Jump to content

Talk:X-Men: Days of Future Past: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Trailer 1: What happens in the trailer
Line 153: Line 153:
==Trailer 1==
==Trailer 1==
Now after Teaser 1 last week, we have Trailer 1; apparently, it's the same as what was shown at 2013 [[San Diego Comic-Con International|SD ComicCon]],<ref>2013 San Diego Comic Con; X-Men: Days of Future Past panel</ref> and 2013 [[Fantasia Festival|Fantasia]].<ref>2013 Fantasia Festival; X-Rated: An Evening with Bryan Singer</ref> -- [[Special:Contributions/70.49.124.77|70.49.124.77]] ([[User talk:70.49.124.77|talk]]) 06:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Now after Teaser 1 last week, we have Trailer 1; apparently, it's the same as what was shown at 2013 [[San Diego Comic-Con International|SD ComicCon]],<ref>2013 San Diego Comic Con; X-Men: Days of Future Past panel</ref> and 2013 [[Fantasia Festival|Fantasia]].<ref>2013 Fantasia Festival; X-Rated: An Evening with Bryan Singer</ref> -- [[Special:Contributions/70.49.124.77|70.49.124.77]] ([[User talk:70.49.124.77|talk]]) 06:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
:So this is what happens in the movie: Prof. Xavier, Wolverine aso. start in the future following X-men 3 and The Wolverine. There is a war going on between the mutants and the machines, so Wolverine travels back in time into his own body. This event by itself actually already changes the past, and because Wolverine prevents the killing of the senator, the future will be a totally different future, without any of the X-men 1 to 3 and the Wolverine movies. Furthermore, because in the end Wolverine dies the movie makers can start a totally new franchise with other characters. Although this is ridicoulous, I can understand that it's all about business. So be prepared for another 5 X-men movies...not a bad thing IMHO. ;D --[[Special:Contributions/178.197.236.163|178.197.236.163]] ([[User talk:178.197.236.163|talk]]) 13:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
:So this is what happens in the movie: Prof. Xavier, Magneto, Wolverine aso. start in the future following X-men 3 and The Wolverine. There is a war going on between the mutants and the machines, so Wolverine travels back in time into his own body. This event by itself actually already changes the past, and because Wolverine prevents the killing of the senator, the future will be a totally different future, without any of the X-men 1 to 3 and the Wolverine movies. Furthermore, because Wolverine dies in the end, the film makers can start a totally new franchise with other characters. Although this is ridicoulous, I can understand that it's all about business. So be prepared for another 5 X-men movies...not a bad thing IMHO. ;D --[[Special:Contributions/178.197.236.163|178.197.236.163]] ([[User talk:178.197.236.163|talk]]) 13:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


== UPDATE: Rogue's inclusion cut from the film ==
== UPDATE: Rogue's inclusion cut from the film ==

Revision as of 13:13, 8 February 2014

WikiProject iconFilm: Comic book / American Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Note icon
This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
WikiProject iconComics: Marvel / Films Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Related work groups:
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

Confirmed Roles

Adan Canto has confirmed that he is playing Sunspot. (source: http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a494134/x-men-days-of-future-past-adan-canto-confirms-sunspot-role.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.185.194 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Castings

For this movie each casting was announced on Bryan Singer himself on his Twitter account [1]. Every casting that was not announced by Singer is fake. Just like the Eric West casting reported on Apr. 24, 2013 [2]. --212.23.103.42 (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McAvoy/Cumming

James McAvoy recently mentioned in an interview with heat radio that Alan Cumming would be returning for the film - ~4:55 timestamp. However, I can't find any other source that confirms or denies Cumming's involvement with the film. Furthermore, he also mentions Peter Dinklage as "something that might be happening", which indicates that he doesn't have the best knowledge of what is going on with the film. If anything, it could just mean that Alan Cumming has been in talks to return, which by no means indicates he will in fact return.

