Talk:X-Men Origins: Wolverine

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to Talk:X-Men Origins: Wolverine/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
May 2006 –

Workprint Leaked One Month Before Release

Not sure if it's worthy of mention, but the Workprint in DVD quality has been leaked onto the internet a whole month before the film's release.

One more issue - relevant to this one - is whether the plot synopsis should be updated in the Wikipedia article. The plot is now fully known due to the leak. Would it be inappropriate for someone who has watched the leaked movie to create a plot synopsis for the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.176.254 (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Deathbycheesedrum (talk) 02:44, 01 April 2009 (GMT)

The film is great! But the premiere will be ruined. In the post-credis scene Wolverine is in Japan and there will be a sequel if the movie has a good gross revenue. --Batman tas (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April... Alientraveller (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it wasn't an April Fools' Joke, but I still gotta wonder why people put it in the wrong place... Alientraveller (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Placement looks good! Thanks for using Entertainment Weekly... sounds more reliable to come from them than from the bloggish SlashFilm. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I was in the process of moving it but we got E/C'd... --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Happens! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC have done a news article commenting on the peculiarity of this kind of workprint release. It reeks as if Fox have done it on purpose, as free and effective publicity.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's really really unlikely - studios like control, there is no control in this action and it would lead them open to legal action from their investors and marvel (who get a percentage). From the BBC article, it appears it was leaked from the company doing the effects. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I subsectioned "Release" into "Leaked workprint" and "Theatrical run". At first, I did not think that the leak would be covered significantly, but I think that reports from various news outlets indicates that there will be more to it. In addition, the information being tucked away under "Release" led to accidental redundant additions on some editors' parts, so the "Leaked workprint" subsection should clarify in the TOC and the article body that the coverage exists. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - it's clearly a significant event in terms of the film and copyright, piracy etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Get that damn plot off the damn page. I only came here to scroll down to check a cast members name I forgot the other day and as I scrolled I caught glances of the plot which spoilt stuff for me. The plot should not be on the page until after the movie's official release date. Some of us actually like to wait til the movie's finished before knowing these things... I hate the damn idiot who leaked the 'workprint'. 82.3.88.240 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop cussing and whining. Wikipedia isn't here to cater to you. It's not censored. So if you don't want to know the plot then don't read it. It's not up to wikipedia editors to make sure you don't get the ending spoiled...12.199.45.142 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why there is no "Plot" section. Everybody have watched the film. --Batman tas (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The workprint does not count as a primary source that is reliably published; the authentic distribution of the film is what is acceptable. We will flesh out the article with plot information when the film opens to the public. No deadline here to put up such information pronto. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Violation of creator's copyright

I removed content from the "Release" section that pointed to a place where readers could view material of the illegally leaked workprint. This is a violation of WP:COPYVIO since the footage is the property of the studio and was not intended for public attention, particularly in its unfinished stage. Wikipedia should not endorse linking to such items. Even if editors believe that this is acceptable, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article to say, "Hey, readers, check out this leaked footage that you've been reading about!" We are an encyclopedia, not a shameless blog. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No copyright laws have been violated. All that is shown on the external link are screencaps of the movie, which are deemed acceptable; and also a short 3 minute 18 second video hosted on Break.com which (as it is under 10% of the total length of 1 hour 46 minutes 48 seconds) is also deemed acceptable under the DMCA.

Control-alt-delete (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Screencaps that are released officially from the studio and screencaps from footage released officially from the studio are what are acceptable. The linked screencaps are from the unsanctioned release of unfinished footage. Even if we applied lenience to this matter, it is still unprofessional to encourage readers to go off-wiki to explore such leaked content. The article needs to focus on commentary surrounding the workprint and have nothing to do with the actual proliferation of the content. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To follow up, WP:LINKVIO says, "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Erik. ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The site being linked to, however, does not "illegally distribute someone else's work" as I said in my first response. Screencaps are deemed acceptable and a short clip of less than 10% of the movie is also deemed acceptable.

