Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand

Citations for use

• Neil Drumming (2006-05-19). "Master of the Mutants". Entertainment Weekly. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1195604,00.html. 
• Christian Moerk (2006-05-21). "Phoenix's Unresolved Daddy Thing, and Other X-Men Issues". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/movies/21moer.html. 

Resources to use. Wildroot (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Quill

The creators have stated very clearly, the commentary track being at least one source, that the character with spines is Quill and was named incorrectly in the credits. It is a fact and whoever wrote "do not change or be charged with vandalism" or whatever is simply incorrect (maybe the fact that people keep changing it should be a clue.)

More proof from http://www.thexverse.com/community/showpost.php?p=38406&postcount=89/, which is also featured on both the Quill and Kid Omega articles:

"According to scriptwriter Zak Penn, the character played by Leung was not named as Kid Omega in the original script. In a Q&A on fansite thexverse.com, he said: 'This was a screwup, pure and simple, albeit one that is never mentioned anywhere in the movie but the credits.'"

Also, common sense.

My edit lists both names and explains the mixup. Changing it to Kid Omega is misleading, and also stupid, considering the second someone follows that link to the Kid Omega page they'll be told he's actually Quill (and then they'll probably just go and change it again). Rglong 07:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The official credits cannot be ignored. They're a primary source. If we start ignoring primary sources because we believe we have a better idea or that they're incorrect, where do we stop? As well, the fact that fans keep changing it doesn't make it correct.

I've written what I believe is a compromise solution that respects the primary source while acknowledging fans' complaints. --Tenebrae 02:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Credits are flawed in other places however: Psylocke is apparently also misnamed (according to scriptwriter Zak Penn she was never named as such in the script) and Moira is absent due to her name being left out of the press notes. Surely the 'primary' source in this case should be the Scriptwriter and Director, in the same manner that artistic/lettering mistakes occuring in the comics are overriden in the canon by the writers. --Garhdo

I may not like it any more than you do, but the screen credits are the screen credits. They are what they are and we can't change them; all other general-audience sources will use them, and Wikipedia will look fannish and less than credible. The best thing we can do is to give the official credits, and then add any additional comments (with citations) -- which is pretty much what we have for Quill now, though I would like to get a citation there. I've heard plenty of people say that the screenwriter said such-and-so here or there, but I haven't seen any definite footnotes. --Tenebrae 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Being accurate is more important than looking accurate. -Toptomcat 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And we are accurately quoting the screen credits. --Tenebrae 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we even sure that is Zak Penn's post? Is the X-Verse official? Alientraveller 08:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Now the article incorrectly states that it's just comic fans "taking exception" to the naming of the character, rather than the credits being incorrect, which is what the writer has said. I'm changing it again to make it more neutral. I will keep Kid Omega as the first name mentioned to appease the letter-of-the-law crowd, however I still want to point out how ridiculous it is to accept information as true simply because of its source, with its accuracy being regarded as secondary. That is a logical fallacy.Rglong 00:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to respectfully disagree. The article gives the credits; whether you or I feel they are accurate is simply beside the point because we're reporting what the movie credits themselves actually say. And for consistency with comics continuity, an explanatory note is attached.

The 1970s Hulk TV series called the character "David Banner." Comics fans would say, "No, that credit is wrong". But it's still what the credit reads, and that's the observable, concrete reality that we report -- with an explanatory note about the discrepancy with the comic, if we wish.

I'm sure you can see the importance of reporting the plain-vanilla fact. When we start to do otherwise -- whether it's us here or a newspaper reporter changing a document's statement because he thinks it's wrong for whatever reason -- things crumble. --Tenebrae 01:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're acting like I'm making this shit up or something. The writer of the movie has admitted this error in an interview.Rglong 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now the article is incorrect again, because again you are just claiming that "fans" made this up out of their heads.Rglong 01:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now it's neutral. It's totally missing information, but at least it doesn't blame "fans" for the problem. Which is all I wanted really - fine if you want to dismiss the Zak Penn interview, but don't make extra B.S. up about how it's just the "fans" who think this is wrong (FYI I don't even read the comics).Rglong 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.

