Talk:The Wolverine (film)

Premise

Could we add a sentence or two about the premise being that Wolverine will be in Japan following the events of the previous film? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about Mania reference

This article used to cite Claremont and Miller's 1982 series as a source for the script makes no mention of it in the article. Has the article been edited with that reference removed? The article does cite Comingsoon.net as a source but that article has been removed as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This might be a good replacement. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No more Aronofsky

Today's headline. I was really hoping to see this produced, but unfortunately, it serves as an example of why WP:NFF exists. Let's keep an eye on this project to see if anyone else picks it up. If not, maybe we can talk about merging it to the X-Men film series article. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fox indicated that they intend to keep moving forward, so I would keep the incubator until they scrap the film all together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Kenuichio Harada is not correct. The real name is Keniuchio Harada, as you can see here: http://marvel.wikia.com/Keniuchio_Harada_(Earth-616) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.59.91 (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, http://marvel.com/universe/Silver_Samurai spells it "Kenuichio".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if you read the biography of the character in that page it is "Keniuchio". There is a mistake under the voice "Real Name".

Kenuichio Harada, Harada Kenichirō, Kenuichio Harada, Kenuichio Harada Argento Surfer (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

http://misc.thefullwiki.org/Keniuchio_Harada_(Earth-616) http://japandailypress.com/tag/keniuchio-harada http://loganfiles.com/SilverSamurai.html http://comicbookrealm.com/report/character/802/silver+samurai

Given it's a fictional character, I suppose it could be anything, but I'll just say that "Kenichirō" is a common Japanese name, while I've never heard the names "Kenuichio" or "Keniuchio" in the fourteen years I've been in Japan, and find them unlikely (though I'm constantly surprised by people's names). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Two films

It appears that this is a sequel to two films: X-Men Origins: Wolverine and X-Men: The Last Stand.

Anonymous173.57.37.111 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes and no. I dont think any reliable sources have released it saying so as yet....Thats the big debate. MisterShiney ✉ 07:01, 8 January 2013 (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.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The Wolverine (film) → The Wolverine – This is the primary topic for this specific article title ("The Wolverine"). The actual animal is covered at Wolverine, and any search result issues can be addressed via a hatnote in the article linking to the animal, and then the disambiguation page. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As a Character he is known as Wolverine/The Wolverine. To avoid confusion we should just leave it as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. MisterShiney ✉ 10:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The film is not the primary topic. There are dozens of other articles that one could easy be referring to of equal or greater usage. The article "the" is not a sufficient qualifier.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course the film is the primary topic.. and any confusion from search results can be handled via a hatnote. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the character is the primary topic, if there is one. For "The Wolverine", either redirect to the character or point to the disambiguation page. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that this article and the one on the character having names that close would lead to confusion. People would constantly be going to the wrong one. "The Wolverine" should redirect to the disambiguation page. - Dracuns (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. There is no need for the parenthetical disambiguation unless there is another Wikipedia article titled "The Wolverine". As to whether or not the primary topic is the movie or the character, I would say 2 things. First, it doesn't really matter much as the movie is about the character, so anyone typing in "the wolverine" into the search box will get to an article with links to the character very early in the article. But I do think "The Wolverine" is (or very soon will be, once the movie comes out) the primary topic, as anyone typing in "The Wolverine" into the search box will most likely be searching for the article on the upcoming movie. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as I do not think the article title is distinct enough to drop the disambiguation term. Like TriiipleThreat said, "The" is not a sufficient qualifier here. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  It's actually a very good qualifier because it precedes the primary term. And a hatnote can handle people who reach the page in error (those looking for the animal or the comic book character). That it redirects to a larger dab page filled with Wolverine related terms is wholly unhelpful to readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  From what I can tell, "the wolverine" is a distinct term (and the link has redirected to the animal's article since 2009). Terms like the bear and the fox are not like that. The question is, does "The Wolverine" in titlecase unambiguously refer to a film? I do not think it does, especially as a film that is not out until later this year. I do not think that readers arriving at the disambiguation page is a bad thing; I have seen some evidence that hatnotes are not as useful as thought and that arrival at disambiguation pages give readers proper access to a variety of topics. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  If someone takes the time to capitalize "Wolverine" (and thus, goes to The Wolverine), I very much suspect that their intent is to find the article about the movie, or less likely, find the article about the Marvel Comics character. On the other hand, if someone types in the wolverine, I would accept that they're more likely looking for the animal in nature as opposed to the comic book character or this film. I think a redirect to a dab page is a waste of article namespace; we have an exact match for this exact spelling/capitalization, why steer readers away from what they're looking for? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "The" is not enough to make it clearly distinct. Many new users may type in "the" before the name of articles for many different reasons. We should not have "the" lead to a totally different page than the same word without "the". That just does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  But if you type in the latest movie, "The Wolverine" you should be steered to a disambiguation page for exactly matching the title of the movie? Is logic used at all here? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment to the opposers: you can argue that there may be a small portion of false positives for those searching for the animal when they type "The Wolverine", but on the opposite end, I can guarantee you that there will be close to zero people typing "The Wolverine (film)" in to the search box as a first-try to reach this article. Who are we hurting by putting the article at the exact title instead of redirecting them backwards to potentially unrelated material? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