Control-alt-delete (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you were making a film and I got my hands on some footage, do you really believe that it is acceptable for me to show everyone screencaps from your film? A portion of illegally leaked content is still illegally leaked content. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

again, agree with Erik. A rock of crack's illegal, even if it's just a tiny portion of the kilo brick of coke you bought. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you're comparing a screenshot to crack... nice going! ;)

Anyway, take a look at Fair use in copyright. The Fair Use Statute splits the work into four factors to determine if the work is being used fairly or not, with the fourth factor having the most influence.

Factor 1: the images are being used not-for-profit = fair;

Factor 2: the images may be protected by copyright = unfair;

Factor 3: only a small portion of the movie was screenshotted/video-captured (this actually goes back to my first point) = fair;

Factor 4: the images being on the site would have no negative impact on the potential market, or value of the movie = fair;

Therefore the images are being used fairly as it satisfies 3 out of 4 of the factors. Supposing it only satisfied 2 of the 4 but one of the 2 was factor 4, this would still be classed as fair.

Control-alt-delete (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) While the images in question might very well qualify for fair-use, I don't really see any reason for us to link to the post. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ThuranX, the drug comparison is a bit much. :) For the first factor, movie websites are not linking to the workprint or its samples out of their goodness of their heart. They are invested in getting traffic, and if they do the linking or hosting, this is profitably favorable for them. For the third factor, if this was true, clips would be immediately accessible. I checked on YouTube, and even "clip" samples of the workprint are being taken down. Break.com does not have any clip I could find, so I assume the DMCA claim is false. Lastly, for the fourth factor, the studio disagrees with you, as evidenced by the removals. In addition to these factors, what you wanted to link to would not be considered a reliable source (since it is a forum), and it would not be acceptable as an external link, either, per WP:ELNO #10. We can see that no reputable news outlet is going to give direct access to the workprint or samples of it, and we should strive for that professionalism as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's really not surprising the clips are being removed. The DMCA takedowns are rather automatic and doesn't at all take fair-use into account, see e.g. this (very interesting) article. If the case really "blows up" I don't see why we couldn't include a few images to illustrate the leaked version, but a link to a site with images is IMO out of the question. --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict again) What's going on right now is a "live" event, so it's questionable to illustrate the leaked version at this point. If we evaluated the leaked workprint historically, then illustrations could be acceptable if they were deemed significant. I imagine, though, that illustration of such retrospective coverage would have to come from a reliable source, anyway, and as we can see, no mainstream media outlet is hosting the content. From what I have read, though, I doubt there will be anything to illustrate about the workprint... there are other parts of the film that are more worthwhile to illustrate. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@Erik I disagree that the website is "not linking to the workprint or its samples out of the goodness of its heart" - I made the post on that forum because nobody else has released something like that yet on the internet (or at least that I can find), and I do not plan to make a profit by doing so. Furthermore, that site is actually losing money due to server costs so more traffic would mean a higher bandwidth bill.

The clip I posted on YouTube was taken down after 6 minutes of being online (however as pointed out by aktsu, DMCA notices are being flung around left, right and centre with no regard for Fair Usage.

As for you not being able to find it on Break.com, it is actually at the bottom of the forum post with the pictures on and I uploaded it as soon as YouTube removed it - video link - I completely agree with aktsu that an image or two by hosted on Wikipedia instead of a link to that forum should be put up under Fair Usage.

Control-alt-delete (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia hosting any part of the workprint is far worse than linking to it. Even if we disagree about the factors, and I am happy to pursue additional opinions if you desire to continue the matter, your links are not reliable. Forums are self-published sources and not acceptable. Parading it as an external link instead won't work, either -- WP:ELNO #10 discourages links to forums, too. In addition, disregarding factors and reliable sourcing and external links for the moment, non-free images need to meet non-free content criteria, and no particular screenshot can be considered significant. WP:FILMNFI requires critical commentary for screenshots; no particular image has received critical commentary. If any is to be had, it will likely pale in comparison to significant screenshots from the completed product. What you want to add does not pass WP:LINKVIO, WP:RS, WP:ELNO, WP:NFCC, nor WP:FILMNFI. Why can we not focus on coverage of the leaking and the investigation? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be worse? Unreleased media isn't more protected by copyright than released media. There are contracts and NDAs but Wikipedia (and I assume the editors) are not parties to those agreements so they do not apply. The workprint is a copyrighted material that's treated *exactly* the same as any other copyrighted material on Wikipedia, like the movie poster in this very article. As CAD makes clear, the screencaps easily fall under Fair Use. So there's no real reason to *exclude* the images under Wikipedia's own policies.