How much "primacy" does a DVD commentary have? Because the creators, including the director, also aknowledge the credits are incorrect on the commentary. FYI.Rglong 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Direct quotes from primary sources are extremely important. How much knowledge or input they had must be considered. In any event, given that the transcript is not online, I would insert the verbatim quote from the person, possibly in a footnote, citing the disc and the time-stamp, which is easily viewable on any DVD player's readout. This would allow other editors to view the exact words, and assess the speaker for knowledge and credibility. Really, this is what any journalist or author or would do, and certainly print encyclopedias and textbooks adhere to the same level of vetting, so we should as well. --Tenebrae 16:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL Yeah I'm sure all the wikipedia articles about comic book movies are held to that standard. Ha ha! Not that you're wrong, I just think it's funny, seeing as how the corporate media doesn't come close to meeting those standards with really important issues, let alone movie trivia. But since I'm an art grad and pretty much sit around painting all day, I'll pop in the DVD in the background and try to listen for it. I'm fairly certain the director, Bret Ratner, is the one who says it. Doesn't get more primary than that, or at least I hope the director's importance would outweigh whatever obscure person is in charge of writing up the credits.Rglong 00:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

DVD Commentary: director Brett Ratner, writers Zak Penn and Simon Hinberg

DVD Scene 5, The Rally:

Magneto goes to the community action meeting and charges up the crowd. Immediately afterward he and Pyro are confronted by Callisto and Quill. Exactly when Callisto says "If you're so proud of being a mutant, where's your mark", Brett Ratner on the commentary track says:

RATNER: "This is Ken Leung who's been in a bunch of my movies who, you know, he said 'Brett I got nothing to do.' I said 'don't worry we'll create a character for you,' and Mark came up with the idea of this character - is it Spike?"

PENN or HINBERG (hard to tell their voices apart): "Yeah that's my favorite line" (referring to what's happening on screen, not to Ratner).

PoH (the other writer answering Ratner): "No it's Quill".

R: "Quill, I'm sorry, it's Quill. And Mark came up with this idea to have quills coming out of his face like a porcupine."

My Playstation doesn't have an exact time marker, and neither does the program I use to play DVDs on my computer. But anyone who owns the DVD should be able to go straight to scene 5 and find this in two and a half seconds.

And for the love of christ on a cracker, if the movie's own director and his two head writers don't trump the random technician or whoever that's in charge of entering the little names into the credits scroll, then there is no reason or justice in the universe.Rglong 01:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The quoted text doesn't support the assertions that there were errors made. An alternate interpretation could be 'they refer to him as Spike, thought of him as Spike, but named and credited as Quill due to conflicts in licensing, as Spike was introduced for the cartoon and not a pre-existing character. As such, he might be licensed through the production company for the cartoon, and not directly through Marvel.' Further, that they use Kid Omega may also be some indication of further lawsuits/legal bars to the use of Quill. ThuranX 01:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't seriously suggest it was ever "Spike", he misspeaks when he says Spike and is quickly corrected by his HEAD WRITERS. Then he quickly apologizes, and it's obvious he remembers exactly what it is the second they correct him. Why don't you listen to the commentary first and then make a judgment. And it's obviously an error because Zak Penn said it was an error, I don't care that he said it on a forum, he said it and he's the co-writer of the freaking movie! If people are this willing to obsess over the letter of the law in an article about a sci-fi movie, and be willfully blind to very obvious and readily available evidence, then imagine what other problems wikipedia has with articles that are actually about important issues!!Rglong 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, y'know, no WP:OR on interpretations of his statements, and so on. Stop promoting 'your version' as the 'right version'. ThuranX 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off. You have both writers and the director saying it, and Zak Penn explicitly admitting it was an error in the credits roll. For one thing I think you're just upset at me over a debate that occurred on a different article, which is a separate issue, but let me break this Quill issue down for you:

EVIDENCE THAT IT IS CALLED QUILL: Director and both head writers call him Quill in DVD commentary. In fact, the writer goes out of his way to correct Ratner when he accidentally calls him Spike, and Ratner goes out of his way to apologize and correct himself.

EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS AN ERROR IN THE CREDITS: Zak Penn explicitly says this in an interview on an internet forum. Some people don't want to include this because it's a forum, but you can't just ignore it. Perhaps the forum isn't permissable as a primary source and therefore the fact that it was clearly an error has to be left out according to wikipedia rules, but...