  I think it is worth noting that if one types "The wolv" in the Wikipedia search box, The Wolverine (film) pops up first. I don't think either way really hurts, but I think having the disambiguation term makes it more clear-cut. Also, the film article is getting many more hits than the general disambiguation article, so people are overwhelmingly arriving at the film article in other ways (probably Google search results and/or other Wikipedia pages' interlinks). Erik (talk | contribs) 13:54, 9 February 2013 (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.

Caution

Even if I hadn't seen the movie at a press screening, which I did, I would caution that, just as in Iron Man 3 and other Marvel movies, its characters may not be direct translations from the comics. When cited sources describe the comics character, they are not describing only the comics character unless the source specifically says it's describing the movie character. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You know I hate you right? ;) lol. A justified caution. I second it. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources seem to check out except for bit about Viper. If they the others turn out be incorrect, we can change it at that time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving the article alone at this point, but I do have to say that the cite for Viper reads, "Viper, who has a long and complex relationship with Wolverine through [sic] the comics." (The writer misused "through"; I believe he meant "throughout".) It's referring to Viper and Logan's relationship in the comics — it doesn't say it's their relationship in the move. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Now, The Hollywood Reporter cite for Will Yun, says "Lee will play Harada, more commonly known as The Silver Samurai. He possesses an electrified suit of samurai armor and is the illegitimate son of the crime lord." Since this was from July 2012, THR could not have been talking about the movie character, since the Silver Samurai isn't "commonly known" anywhere but in the comics. The article is describing the comics character. It doesn't say anything specifically about the movie except "Lee will play Harada...." The tricky thing is that in this case, there's a print citation, from a magazine called Total Film, and without a quote from that source we don't know what it's claiming. God, I wish I could say more!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with adding a quote is that the same source is being used for multiple references. Heres what the sources says verbatim in the column space of the article:

Silver Samurai (header)
Will Yun Lee (sub-header)
Lee plays Kenuichio Harada, the illegitimate son of Shingen and a Japanese mutant who's able to charge his katana with 'tachyon energy', turning it into a sort-of lightsaber that can cut through almost anything. "He's an important character in the comics," Lee says. "I hope I do him justice."
--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Theres also a bit more in the body of the article where Lee talks about the physical demands of his training.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that does indeed look as if Total Film is describing the movie's character. Gotta give you that! Although I will say, Lee only says "him." Hmm....!

Argh! Ah, well, another couple of weeks. And you're totally right, of course, that we have to respect WP:RS. Thanks for going the extra mile and looking up the print cite — that was good of you.