Should we take his statement as a confirmation that Nightcrawler will appear in the film, or wait for any further developments?
LoveWaffle (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say wait for the official announcement from Bryan Singer or straight from the Alan Cumming's mouth.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it's been confirmed he won't return. - [3]
LoveWaffle (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

put Peter Dinklage as Bolivar Trask or not till actually confirmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.123.136 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Deadline article says that Bryan Singer tweeted that Fan Bingbing will portray Blink; however, it doesn't appear that he made such a tweet. One someone can find the tweet, that will be the source that she's portraying Blink, but until then, I'll include her with Dinklage, Sy, and Stewart as "unspecified".
LoveWaffle (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't tweet that she was playing Blink, he tweeted that she was in the film and then the news broke that she was playing Blink. Just a bit of a misprint on Deadline's part. This Hollywood Reporter article is a bit more clear on the matter, I'll change the source to that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hollywood Reporter also cites Bryan Singer's tweeter as a source, but he never tweeted such thing. It's still unknown which character Bingbing will play. The Hollywood Reporter just passed on the information found in Deadline, which is false since Singer never tweeted anything about Blink. 201.13.50.223 (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hollywood Reporter article does not cite Singer's tweet as the source of the information, it breaks the information itself, and then mentions that Singer broke the news of the actress' involvement in the film with his tweet. The writer for THR, Borys Kit, actually broke the news on his own twitter before Deadline published its story, so to presume that he is "just passing on information found in Deadline" seems a bit illogical. As reliable sources the trades do their due diligence, and a misprint from one of the them (Deadline in this case) doesn't necessarily invalidate the information from all of them. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Borys Kit himself says "I have it confirmed. Unless of course, the person who told me was misinforned, which can happen with non-geeks in Hollywood." [4] which to me sounds like a non official source. He also adds "I had heard she was going to play Psylocke but I guess not." [5] Based on that conflicting information, I wouldn't call this source reliable. I'd rather wait for an official statement.201.13.50.223 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and that's just him interacting with readers after the fact, providing a caveat and earlier hearsay. None of it conflicts with what was written and published. We have two separate industry trades reporting that she's playing Blink here, and although there was a misprint in the Deadline article there's no reason to disregard THR. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the THR writer himself admits his source might be misinformed is enough to disregard the information. All we've got is an unofficial source for THR (one who might be misinformed by their own words) and a tweet that Bryan Singer never posted. All other sources are just citing Deadline and the fake tweet as a source as well. But to each their own. I'll wait for an official statement. Thanks for the attention. My regards.201.13.50.223 (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But again "unofficial source" is just your terminology (not even really sure what that term is supposed to mean, either he has a source that would know or he doesn't). If he had any reasonable doubt he wouldn't have printed the story as fact, this is a respected trade magazine, not a blog. The tweet you're mentioning here just looks like a typical "every once in a while these things get reported wrong" caveat to a reader. He even starts it off with "I have it confirmed". The important thing here is the article, that's what he's putting out there as fact to his circulation. But I'm really not too bothered about it either way, if you guys want to remove it from the article based on some tweets so be it. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hellfire Club

Shouldn't it say somewhere how they won't be returning, even though it seems they were initially intended to? 24.65.100.96 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel?

So there was advanced notice of casting Bingbong's and Booboo's but no mention of Rachel? You would think they would try to get more central characters cast before giving actor de jours a roll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.30.187 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the page

hello, just thought I would let you guys know that you have Omar Sy and Booboo Stewarts Character for this Movie on there personal Profiles (Sy is Lucas Bishop and Stewart is James Proudstar), just thought I would let you know so you can update this page with that information or if for whatever reason you find that information to be incorrect (which it shouldn't be but in case it is) change there pages to take out that information. on Brian Singers Twitter he has a video showing that the Characters James Proudstar and Bishop will appear in the movie (by showing Chairs that the Actors will sit in) and I think he has announced that those are the official actors, so yeah just thought I would let you guys know so that any changes that should/need to be made are made. just trying to help out and stuff so yeah. 75.85.116.220 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the characters Bishop and Warpath are confirmed to be in the film, yes. Sy and Stewart are actors in the film. But those characters have not been officially attributed to those actors yet. That's why it's not in this article. || Tako (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok. like I said just thought I would let you know because its on each persons personal page that thats who they are playing (on Sys page it says hes playing Bishop and on Stewarts Page it says hes playing Warpath as I stated previously) so you guys can go and fix that information then or whatever if it needs to be fixed. in other words there might be some kind of mix-up on one of the pages and so it requires fixing, and I thought I would let you guys know of the problem so that way it can be fixed in whichever way it needs to be. 75.85.116.220 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adan Canto confirmed on his twitter that he is play Roberto da Costa/ Sunspot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MulhollandJr (talkcontribs) 18:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just saying I'm not a mod or admin or anything on here but I just checked his Twitter account and I found no such mention of it on his twitter. so he either deleted it or something is going on here. if you saw it could you please provide a link to the tweet? 98.154.187.240 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 23 June 2013

