but I think "X-Men in film" would just be best. It can start with TV movie, Generation X then go into theatrical and make a point of saying how X-Men in 2000 started off a series. "X-Men in television" if necessary could happen as well, but it would have to go beyond Legion and The Gifted. If you want an entire page of Fox's 2000 and beyond series then we should wait for a more formal/official announcement. That's all I have to say on the matter, so I hope this (discussion) resolves it. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
You do seem to be generally indecisive regarding the topic. Perhaps you need to reread the reasons why the move is supported, then the reasons why it is opposed and then decide what you want to say. Just a friendly, suggestion.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think just like how the MCU and Marvel films have separate pages (granted that is a much larger universe), people are more familiar with (and thus more prone to search for) the films. Many may not even know about the connected TV shows or consider the games part of the franchise, so why flood and saturate the page? My 2 cents... TropicAces (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as has been discussed here numerous times already, this is an article about a film series. Yes, there is some information about related projects in other media, but the scope of this article continues to focus on the X-Men film series. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there's no a practical reason, this its only a series created by a licenssing product, not for the owner, some other derivative works, as videogames, haven't place here.OscarFercho (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now - I'm still undecided on this move (leaning more towards oppose), but since the upcoming TV series The Gifted will featuring Blink from DOFP and is rumoured to tie into the film chronology, until we get official information that it is confirmed to be in the film chronology, we should wait. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 02:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – X-Men (media franchise) make much more sense if the article is going to include the films, everything, and the kitchen sink; either the current title or X-Men in film makes much more sense if the article is focused on just the theatrical films (as it should be). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Uhhhhhhhhh, what's this? An RfC was already conducted above this new one. What are you doing, Tenebrae?? If it was an invalid move request, then why were you fighting so hard against it? That combined with your efforts to take away from every editor, as well as your suspisions seem to be all done in violation of various Wikipedia standards and rules that I have discussed before. Not to mention the fact that you chewed me out and dragged my name through the mud for not notifying all editors about the move for a name change. You get to pick and choose how solid the rules are for others, and yet don't follow through on your own RfC? This has become a circus. I think given the previous RfC's survey and information acquired - this page should already be long-ago changed. To all you editors who are now joining the conversation --- go and look at the whole discussion. There's plenty of evidence that is from numerous reliable sources as to why this page needs to be retitled. All of your reasonings are purely opinion-based. THOSE arguments are not reliable sources, as there is no references given for why you choose to oppose it. On the opposing side of this discussion, there are plenty of references supporting the move. Wikipeida requires citations. Where are all of yours? Opinions do not make an argument.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is an article about a film series. The scope of this article continues to focus on the X-Men film series. - Max24 (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's a place for an X-men (Fox franchise) article which comprises all elements and touches on the films, and also an X-men (film series) article that deals with the films in greater detail. Ordinary Person (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Admin comment. When I closed the previous RM, I did so with the comment "You can't do it like this; you need to have a discussion to narrow it down to one or two possible titles, and then have the discussion.". So, User:DisneyMetalhead quite correctly did just that and then Support/Oppose discussion was opened on whether to move it to the Fox Franchise name on 31 March. This however was not a RM discussion - four days later, Nurseline247 added one [2]. Sorry, but you can't suddenly decide that a discussion is a formal RM - Nurseline247 should have created one at that point, and the editors in the previous discussion should have added their comments to that. Indeed, DisneyMetalhead said on April 3 "We are following the direction from the admin Black Kite to get a more defined viewpoint before the RfC starts. Whoever does start the RfC, they will definitely have to do so at the very bottom of all this mess. Now, User:Tenebrae has actually created a proper RM, and people are voting on that. People, you're not going to get anything done by not following the protocols. The malformed discussion had some people simply "supporting" by placing their usernames/IP addresses in the sections - I can tell you now, no admin is going to take any of those into account - especially IPs with one edit and new accounts with a few dozen - unless you actually give a rationale for supporting or opposing the move (I realise there are some in the discussion section, but do you except a closing admin to dismantle that whole rambling discussion to fit rationales to votes? That's why we have the RM format!). Even if that "discussion" had been properly formatted, it would not have been closed in either direction because it simply wasn't done properly. Now, I think there are two choices - either simply use the properly formatted RM, or scrap everything up to this point and start an RM that everyone is happy with. Oh, and a couple of editors need to stop making personal attacks on others, or they may well find that their ability to contribute on this page will be removed. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let's not pretend there's some great coherence between the film and television divisions. There is a film series and there are attempts by Fox TV to leverage that into television, but we must avoid trying to reify through Wikipedia what is not really there. Individual TV shows can explain their relevance to the film franchise, and the film franchise article can even give appropriate (lesser) weight to related shows through a small subsection.Zythe (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for two reasons: (1) "Fox franchise" is just downright confusing and annoying, especially for people who neither know nor care what production company is in charge of these items, and for people who have no way of knowing what "Fox franchise" even means or entails. (2) This is really a content question in disguise -- trying to ask if the television items and other spin-off items can be completely covered in this article. The content question is not the purview of a WP:RM; that is another question entirely. Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was canvassed here, I have no idea why. Roxy the dog. bark 12:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
AND what is this?? Tenebrae are you now doing exactly what you accused me of doing several RfC's ago?! ATTN: Black Kite, what do you have to say about this? If it invalidated the previous RfC, what happens now?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The above user was WP:CANVASSed to the discussion by User:Tenebrae. They were selectively notified by Tenebrae in a non-central location (though the RfC is in the WP:CENT/A where it should be). In addition the editor has not been involved in this discussion up until Tenebrae notified them of the edit. This falls under the Spamming section of canvassing. An admin has been notified.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking at it, it appears that Tenebrae has notified every editor that has edited the X-men article or its talkpage in the last year. This is probably why Roxy doesn't remember it - after all, can you remember every article you have edited in the last year? I can't. Since the notification was neutrally worded, this doesn't appear to be canvassing unless you can show that he has selectively chosen editors that are likely to support his point of view. I can see that his notifications also included every registered editor that supported the name change, and a large number that didn't participate in the discussion at all, so I think this is unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see that no canvassing has taken place, and welcome Black Kite's cleanup of the Disneymetalhead nonsense, and will now register my iVote. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is no valid reason to change this title. Everyone understands what it means and it works even if Marvel at some point in the future would award the film franchise to another company (or if 20th Century Fox was to change its name). The focus of the article is and should be about the X-Men films, not about the current film franchisee. Also, if we changed the title to X-Men (Fox franchise), shouldn't we as a consequence also have to change Marvel Anime to Marvel (Madhouse franchise), X-Men: Evolution to X-Men: Evolution (Film Roman franchise), and Legion (TV series) to Legion (FX Productions franchise)? Keep it as it is! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The more I read what other people have written and begin to understand the scope of this article as it's intended, I'm leaning toward the oppose side. The biggest issue I see with NOT moving the page is my reasoning for supporting the move in the first place: what classifies a film as an X-Men film? No one can seem to answer this question. The "main-line" X-Men movies would be the obvious answers, whereas the Wolverine movies, especially The Wolverine and Logan, as well as Deadpool, had little to nothing to do with the X-Men. The issue I think we're running into by including Logan, for example, on this page is that nothing about the title of the film implies that it's an X-Men movie. What source do we have to claim that it is? It is not about the X-Men, and the writing team and director didn't work on the X-Men movies, nor did the X-Men writing/directing team work on Logan. With the exception of story continuity between the X-Men films and Logan, and actors reprising their roles, there's nothing that really even relates one to the other. Neither story continuity nor an actor reprising a role requires two films to be in the same film series, though: RDJ portrayed Iron Man in Age of Ultron, then reprised the role in Civil War, in a continuing story arc. We consider those two films as part of distinct