STOP ACCUSING ME AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN THE ZAK PENN INTERVIEW OR LISTENED TO RATNER AND HIS WRITERS ON THE COMMENTARY OF MAKING THIS UP. We didn't. You have the evidence you just don't want to include it, for whatever reason. But constantly accusing us of pulling this out of thin air is what makes contributors like me very, very annoyed, and not want to be in this community anymore. And it's not civil. So stop it.Rglong 02:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, cool down. This is a character name, in a movie, on an internet website. Getting pissed does no one any good. This is just Wikipedia. Take it seriously, but not so seriously you blow a gasket doing so. It's really simple. You simply do not have a citation for the above. In fact, what you are doing above fits quite well with WP:SYNTH. read up on it, and see how closely it matches. Calling for citation in the face of OR or SYNTH is what we do when we take this project seriously. I keep asking you to find one. Surely if it's that well known, you can find one of those three, Penn, Hinberg, or Ratner, saying this where we can make a citation. ThuranX 02:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, well I would love to cool down, but something about being called a liar and a vandal when I'm trying to improve the accuracy of the article really yanks my chain.Rglong 02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh

You know, I hate this article. I give up. Make it say whatever you want.

I just want to leave it by expressing how utterly insane I think it is to take one tiny little word from the credits, which the head writer has said was most likely a mistake, pure and simple; which contradicts everything else ever spoken of by the director and both his writers; which goes against common sense - to take that one little error and place it above all else simply because of where it came from.

I think this is pretty much a loophole in the rules of wikipedia that is detrimental to its accuracy. I sincerely hope articles about more important issues aren't suffering from this.

That's all. Let's never speak of it again, ever. Do not ever ask me about it again, please, for the love of all things good and decent in the universe.

Have a nice day.Rglong 04:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, as this round-robin discussion has said repeatedly for months, the simple fact is that we're reporting what the credits say -- not commenting on or editorializing about them.

We're reporting the cast list, same as IMDb and every professional reference source. Is every professional reference source wrong?

And in fact, we even do note that a similar character in the comics has a different name: One sentence that states a simple, content-neutral fact. ("[H]is character resembles the comic books' character Quill; however, the official cast credits read 'Kid Omega'.) We're not speculating on why; we're just stating the simple, incontrovertible fact.

Finally, let's please note that, leaving aside Rglong's unsettling hyperbole ("for the love lf all things good and decent in the universe") and self-righteous solipsism, his insulting us fellow Wiki editors by calling us "nazis" [sic] for adhering to guidelines that are in place for a good reason has resulted in a 31-hour block.

This movie came out almost a year-and-a-half ago. This is just a simple cast list. After all this time time, can't we please just leave it as the simple factual reporting and one additional factual sentence that notes one minor difference with the source material? That's plenty encyclopedic. --Tenebrae 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not supposed to restart discussions, but c'mon: it was a mistake. It was a primary source, but still A MISTAKE. Penn said it himself. He's a more "primary" source than the credits list with mistakes on it. Can't we just put there, <!--The name is Quill, the "Kid Omega" in the credits was revealed to be a mistake-->? → C Teng ^[talk] 13:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, every professional reference source is wrong because they haven't read Zak Penn's post. → C Teng ^[talk] 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

They haven't watched the DVD commentary, either. I'm with Rglong on this; QUILL is the canon name. The writers confirmed it. Zak Penn confirmed it. THE DIRECTOR confirmed it. Why do you insist to keep the "professional sources" as references, even though they have been revealed to be wrong? Fine, if we can't fix it, then I'll just expand a little on his section. C Teng ^[talk] 13:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I'd like to point out WP:IAR. C Teng ^[talk] 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've gotten sucked into these kind of ridiculous arguments in these discussions before, and its amazes me every time how some people think the Wikipedia guidelines are hard rules that MUST be followed, to the word, regardless of whether doing so reduces the accuracy of the article. I'm not a comics guy, so I have no personal knowledge of what character this really is, but it would seem to me that this matter has been clarified ad nauseam by the people who made the movie, and the "official credit" is nothing but a clerical error. I don't believe its in the spirit of Wikipedia to show false information, sourced or not. I think a fair compromise would be for it to read "Ken Leung as Quill (erroneously credited as Kid Omega): Has porcupine-like spines he can extend or retract at will. While the official cast credits read "Kid Omega", the writers on the DVD commentary give no doubt that it is, in fact, Quill." I have read on here that the commentary is not a good source because it is considered a forum, which Wikipedia forbids. I don't think its a stretch to say the policy is referring to forums as in messsage boards and discussion pages like this. To disallow a fact because of the medium in which the most reliable source possible stated it is just asinine.Aoystreck (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The more significant point is that the master video from which the DVDs were struck could have had the "Kid Omega" credit changed to "Quill" at virtually no cost whatsoever -- and the filmmakers and the studio, no matter what else was said, chose NOT to do that. That clearly indicates that when given the opportunity to change the character's name in the official aftermarket credits, they chose NOT to.