That being said, there's no real reason to *include* them either. There might be after the film's release as comparison to the finished product, but right now, there isn't. 66.208.17.254 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No to images, no to hosting, no to linking. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent seeing as somewhere in the last few comments, it's been mixed up)

The original reason for this section in the Talk page was that I was being accused of breaching copyright law by posting the images on here. As has been proven by numerous people, this isn't the case and the images can be used fairly, in exactly the same way the movie poster can.

The idea of having an image or two in the article is to demonstrate what the workprint is link, in exactly the same way that you put a picture of a dog in a dog article (with a free image) or you put a Microsoft logo in a Microsoft article (non-free image). Now, does anybody have any backed-up arguments to me putting a couple of screencaps next to the Workprint section of the article? Bearing in mind what 66.208.17.254 said.

Control-alt-delete (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a straw poll below, please vote in it for inclusion or exclusion of the screencaps

Control-alt-delete (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll for inclusion/exclusion of screencaps for workprint

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Commentary should be placed above, in the section marked "Violation of creator's copyright".

• There are no legal issues with including screencap(s) / Include the screencap(s)
  • GETTA GET (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Control-alt-delete (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 66.208.17.254 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC) — 66.208.17.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 62.212.74.70 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC) — 62.212.74.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I feel there are legal issues with including screencap(s) / Exclude the screencap(s)
  • —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • --Tatsh (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Alientraveller (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • IANAL, but I suspect as much. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Single purpose accounts will be tagged as such - this should help inform consensus, not operate as a form of ballot-stuffing. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that I never actually signed this poll. Also fair use does not cover the use of those images because usage would fail under WP:FUC #4 and 2. A straw poll cannot override our fair usage policies. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And that ladies and gents is the coffin nail in using the image from the leaked file and basing plot summaries on it.

Now, are we done with this on this article and the articles for the related characters? Meaning that the info based on the leak can be pulled. Or do the articled need to be locked down until the first?

- J Greb (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, plot summary does not seem to me to be covered under FUC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Mostly under point 2 of FUC.

While it is a reasonable argument that an article on a movie will convey some plot summary after the movie is released by the studio, such a summary should not be so detailed or all encompassing that a someone reading the article walks away with the feeling that going to see the movie is redundant. Such a "summary" would impact the film's owner(s) profit from the film.

Once you start looking at a film that has not been released, any summary based on a leaked or illegally obtained print of the full film will have a larger impact on the owner(s) commercial opportunities. Yes, we can point to the trailer, reviews of the trailers, and interviews, that's what the studio has released. That's what they are willing to use as a draw, and it is fair to use.

Oh... and one other item to think on. While we no longer have spoiler tags, that is mostly, if not entirely, because it is expected that a published, released, or aired work will be covered fully in an encyclopedic article. There is an expectation of spoilers. The expectation with an article on a yet-to-be published, released, or aired work is that it wont be gunning to spoil the work.

- J Greb (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Related characters articles