BTW, the movie's genuinely good. I was relieved to see that. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian?

Is this an Australian co-production? I see it being shot there but I don't see any production companies from there. Can someone clarify this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Hugh Jackman and his production company, Seed Productions co-produced the film. Also the government of Australia "injected" $12.8 million into the production.--TriiipleThreat (talk)

Which poster to use in the infobox?

Since someone is opposing the official theatrical release poster, preferring to use a teaser poster, I decided to bring this to the talk page. (Is there a manual of style on film posters...?)

1. The theatrical poster (linked above) is used on AMC's website, as well as Fandango. The same style is used for other individual characters in the film.

2. Variants of the teaser poster is also used in international promotion. It was initially used as part of a set of "motion posters". The editor who wants to use the teaser poster says, "THIS IS THE MOST INTERNATIONALE RECOGNIZABLE AND PROMOTED POSTER WORLDWIDE" - which doesn't mean much nor is it verifiable.

Any comments? || Tako (bother me) || 06:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there not going to be another poster released closer to the film's release date? I'm looking here and here and do not see any posters with a billing block. If we need to choose among the current ones until then, I would prefer one that shows a live-action Wolverine over the artwork. It could be either the one the IP editor was trying to add, or it could be this. I think that the film poster should be an identifying image for readers, and until we get a final poster with the billing block (which would be likely circulated before the film's release), we should go with something with an element that is recognizable. This is the kind of thing that doesn't have any specific rules, though, so I'm open to hearing other arguments. It just seems like a temporary situation now, hence my recommendation. EDIT: Wow, I see that the film is coming out really soon. Is there really no poster with a billing block right now? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The film probably doesn't have a billing because the main cast is a bunch of Japanese/foreign actors. Nothing to bill besides Hugh Jackman himself. The problem with using that live action poster is that it's clearly a teaser poster, not a theatrical release poster, with the labeling "coming soon" and isn't being used as the main poster by websites like AMC, Fandango, Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, etc. The art poster, on the other hand, has the film's drop date and is being recognized as the theatrical poster by all the websites and companies listed. Suzuku (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you as absolutely fact that "Coming soon" posters without credits are used in the lobbies of theaters as the official release poster during the film's run. I see it over and over again in Regal Cinemas multiplex theaters. I hope a change can be made from the current artsy one to one that actually shows Hugh Jackman in the flesh, such as this one comicbook.com/blog/2013/03/25/the-wolverine-motion-poster-released-2/. Personally, I think the producers and Jackman would agree. 5Q5 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope this please everyone This offical poster has a release date, actor name and The title of the movie and a great source (British Board of Film Classification) http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/wolverine-2013-10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdremix540 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This USA &UK offical poster has a release date, actor name and The title of the movie and a great source (British Board of Film Classification) http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/wolverine-2013-10) This Poster is in ROTTEN TOMATOES & IMDB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdremix540 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC) ]

That may be, but please see the comments above. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

YES THE ADS MEAN SOMETHING BUT THIS REPRESENTS THE MOVIE MORE ONCE AGAIN This Poster is ON ROTTEN TOMATOES & IMDB AND REGAL. GOOGLE IT THE POSTER RIGHT THERE. HOW MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED. NO CARRIES OYUR POSTER