If the filmmakers and the studio chose to call him Kid Omega not only in the primary release, but in the secondary release as well, then who are we to say different. That would be WP:OR on our part, and certainly POV since some editors want Kid Omega, others want Quill ... that's a difference of opinion, and opinion is disallowed in the face of the objective facts. The objective fact in the case of film characters' names is what appears in black-and-white in the script and in the onscreen credits. Who are we to say that the people who own these characters are can call them whatever they want are wrong?

Remember "David" Banner in the old Hulk live-action TV show? That was the producers' choice. We can't say, "Bill Bixby as Bruce Banner, erroneously credited by the producers as David Banner." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor Characters

I added some of the mutant cameos and fixed a mistake on Glob Herman's page confusing him for Wraith.

I am a long-time X-Men comics reader and offer my services on any arguments relating to the X-Men film pages. - Garhdo

X-Men film series page?

Could someone help give a newbie the knowhow to create an X-Men film series page, similar to the Spiderman film series page, in order to tie the films together with a plot overview, comic comparison, character list etc.

Any help would be appreciated --Garhdo

Cameo cast

I've tried changing it once already but my changes seem to have been deleted since yesterday.

Basically the character listed as Anole on the page is in the main credits as Lizard Man, played by stuntman Lloyd Adams.

Also on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376994/fullcredits the following cameos are listed:

• David Colin Smith ... Omega Mutie - listed here as Wraith
• Julian Richings ... Mutant Theatre Organiser - looks similar to pre-Horseman Caliban
• Zoltan Buday ... Mutant Cure - the Rhino-like mutant from the deleted scene.
• Mark Helfrich ... Ash Man - the charcoal skined mutant from the camp scene and the animatic
• Bryce Hodgson ... Artie - Worth a mention due to his role in X2
• Connor Widdows ... Jones - The TV blinking kid from X2
• Luke Pohl ... Flea - returning cameo from X2
• Ryan King ... X-Student - listed here as Hellion
• Olivia Williams ... Dr. Moira MacTaggart
• Alexandra Zhang ... Student - the student who writes telepathically in class, maybe based on Sketch

It just seems to me that if the listing for Quill is kept as Kid Omega based on the credits then these entries should be the same or omitted. ---Garhdo

Re: Bishop, Gambit, etc. as cameo characters: Unless we can provide an actor's name (either credited or through some cite, like a magazine or newspaper article) or a screengrab, there's no confirmation that someone whom you think might be Bishop, say, really is Bishop. Basically, that means just adhering to Wikipedia's prime rule: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". --Tenebrae 06:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What was the name of the deleted seen with the rhino mutant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.49.45 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone introduce the forthcooming next episode section in this article?

Fox films has officially announced that X Men Film will have the 4th series http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/49/4449/summary.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduemoni (talk • contribs)

An unreliable source. Go to X-Men film series for a proper lowdown. Alientraveller 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What the heck does this sentence mean?

"Senior actors Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen had their faces completely "de-aged" by complex keyframing, in which no CGI elements were used."

I think I've asked this before but nobody had the answer: what does it mean that "no CGI elements were used"? They were deaged using CGI, weren't they?Rglong 02:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no answer, I'm taking that out because I don't think it makes sense. They use CGI to pull of the effect.Rglong 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What I believe they meant is no 3D computer modeling was used. Computers were used to "paint" the actors faces, cell by cell, to make them look younger (kinda like the technique used to stylize 300). Whether this is classified as CGI or not is up for debate. Padillah (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning of the meme?