Be aware that people have been adding leaked, possibly false, definitely unverifiable info to character articles related to this film. Particularly affected is Deadpool, but keep an eye on Chris Bradley (comics), David North (comics), Emma Frost, Kestrel (Marvel Comics), and Silver Fox as those have already been hit. Oddly enough, Sabretooth (comics) and Wolverine (comics) are as yet untouched, nor are Gambit (comics), Blob (comics), Barnell Bohusk and William Stryker and other relevant characters, but keep an eye on those all the same. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think, at this point, that information from the leaked print is unverifiable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You can verify that the information came from the leaked print, but not that the information will be in the released film; this is the problem with using an unfinished print as a source. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The differences between the information from the leaked print and the released film will be small at best. It is clearly more beneficial to include such information and edit any minor details that may be wrong after release than to simply ignore that the information exists. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose including in-universe information from the leaked workprint. I don't think it's realistic to say that readers can verify the information by illegally downloading the workprint. Also, we cannot say for sure at this point how much the final product will resemble the workprint (since there was pick-up shooting and there is still editing), so it would be erroneous to pass off the information as accurate. As the film is not authentically available to the public until May, we should hold off on these details. After then, the information is legally verifiable by any member of the public. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think it's realistic to say that readers can verify the information by illegally downloading the workprint." Yes it is, because that is all they have to do in order to verify the information; verify does not require that the information be legally verifiable, only that it comes from reliable sources. Since reliable sources have deemed the workprint real, it itself becomes a reliable source for the information. Also, as I recall, it is only illegal to upload and share the copyrighted files, not to download and receive them, so one does not necessarily have to infringe the law to verify this information. Finally, you claim that we do not know how true to the final release the workprint is. While this is true, common sense ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_common_sense ) tells us that it is unlikely to be importantly different. Do deleted scenes in major published movies often alter the information greatly? Except for the special case of different endings, I think not. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fox described the leak as a "stolen, incomplete and early version". 71.194.32.252 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That tells us nothing we did not already know. Stolen? Of course, but irrelevant. Incomplete? We already knew that; it is a unedited workprint which is missing 10 minutes of added footage. Early? It must be so by definition, being a pre-release leak. I don't see what this description changes. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Has the workprint been published by a reliable source though? We know that a real workprint have been leaked, but can you verify that your downloaded version is the real workprint? No, for all you know it's a fake/user-made - and it is thus not appropriate to include the information from it here. ...or something along those lines anyway, you get my point. --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Like I said, it is not realistic to consider downloading the workprint as an appropriate method of verifiability, considering that is the only means to do so. In addition, it is unprofessional. WP:LINKVIO makes a case which I think applies tangentially: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." In addition, primary sources like the film need to be "reliably published", and this is not the case with this film, which has not been distributed (cinematic word for "published", I guess) by the studio to the public. I don't believe that floating around torrent websites qualifies as "reliably published". Additionally, I don't believe common sense applies here... this is an uncommon incident, and we can't purport to know how the studio will treat the final cut. Lastly, I do not see why we need to include such detail. Real-world context is the core of all good film articles, and the film will come out to the public eventually, at which point in-universe details are useful to a large audience. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Professor X

He's in the movie in a scene. So are younger versions of some mutants. Including nightcrawler, storm.....and a few others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So you shouldn't add it then, if your source is piracy. Alientraveller (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

a source is a source dude, may it be legit or pirated. It's established and RIGHT THERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.9.22 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger Friedman

How important is the coverage about Roger Friedman in this article? It seems like such a specific news item that has little bearing on the encyclopedic nature of this film article. I would recommend either removing the coverage or at least try to make it more pertinent with commentary about reviews of the workprint affecting the film and its release. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard about Roger Friedman's review (never saw the original article) from multiple sources, and I think it is very much a part of the whole controversy. I tried to keep the information short because I think only a little information is necessary. --Tatsh (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My issue is that it's a very short-term event that seems at this point meaningless for encyclopedic coverage of the film and its leaked workprint. Even if consensus is to keep it around for now, the long-term relevance should be reevaluated down the road (a few weeks, since this won't be an issue anymore with the theatrical release). —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I, being the person who added the information, would like to see it stay while the information about the leak is still present. I agree it does not have long-term relevance to this site and it will not after the leak section is removed after theatrical release.--Tatsh (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I do not believe that we should start a "Reception" section just yet, with Friedman's review or anyone else's review. I think it is more professional to stay with sanctioned reviews that do not cause a row with the parent company. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it... are we going to note that his "review" likely cost him his job [2] ? - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already noted in the "Leaked workprint" section; "his employment was terminated". —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He has NOT been fired----> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/04/wolverine-review-gets-fox-blogger-roger-friedman-in-hot-water.html 24.141.175.147 (talk)

Yes, he has. That's from April 6. This is from April 7: New York Times. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deadpool

It should read "Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson/Deadpool" not "Scott Adkins as Weapon XI/Deadpool." Although Weapon XI is able to copy and use Deadpool's powers, he is not the actual character of Deadpool. Please fix this, as I am not "Auto confirmed" or whatever...