Please stop your shouting. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok yes the characters ads mean something but this poster represent movie better. Its has The Actor, Actor's name, The Title, Release Date. The poster is on Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB and Regal Theaters site. Goggle it he poster right there How more Proof do you need . little sites carry your poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdremix540 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, could you link where they are used? I don't see your poster being used on RT, IMDB or whatever the other one is. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Insulam Simia (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Insulam Simia, are you seeing the artistic poster or the photo poster? I think Wikipedia might be showing the photo poster in the film article while the file page shows the artistic poster. Jdremix540 is endorsing the photo poster, and now that I see that it is used on the main film websites, I fully support using it. Rotten Tomatoes and Internet Movie Database show the photo poster. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by artistic poster, as the poster used right now in the article is the photo poster, but has only a very subtle difference; that is showing "COMING SOON" at the bottom (most commonly used) rather than showing the release date. Insulam Simia (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dont put claim out there Insulam Simia Trust me, I love Sumi e painting poster way better better than the one im posting. The fact you cant be bias. PS Im a painter and drawer. the fact this poster represent the movie better. Its has The Actor, Actor's name, The Title, Release Date. The poster on the article is suppose what best represent the movie the most. That how its always been done on http://en.wikipedia.org PS The Link are right here http://www.regmovies.com/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_wolverine_2012/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1430132/ and has a release date

Post-credits scene

Confirmed word from Jackman here (spoiler) is that there is a post-credits scene at the end involving Wolverine and the adult Professor Xavier and Magneto that is a tease for the next film X-Men: Days of Future Past. In the article for X-Men: The Last Stand, the last line in the plot section mentions the post-credit scene that occurred in that film, so I expect to see that here, too, from some editor. I am not working on this article. 5Q5 (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia search box issue: "The" Wolverine

I notice that when visitors to Wikipedia enter "wolverine" in the search box on any page, the list of drop-down entries presently does not include a link to this movie article. You have to enter it as "the wolverine" to get a direct-link search result. I wonder if there is any way to fix that or are you telling me that this movie is or will be listed under "T" in alphabetized lists? 5Q5 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Following up on this, I just did a test search for "day the earth stood still" and a drop-down entry link appeared for "Day the Earth Stood Still" which took me to the original The Day the Earth Stood Still film. Someone has already created a redirect page for Wolverine (film) and it links to this article but does not show up in the entry list for "wolverine." Is there a limit on the number of drop-down entries in searches? People won't be able to easily find this article unless they know to add "the." A shame. 5Q5 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could modify the hatnote at wolverine to include a more direct link to the film article, at least for the short run? In addition, querying "wolverine film" or "wolverine movie" in search engines puts this film article at the top of results, so I do not think it is too problematic. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Typing "wolverine (film)" in the search box causes the link option "Wolverine (film)" to appear and typing "the wolverine" causes the drop-down option "The Wolverine (film)", both which link to this article. I guess the people who just type "wolverine" are the ones who are going to have the problem finding this article. 5Q5 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Per editor Erik's suggestion, I revised the hatnote at the Wolverine article. I hope it survives. My entry in the edit log reads as follows: "At top revised hatnote to a 2-use template to provide a direct link to the 2013 film The Wolverine. This template is allowed under WP:OTHERUSES." 5Q5 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see the discussion here. I changed it back. The character as far as I know is widely more searched than the film. So a link to just the disambiguation is needed, and people can navigate from there. Creating a link to this article over others feels like WP:RECENTISM.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wolverine redirection

There seems to be a dispute at The Wolverine. Earlier it was decided that "The" was not a significant enough disambiguation, which is why the article currently has the disambiguated name, The Wolverine (film). So what is the point of redirecting The Wolverine here and not Wolverine (disambiguation) or Wolverine? If the film is the primary topic then the article should be located at The Wolverine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Per the previous discussion, it was decided that this was not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for The Wolverine. Therefore redirect should not point here either. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Precedent: Typing in "the joker" offers "The Joker" at the top of the drop-down search list which links to Joker (comics) (no "The" in the title). "Joker" alone is not even a link option. If you type in the single word "joker," the first three options are "Joker (comics)," "Jokerit," and finally "Joker" (a disambiguation page). So, in this case, Joker goes to a disambiguation page and The Joker redirects to the non-primary topic Joker (comics). If "The Joker" can redirect to a non-primary topic fictional character use, then why can't "The Wolverine"? Coincidentally, they are both characters of comic book origin. 5Q5 (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. We can redirect the page here and include a hatnote pointing back to the disambiguation page like at The Joker.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)