I'm pretty sure the "Juggernaut bitch" scene was added after the creators saw the meme online. Should it be mentioned here? .Absolution. 20:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not without citation. ThuranX 01:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Brett Ratner mentioned it on the DVD commentary, if that helps. Paul730 09:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can give us a citation for that, it would help, but even so I'm not sure it's a particularly notable matter. It's what, one line in the film? It doesn't have the level of formality that happened with Transformers, so I'm not sure it's particularly worth it. but I'm open to counter-arguments. ThuranX 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that notable either, I wouldn't include it. But I'm sure it's mentioned on the commentary, if anyone does think it's relevant. Paul730 00:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cast list

Can we get rid of this cast list please? It seems to attract unsourced speculation of fans assuming that, because that mutant can teleport, he must be Vanisher, etc. Also, what encyclopedic purpose does it serve? We're not IMDb, we don't need to have a list of credits. Any real casting information (like Alan Cumming leaving because of costume issues) can be included without the list, especially a list of extras who bear some similarity to a character from the comics. Paul730 00:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree to a point. Listing central characters like Hugh Jackman and Famke Janson is not a bad idea and does add to the article. But to list people that are not in the movie because they were in a cut scene that is on the DVD is over the top. We are not trying to replace IMDB which has much more comprehensive cast listings than we have any right to. Padillah (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Omegas

It says that Callisto is the leader of them. Now, are Callisto, Psylocke, Quill / Kid Omega, and Arclight the only ones? But it says it's an "underground network that stretches across the nation." What does that mean? C Teng ^[talk] 17:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all non-notable and irrelevant to the article. In point of fact it's irrelevant to the movie as well, which reinforces the fact that it's irrelevant to the article. Padillah (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well... I posted it a year ago. —C Teng^(talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Omegas/Muties

According to the X-Men: The Last Stand website, Callisto's group is called the "Omega Muties" (see References section). Where did "Omegas" come from, here? —C Teng^(talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi all,

Congratulations on a nice article on a difficult topic, X-Men is a more demanding than usual film article given the complexity of production, size of budget and nuances of the plot and themes. It's a strong article but I feel it is not up to GA status yet in a number of ways:

1. Coverage The X men films have been noted for their development of political and social themes through the use of comic book fantasy. Despite the numerous issues raised in this film, the article makes no mention of them. For example here is Ebert: "There are so many parallels here with current political and social issues that to list them is to define the next presidential campaign. Just writing the previous paragraph, I thought of abortion, gun control, stem cell research, the "gay gene" and the Minutemen. "Curing" mutants is obviously a form of genetic engineering..."

Writing about the themes of a film is often the hardest part of an article: they are implicit so the editor relies on a critic to draw them out, often a solid themes section must be pieced together from many sources.

2. The Plot section is admirably succinct, however at times it veers into a slightly in-universe perspective, for example by referring without explanation to characters by their mutant names. This strains a reader unfamiliar with neither the comic books nor the film. Similarly, phrases like "tele-kinetically slams" and "disintegrates" could be replaced with "throw" and "kill". I appreciate the difficulties of describing a superhero film in an encyclopedic style, but remember the object of this section is to give a brief overview of the happenings to allow readers to understand the rest. Phrases such as "Following the end credits,..." are more successful since they describe the structure of the film better, introduce cinematic terms and avoid the in-universe POV.

3. Cast section This section is completely uncited. There is extensive comparison to the comics without reference, nor explanation for somebody coming to the topic for the first time. This is interesting material, however there should be some citation. Other characters could be introduced in the plot synopsis or left out entirely Dr. Rao, Mr Worthington and Jimmy could be included elsewhere, and the President and other politicians with minor roles excised. A discussion of cast and/or actors in wikipedia is not the same as a complete credits list in a film.

The "section also refers to a "secret ending" is this a post credits scene? That's not the same meaning and confusing. The supposition that Prof Xavier entered another's body is just that, and Olivia Williams' presence needs a source since it's not in the credits.

4. Lead is too short. it should be 3-4 paragraphs. Try cutting the list of directors who didn't direct the film, and expand the summary of production, themes and critical reception.

