Talk:X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Archives

---

1. May 2006 – June 2007

Suggestions

As I don't want to edit conflict in this article revival, I'll just put down some thoughts on shaping up the article:

1. The lead section should be revised so it's clear to someone not familiar with X-Men what the film is about, especially in relation to the existing film trilogy.
2. Is it alright for X-Men to be in the "followed by" section? I assume these attributes are for chronology within the films' universe.
3. Do we need a sentence about the composer? I know we try to avoid citations within the infobox, but the sentence feels too added on.
4. Is the rumor about Schreiber being Sabretooth completely unsubstantiated? Not worth a mention?

Comments are welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The norm on what films follow what is for an out-of-universe perspective. Only the Star Wars really get away with the episodic sequence. And yeah, the Sabretooth thing is just CHUD. Alientraveller (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I mistook the setup for an original film and its sequel to be reflective of the in-universe continuity. I guess I understand why Star Wars has that exception, but it seems inconsistent. So change it back to The Last Stand? I'm just concerned that the lack of clarity will cause some edit warring about the nature of the "followed by" and "preceded by" attributes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would've thought that it would make more sense being in chronological order, seeing as it's about Wolverine's early days and therefore having no mention of the X-Men franchise (as if it's happened). Besides, it's not like X-Men Origins: Magneto will be displayed as being preceded by this film. Actually that's made me think... should the films even be considered as sequels or predecessors? I mean, they are their kinda standalone/seemingly unrelated to the events of the X-Men films, if you follow its principle arc, and if the claims that the X-Men Origins will contain x amount more films - well, it's just confuse things down the line. -- Harish - 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever our consensus, we should, at the completion of this thread, post a link to this section over at the X-men Film Series Page, so that we can demonstrate consensus for a single method of 'precession/ succession' for the franchise. I support OOU, not IU, reporting, but am open to one which is either reflective of the diverging stories - as Magneto and Wolverine represent two plot-indepedent sequels to Last stand that we put "Preceded by: X-Men The Last Stand" for both, and worry about X-Men 4 in its' own time, or one which is a literal timeline, and we go with true OOU, and Xmen, X2, XMen TLS, XO:W, XO:M, Xmen 4 would be the order. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We still need some consensus about this, Yes/no? ThuranX (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Agree. Not gonna disagree with such views of yours - your debates are concise, detailed, reek of thought and forsee a situation for a variety of angles. I know of a few politicians that could learn from your gang and you haha. -- Harish - 11:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we've got an agreement to work in Out-of-Universe, I jsut want to make sure, so I can link it around at magneto and the fiml series pages. ThuranX (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's cool, bub. Perhaps it's time you made a cabal of sorts for the comic regulars? It might br easier to bring a consensus and help uniform the films more esaily. Just a thought. -- Harish - 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What? A cabal? No such thing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't need one. There are about 6 of us who regularly work a huge comics film overlap, and we are all usually in agreement based on our discussions, not any obligatory lockstep. Frankly, I like it that way. we all 'know' each other, and like each other's editing styles, we all talk it out, and so on. It's not a cabal, just a coincidental like-minded group. ThuranX (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that we should be comfortable enough to be critical of other editors if necessary. Talking it out is peaceful, as we push back and forth mildly until we can figure out what's most suitable for an article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see... so it IS a cabal!! haha. Nah, honestly - I respect that. Too many rambo's on Wikipedia, so the fact that you can sort these problems out so well - it's great thing for Wikipedia. Keep it up, guys! -- Harish - 05:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sabretooth

Isn't Liev Schreiber playing Sabretooth in this movie and not a young version of William Stryker. It says so on the Sabretooth and Liuev Schreiber page that it has been confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiem (talk • contribs)

According to unreliable sources. Alientraveller (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This casting has not been verified by a reliable source yet. I've removed the unverifiable information from the articles of the actor and the character. When we find out from a verifiable source what role Schreiber really does play, we can include it. We're not in a hurry. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've revised it now to be more neutral. Perhaps Liev was approached for Stryker, but he decided to play Creed instead. Who knows. No other cast members have been confirmed now. I really look forward to the film's press conference. Alientraveller (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Liev is playing Creed...I just edited it last night to say so because it is confirmed. Now it's back to saying he is playing Stryker. We have confirmed sources that he is playing Sabertooth, so I don't see the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentHiggins (talk • contribs) 14:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First, he is not confirmed. No one is: damn Fox is forgetting to give a press release. Secondly, why did you delete your comment? Alientraveller (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. It took Variety a while, but now the whole cast has been confirmed. Alientraveller (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See, people just need to be patient. What harm did it do to wait for confirmation? None! Steve ^{T • C} 08:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that patience is key. Even though rumors can seem very likely (and sometimes not at all), that ambivalence is why we shouldn't include them right away. This is casting information that was inevitable, and with the Variety article, we can say beyond a doubt that this is certain. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aint It Cool News link concerning Brian Cox

Does anyone think that link is reliable or what? It just seems kinda, well not reliable. Wiildroot (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Brian Cox was on a BBC programme, Film 2007 talking about Running With Scissors, the presenter Jonathan Ross asked him about Wolverine": definitely reliable. Alientraveller (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

we now have a first image from the movie. Here- http://xmenfilms.net/gd/wolverine1_hires.jpg Perhaps it can be added to the main info box on the right of the page until a teaser poster is released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 04nbod (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not really infobox material, and it could have been photoshopped, so it may not be suitable to illustrate the cast section. But sticking an image in there would ruin the article's format. Alientraveller (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely photoshopped. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if the image was genuine, I don't think that it would be very appropriate to insert into the article without the relevant context to provide a fair use rationale. I'm not usually a fan of non-direct advertising materials in the "poster" attribute of the film infobox, considering that production stills can come out fairly often. We're better off sticking to promotional images that include the title or posters. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's not photoshopped. It came from USA Today, which also has some details that could be used. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite being official, we don't know if Fox altered it. We won't know until we see more pictures. Alientraveller (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Fox did a crappy job of photoshopping it, anyway. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Got a good oneAaaxlp (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)