Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand

Archives
August 2, 2005 to May 28, 2006 May 28, 2006 to June 5, 2006 June 6, 2006 to X June 6, 2006 to March 30, 2007

---

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)

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)

Vandalism? Excuse me?

The warning sentence stuck in with Quill is downright rude. I know his section is constantly under debate, but threatening anyone who attempts to improve the article with "vandalism" is ridiculous. I have changed that section a number of times, and despite disagreements, it was always in good faith, to make it accurate and neutral. Fine if you want to include a secret sentence informing people of how to look at this issue, but threatening people with charges of "vandalism" is NOT COOL. It also goes against almost everything wikipedia stands for. I'm going to clean it up so it doesn't sound so prickish, and also include an explanation as to why things are the way they are - explaining things to people is always better than threatening them.Rglong 01:34, 6 October 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)