Samurai meatwad (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 12:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 26 June 2013

Ryanmarshall2001 (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adan Canto as Sunspot

This news came out earlier today talking about Adan Canto "confirming" he is portraying Sunspot in the film. However, the source cites a Tweet from Canto's Twitter account that has since been removed. I'd say to hold off on adding that the actor is portraying that character for now until a statement from a more official source is made.
LoveWaffle (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the news came out on the 27th (there's an IP message a few posts up about it). I checked and saw the tweet around then, but it's pretty inconclusive and doesn't really verify anything. It did not explicitly say he's playing Sunspot. So, yep, wait for an official (or at least, verifiable) source. || Tako (bother me) || 23:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the Cast Section

Saw that the cast section was recently split into "Past" "Future" and "Other" sections. I don't think this is necessary at the moment, especially when we don't know exactly how all these characters will play out in the film. This is evidenced by the very existence of the "Other" category, and the misplacement of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine in the "Future" section. I could see the cast being divided like this closer to when the film releases next May, but until then we need to wait until things are a bit clearer.
LoveWaffle (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are gonna split the cast section, it should be "1973 characters" and "modern-day characters".--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think something like this:
With this, it wouldn't matter the time period, but rather in which film they debuted. I think this paints a much clearer picture in terms of the characters; and then each individual character would be described if they're from a certain time period (such as Wolverine coming from the future according to a report). Also keep in mind that the Cast section is about the cast - not about the characters, it must be from a real-world perspective; things like "from the 1970s" are pretty in-universe. || Tako (bother me) || 00:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think we should separate the new characters. The articles for the other X-Men movies didn't separate the returning and new characters. The cast should be split up in terms of which time period they came from. Even if Wolverine time-travels to the 1970s, he should still be included in the modern-day period because he came from that period.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the majority of the cast is from two separate "series" within the same franchise - why not split it? Splitting it by the era they're from doesn't make much sense, that kind of information is fit for the plot summary, or for each character's description. Any specific reason for choosing the in-universe perspective? || Tako (bother me) || 01:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when X-Men: First Class became a separate series? its a misconception from people. It was a prequel to the original X-Men trilogy. Not a separate series--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LoveWaffle. The divisions aren't necessary at the moment, at least. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until we know more about the story then the cast section should not be split. We don't know anything about what time periods and what the story is going to be. Till we do, let's keep it merged. But it may be worth a mention about them reprising their roles as older/younger versions of the same character. -- MisterShiney 08:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the split, as I believe the characters should be listed in order of importance, not era. Here's the link to WikiProject Film's MoS to help participants in the discussion take a decision in accordance with the guidelines. Hula Hup (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's happening with this split? Are we agreeing to get rid of it? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 17 July 2013

Josh Helman has been confirmed as William Stryker, Jr. Should he not be included on the list of roles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisflistal (talkcontribs) 11:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posters

I don't know how to upload photos, but I'll point out the official posters for the film have been released. - [6]
LoveWaffle (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Premise

What if Fox never releases a premise? All of the info I wrote in that premise is confirmed by Bryan Singer himself, I don't see why we can't put it up there on our own. Suzuku (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The premise that you wrote came from a "leaked info" report. And that premise hasn't been listed in a lot of movie websites such as Rotten Tomatoes, Yahoo Movies and IGN movies. And there would be a synopsis release from 20th Century Fox when they opened a website that features a Synopsis or About page, every X-Men movie had that.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the information I wrote came from Bryan Singer. Look at the edit again, the only reason I used that leaked source is for the idea that it bounces back and forth between past and future with the future X-Men trying to find a way to get Wolverine back. Otherwise everything came straight from the horses mouth. Singer is the one who said the film takes place ten years after First Class and ten years after Last Stand. Singer is the one who said Charles is "in a dark place" while Magneto is consolidating power in the past. Singer is the one who said Kitty Pryde sends Wolverine into the past. Suzuku (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is still not the official synopsis, those information came from different sources and interviews. Wait for an official synopsis. Every movie has one.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frame Rate?