5. Critical reception section is too short for a film that received that much attention. A longer and deeper summation of critic's responses could be had. The article also credits comments to "Ebert and Roeper", but in fact those remarks were said by Ebert in his Chicago Sun Times review, the source is to his website.

6. Prose glitches (A partial list) Development section:

• "composer / editor" Try, "John Ottman, the composer and editor...
• "Though Singer, Harris and Dougherty had yet to complete a script, the director has revealed that at the time of his departure they had partially completed a story treatment for the film which would have focused exclusively on Jean Grey's resurrection"
  • Rewrote.

*"X2" - this is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine. Prefer "X-Men 2"

• • Nothing wrong, it's the film's actual title...
    • Oops, mea cupla. I notice that, though disputed, X2 is the accepted title on Wikipedia, so we'll leave it for now.--Ktlynch (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Filming:

• "The $210 million budget[1] was also the most expensive film to be made, passing King Kong with an additional $3 million.[7][31]" - The budget was a film?
• "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, which was released two months later, would later break The Last Stand's budget." - Break the budget or break the record? Is this really the best expression possible?
  • Fixed.

Box office

• References to "domestic" and "foreign". This is pulled straight from Box office Mojo. Wikipedia should represent a worldwide view of the subject, not an American one. There are other sources of information available
  • BOM has no problem (it's used for most movie articles, and the backing by IMDB/Amazon makes it credible), but expanded.

Visual effects

The source uses the correct word: rejuvenated

7. Infobox "Followed by X-Men Origins" is this film really a continuation? It is not part of the series. If anything X Men four is, though this has not even been confirmed yet. Delete it.

• • "Suceeded" is not in cronology, but real life production - in a similar case, Return of the Jedi is suceeded by the first prequel. igordebraga ≠ 15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I was getting at a different issue: whether or not the spin-off origin films are part of the series. The X 1-3 series follows a connected story arc, with the (mostly) same protagonists and antagonists, and it had intended to have the same director. Since the studio bought the rights to all X men comics, does that meant that all future X Men films are part of a series? I wasn't talking about about chronology or financing as such, but rather what constitutes that definition. You undoubtedly know more about them than me, but that is what it hinges on. From that point of view I'd rather see X Men 1-3 grouped together. --Ktlynch (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I feel this article has much potential, and hard work has been done up to now. The development section, for instance, prose problems aside, is strong and there is a lot of interesting information in the article. The history and talk page show a lot of passion and work went into this, and that should be acknowledged. However, a close reading reveals not just omissions but inaccuracies, and that's before a very detailed check of sources. Nevertheless, I feel these problems can be worked through and the article improved. I'll put the review on hold for a week and we'll see what progress is made.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait. I've been swamped with homework the past week. I'll start addressing the concerns in due time. By the way, thanks for reviewing. Wildroot (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been a sincere effort to make some improvement, and two editors have expressed intentions to improve it. I'll leave it on hold for another few days and chip in if I have some time. --Ktlynch (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the problems remain, and there is continuously fancruft comic book stuff being inserted. If editors are interested in improving the article, I'd be happy to join and review any changes. Given the backlog at WP:GAN I cannot leave this on hold any longer. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Designer of the rolling prison

In the novelization it says "Magneto cocked an eyebrow at the inventiveness of the design, reminded of a piece of information gleaned by Mystique some while back, that there was a mutant inventor working for DARPA, the Defense Department's Advanced Research and Planning Agency, known only by the code name Forge. If this was Forge's work, that made him-or her-a force to be reckoned with, on a par with Xavier himself." (page 117 and 118) Should there be a link from Forge's page to here or vice versa or should it be completly ignored seeing as how it is not stated in the movie and only the book about the designer? TacfuJecan (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not stated in the movie, so it's not really relevant in an article about the movie.

And this is off-topic but my God what a bad piece of writing. "Force to be reckoned with"? Really? Quentin Tarantino rightly made fun of that hackneyed phrase in Pulp Fiction nearly 20 years ago. "Gleaned by Mystique some while back"? Jesus, that's bad writing. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Total agreement with everything you just said, Tenebrae, both about it not being relevant and that it was horribly written. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)