series, though. By including a film like Logan, we're acknowledging that there are films that belong on the page that are not X-Men films. If that's the case, then this article is about more than the X-Men film series, which means that a title like X-Men (film series) is inappropriate. I'm not particularly on board with the idea of calling it a franchise or a universe or a continuity (all of my support for these titles hinged on acknowledging that there is an X-Men film series and that the works that are included on this page extend beyond that... call it what you want, just title it in a way that includes everything), especially because, by my understanding, there are few, if any, concrete connections to works outside the films. Even the MCU is known as a cinematic universe even though more content (duration wise) has come from TV. So I'm okay calling it a film series and noting that there are additional mediums through which parts of the story are being told. I don't think franchise or universe etc. are necessary (not as unreasonably outlandish as some editors seem to be implying, but probably too MCU-esque). But I maintain a position that X-Men (film series) is an inappropriate title if non-X-Men films are going to be included on this article. -RM (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Mentioning company name in a bracket is not nesessary I think. I would support if the name cuanged to "X-Men Film Universe" or "X-Men Cinamatic Universe". Apart from that current title is also OK. Taniya94 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - First of all the RfC summary is poorly written. The issue with the current opinions, is they have not read the lengthy discussion we have had over the last month(?) or so. The discussion took that long for us to come to the current name suggestion. The object of this discussion is to find the most accurate name for this, without it being an official name from the studio. Besides that, the format of the previous RfC was much easier to follow. That being said to any editor that has previously opposed this move, (namely: RM, Taniya94, Thomas Blomberg, Softlavender, Zythe, Brocicle, Anythingspossibleforapossible, TropicAces, adamstom97, OscarFercho, and Max24). We all know Tenebrae is vehemently against this move (see conversation preceding this RfC for reference), and so he will not be convinced otherwise. Here are the reasons I brought up the subject of a name change to begin with, and why here as much as before is why I support the move. See what you think:
References stating that Legion and untitled X-Men TV series are a part of the shared continuity
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Direct and reliable sources state that the TV shows are a part of the larger story. For the first reason, here's an article that is directly about expanding franchises ---
1) Simon Kinberg, who has been unofficially called 20th Century Fox's answer to the MCU's Keven Feige plainly stated in an interview with Moviefone, in regards to Legion: "Tonally, it's very different," says Kinberg. "Noah is a genius -- he wrote and created and directed the pilot to Legion -- and it is a very different sensibility than anything we've done with the X-Men movies. Almost, I would say, as radically different as Deadpool was from the mainline X-Men movies. Legion is, again, in a different direction: really character-based, really granular in terms of getting inside the details of the characters. It stands as part of the X-Men universe, but it stands apart from it as well."[1] This validates my continued statements that the series is being developed to stand on its own, but is a part of the franchise. How do you dispute this?

2) Director Bryan Singer, who has been involved in one way or another with each of the X-Men films and is executive producer on both TV shows, was interviewed by The Hollywood Reporter along with Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fox Networks Group Peter Rice -- and stated that: Legion is designed to be a series that is "part of the X-Men universe, but when you watched it, you wouldn't have to label it — it could exist completely on its own." This coincides with what producer Lauren Donner said about Legion existing as a 'standalone'. They want it to be viewable as its own entity. He then said it and the planned X-Men series "will relate to future X-Men movies." Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Peter Rice then stated how the TV shows and films differ: "Movies are ultimately narrative stories,"..."I find TV is ultimately a character journey."[2]
3) Series writer, producer, and creator Noah Hawley has stated in multiple interviews (I'll quote one with Vulture) that the reason the series is indiscernible as to what the time-period, and where it fits into the X-Men timeline is that, "This is a story told from the point of view of an unreliable narrator...”[3] Production designer Michael Wylie can be quoted in an article by The Daily Beast, as saying: "We’re not supposed to know where we are or what year it is..."[4] Long-time X-Men producer, Lauren Donner stated during the NYC Comic-Con: "This is far from the X-Men movies"...(perhaps tonally, guys?)..."but still lives in that universe"..."The only way for X-Men to keep moving forward is to be original and to surprise. And this is a surprise. It is very, very different."[5] So we've verified that it is in the same franchise, but that because of the character's unreliable nature, it establishes what the producers want to do -- let it stand on its own.