Zjbusch (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Source? Alientraveller (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Wade ever referred to as Deadpool in the film? Ihe parts I've seen only have the amalgamated Weapon XI creature referred to as Deadpool (actually, the dialogue is "I needed your powers for the Pool" "The what?" "The mutant-killer, the Dead Pool") - that makes it pretty explicit that only the Scott Adkins character is Deadpool in the film. --82.6.93.196 (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Because he isn't reffered to as Deadpool doesn't mean he isn't him, he's still called Wade Wilson, isn't he? & what is The Merc's real name in the comics? Ryan Reynolds has stated he plays Deadpool, he has stated he has wanted to Play DEADPOOL ever since he first heard of him (Same as me & many others who also wishes to one day play him or someone just like him) you can't go claiming something like that just because of One line in the film over the Creators/Actor/& any other source that confirm Ryan as Wade Wilson, better known as Deadpool, The Merc with a Mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.196.40 (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just repeating the logic that applied when The Incredible Hulk came out Talk:The_Incredible_Hulk_(film)/Archive_3#Abomination_name - It was a valid point of discussion then, why not now? --Charax (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... *SPOILER* there is a specific line in the movie where Logan acknowledges that Wade and Weapon XI are the same person (even though they are played by different actors). He sees that Weapon XI's mouth is sealed and says something along the lines of, "Styker finally figured out how to shut you up."208.79.15.102 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there scope to mention how unfaithfully the film portrays Wade Wilson/Weapon XI/Deadpool? There are an incredible number of inaccuracies as far as he's concerned. The only things they share are: name, talking a lot (although no breaking of the 4th wall), healing factor (although no disfigurement) and preference for katanas.--82.47.43.217 (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Since the discussion back here hasn't seemed to put a hold on using an unacceptable source that does not meet reliability or verifiability standards, the current semi-protection has been up graded for the remainder of its duration.

If the same issue reappears after the protection expires, the page will be protected again until either the film's World Premier (April 29 IIUC) or its general release (May 1).

- J Greb (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to protect to undo a revision at X-Men (film series) and protect that too. Wikipedia needs to send a message that piracy is a crime and it does ruin it for those who want to add decent behind-the-scenes information about the film. Alientraveller (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

hrm... missed that one on the sweep when I was placing the semis.

And just so it's clearly pointed out - of the 19 articles that I'm aware of (any more?) this is affecting, 8 are semi-protected and 1 (this one) is fully protected. All of the protections are currently set to go on the 12th. At that point, if one of those 9, or any added between now and then, get hit again, the padlocks go back on until the 29th.

- J Greb (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And I stand corrected - thats 7 and 2 not 8 and 1. - J Greb (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether it's "illegal" to use a pirated video as a source is a specific legal opinion, not necessarily implied by the law. This video has been cited by Fox News blogger, Roger Friedman, and the AP, among other news outlets, so the idea that Wikipedia can't cite the video as a source is frankly absurd. I've asked that this page be unlocked so that there can at least be a debate about whether this is a verifiable source. Hopefully, Wikipedia will allow that debate to ensue. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: A discussion can occur on this talk page without needing the article page to be unprotected. - jc37 11:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And I do believe that is part of what the declining admin at WP:RFPP was stating as well.

As for the rest...

Setting aside the leaked print, are there any reliable, verifiable, secondary sources that go into the detail necessary to give a full, point by point plot summary of the final print? The full character attributions and appearances?

Friedman's situation is noted in the article since his piece had a negative impact on his employment with Fox. As has the initial item about the print being leak and the legal lengths Fox has gone to in response to the unauthorized (and frankly yes, illegal release - point to something that shows Fox allowed, otherwise the release is theft) release.

A few other points:

• In crafting a plot summary we are dealing with a fair use of the source material. That is, even though someone else owns the rights to the film, it is fair for an encyclopedia to provide a minimal plot summary in an article on the film.
• WP:NFC and WP:NFCC are the Wikipedia's guideline and policy regarding fair use. Included in them is the idea of respecting the commercial opportunities of the owner(s) of the material. Providing a detailed plot summary prior to the release of a film does not do that.
• Verifiable sources are generally those that any reader of the article can access, either on the web or as a hard copy. Best practices have been that such a source should not involve pointing a reader to a circuitous route to where they will find out how to get an illegally obtained and released version of the film.