A quick search both confirms and denies that this will be shot at 48fps. There's just too much contradictory info on-line for me to know, but if it is, it would qualify for Category:High Frame Rate films. Unless they truly have indeed decided to not shoot in HFR, I suspect it will be shot but not viewable in the format until they someday release a special 4K blu-ray edition with the option. As for the format itself, I missed my chance to catch The Hobbit in it since a midnight 3D IMAX screening took priority and the other HFR showings went poof after only a week since the format went over like a lead balloon. Too bad it wasn't available for Speed Racer since that's a film that actually could have used it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.81.158 (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singer said that the film is filmed in 3D[2] -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Word is that the film will also be in widescreen, live-action (CGI notwithstanding), and I think in color too. My snarky comments aside, 3D and HFR don't necessarily go hand in hand - A film can be one while not being the other. I would point out that just being filmed in HFR doesn't necessarily mean being available in it. Maybe I don't understand digital cinematography, but nowadays for a digitally filmed production it should more or less mean pressing a button, though CGI rendering would obviously be more involved and there could be some on-set lighting issues. I for one don't see any reason to not film everything in HFR in the highest resolution the camera allows (4K or even 8K) and make the theatrical presentation at lower frame rate and resolution. Seemed to work fine for all The Hobbit 24fps showings. Even if X:DoFP isn't filmed in HFR, the article needs to mention the consideration of its use since there's been alot of buzz about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.215.10 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BooBoo & BingBing

At Rated "X": A Night with Bryan Singer [2] he revealed that BooBoo and BingBing will be in the initial scene of the new film. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What "initial" scene is this... You don't provide a source for this claim. 71.188.21.128 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer 1

Now after Teaser 1 last week, we have Trailer 1; apparently, it's the same as what was shown at 2013 SD ComicCon,[3] and 2013 Fantasia.[4] -- 70.49.124.77 (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So this is what happens in the movie: Prof. Xavier, Magneto, Wolverine aso. start in the future following X-men 3 and The Wolverine. There is a war going on between the mutants and the machines, so Wolverine travels back in time into his own body. This event by itself actually already changes the past, and because Wolverine prevents the killing of the senator, the future will be a totally different future, without any of the X-men 1 to 3 and the Wolverine movies. Furthermore, because Wolverine dies in the end, the film makers can start a totally new franchise with other characters. Although this is ridicoulous, I can understand that it's all about business. So be prepared for another 5 X-men movies...not a bad thing IMHO. ;D --178.197.236.163 (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Rogue's inclusion cut from the film

Here's the Hitfix source if you want to use it, instead of leaving it un sourced. 71.188.21.128 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singer Spoke about having her scene as bonus material on the DVD/Blu-Ray release. I think that has merits enough to be included in the article. How come that was not added? Npabebangin (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Singer said "those scenes MIGHT" be included not that its 100% official, things can still change. More importantly, we don't have an official list of bonus feature for the DVD release of the film yet.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as though Singer didn't reveal all that needed to be said, he sat down with Empire Magazine to tell them that Rogue is not cut out of the film, and reiterates that some of her remaining scenes that were cut from the film might be released on the DVD version of the film. Here's the quote: "It does not mean that we won't see her in the film. Also, I hope to make the sequence available on the DVD as she was quite wonderful in it." Here's the official source. 71.188.16.34 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I already included her in the cast section again even before you posted your message.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how movie makers do viral marketing like that...Rogue will be certainly in the movie. --178.197.236.88 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.movieweb.com/news/peter-dinklage-revealed-as-bolivar-trask-in-x-men-days-of-future-past-set-photos
  2. ^ a b 'Rated "X": A Night with Bryan Singer', date: 2013 August 5
  3. ^ 2013 San Diego Comic Con; X-Men: Days of Future Past panel
  4. ^ 2013 Fantasia Festival; X-Rated: An Evening with Bryan Singer