4) This is further backed up, when Hawley then stated to Variety: "I think it’s important for us to establish this as a fully realized world with fully realized characters,”..."It does connect and it can connect, but I’m not relying on that. I have to prove myself. I have to prove that the show is good enough to incorporate those elements from the movie world, if that were ever possible."[6] Hawley wants to prove that the series can be great on its own, before greater connections and cross-overs are made. So again, we've established that it is in the same world.
5) Unregistered User:92.111.179.110 previously stated that props from the X-Men films were shipped to the set of Legion, thus adding relevance to the fact that Hawley is making light references to the fact that Legion is a part of the X-Men franchise, before he adds more to the "cross-over content". As mentioned in the previous point, he wants to first establish the series, before cross-overs show that "It does connect and it can connect".[7] Noah Hawley later stated that it would doom his production to failure should they immediately have X-Men showing up in his series, which deals with a different character from the films. Again, he wants the series to stand on its own before greater connections are made. With Variety he stated: "It's sort of a non-starter to say James McAvoy's going to be in my show ... I'm not saying never, but certainly not in the first year of it. You'd have to pay those guys so much money to begin with. You'd have to pay them movie money in a different medium."[8]
6) Following the critical and viewing success of Legion,[9][10][11][12] the studio undoubtedly has further plans for the character (similar to the way that Deadpool will be a key character in the franchise because of his success -- i.e. Deadpool 2, Deadpool 3, and X-Force films), and those quotes of Hawley wanting to prove himself before he introduces characters into his TV show, from the franchise ("I'm not saying never, but certainly not in the first year of it") indicate that a second season is in discussion. This is further evidenced by the fact that the series' star has "a job offer" for Patrick Stewart when the two appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live together, where Stewart stated that he would "100%" star in the series as Professor X. Just watch the entire interview. It was covered by Screen Rant.[13] The subject arises after Stewart first slighly indicates that he may return to the role in the untitled Deadpool sequel. Stewart clearly loves his role and doesn't want to give it up just yet. The fact that the pair are discussing such possibilities indicates that the studio is looking for ways to further connect their franchise.
All of these very direct, and reliable sources verify two things that this discussion has been about --- Legion should be on this page, and it along with the untitled X-Men TV series are within the X-Men film franchise continuity. This again verifies what I intended to set out discussing and that is that this page needs to be retitled, in order to be accurately acknowledging that this franchise is no longer merely just a "film series".

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bryan-singer-peter-rice-edinburgh-922716
  3. ^ http://www.vulture.com/2017/01/fx-legion-noah-hawley.html
  4. ^ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/08/inside-legion-how-the-trippy-thrilling-x-men-spinoff-is-changing-the-superhero-game.html
  5. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/legion-premiere-previewed-at-nycc-936647
  6. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bryan-singer-peter-rice-edinburgh-922716
  7. ^ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/why-the-production-designer-for-the-new-tv-series-legion-has-a-dream-job/article33635015/
  8. ^ http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/legion-x-men-crossovers-noah-hawley-1201967643/
  9. ^ http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/2/8/14528826/legion-fx-blockbuster-interview-review
  10. ^ http://www.polygon.com/tv/2017/2/7/14531866/legion-review-x-men-fx
  11. ^ http://variety.com/2017/tv/reviews/legion-fx-dan-stevens-review-noah-hawley-1201974474/
  12. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/legion/s01
  13. ^ http://screenrant.com/legion-patrick-stewart-professor-x/
--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • comment it's not about continuity. This page is about the X-Men FILMS not about the continuity. It's not that difficult to understand. No one has said you can't briefly touch on the shared continuity in tie in material but Legion is where it should link tp for further info. Regardless of sources, this page should remain for the films. Brocicle (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Correction - it isn't, but it should be. The page needs a retitle, and reformating. That is the issue here. With a change of title, comes a better format where the films are listed, and then the TV series are listed. Then any other tie-in material can be listed. It's that simple.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Shouldbe according to whom? You? As it seems many editors seem to disagree with you with valid reasoning Brocicle (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:X-Men_(film_series)/Archive_7&oldid=1137333680"