The upshot is that, since there is no deadline, we go cautiously.

- J Greb (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This has also been discussed here and is a problem stretching across a number of character articles too. An unreleased film can't possibly be a reliable source as it could easily be subject to change (especially because of this pirated release) and is impossible to verify without illegally downloading it. I am not sure what the situation is with using test screenings as a source but this must surely be below that in the usefulness stakes.

Equally its worth making a distinction between news coverage of the illegal release and sources for the plot - they are sources for news on the release of the pirated version. (Emperor (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm with JGreb and Emperor. We can wait until a final release print is officially screened and the plot reported upon by reliable sources. For a 'scoops' site, see LatinoReview, AICN, dark horizons, SuperheroHype, and others. Not Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit requests

Highlight "regimen"

 Done Since it is protected, can J Greb or some other Admin correct this - "Jackman underwent a high intensity weight training regimen to bulk up for his role." ☭   мдснєтє тдлк^ЅТЦФФ 22:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Format updates - J Greb (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL - What i meant was a correction of the misspelling of the word "regiment" - the bolding was so you could easily see the mistake. "regimen" is atually the right word (not a mistake), and is now bolded for no reason. "Who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him ?" ☭  

мдснєтє тдлк^ЅТЦФФ 10:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Grammar - Dog

I get the protected status, but it's annoying to have to ask someone else to take time out to edit something for me. Under Cast- Liev Schreiber, the passage "Sabretooth hates him because he loved and needed his half-brother, inspired by Dog Logan, Wolverine's sibling in Origin, but is too proud to admit he needs him" is poorly stated and as such suffers from a minor grammatical issue. It should read more along the lines of: "Sabretooth, inspired by Dog Logan, Wolverine's sibling in Origin, hates him because he loved and needed his half-brother but is too proud to admit he needs him". ---D--- (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

hrm...

The grammer is bad... but so is the statement. Is there a solid source for 1) the familial relation in the folm and 2) the writer(s) saying they worked the Dog Logan character into Sabertooth? - J Greb (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is not solid resources as of yet for the family tie in the film, though I'm pretty sure they've directly alluded to it in one of the trailers or teases I've seen. Of course that'll be made clear when the film is legitimately released. As for the the statement's overall validity, if they ARE half brothers, and the film follows the plot of Origin as much as it appears to, than it'd be pretty clear that Sabretooth is indeed based on Dog Logan. I think this will all bare out to be accurate, but obviously it's up to the discretion of the editors with access to the page to make the call until a final version of the film is released.---D--- (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Status of workprint

• There appears to be some dissent regarding the content of the finished film versus the workprint. Official stance is, it doesn't have the reshoots. However those who have seen the final cut are reporting that the final movie only adds finished effects and audio work.[3] The leaked-cut and final running times are identical also. Worth keeping an eye on as formal reviews commenting on the subject should start coming in before the release date. Sockatume (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Should'nt the plot be here?

Honestly I think the plot of the movie SHOULD be in the article, because wikipedia should be a source for information that does'nt have morals, for example, there probably is a page on masterbation which could teach someone how to Jerk off, but you guys wont allow a plot summary for a leaked film? This is ridiculus.(Wookiemaster (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

For your query the page does exist at Masturbation and the process is under techniques ; However, please keep in mind that this article is about X-Men Origins, and just because something is on another page doesnt mean it has to be on this page. 69.157.70.176 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no plot until the movie is released; for reasons already enumerated and discussed, in ample measure, above. ThuranX (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, I dunno about morals (I think those things get in the way of getting things done) but I agree we should have the plot up. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

Yes. Plot should be up. Wikipedia has no policy against spoilers. Much as I hate the griefers who put spoilers everywhere (and don't think the lack of a spoiler policy is an excuse to intentionally front load spoilers everywhere) the Work print is a valid source, enough for plot summary. A proper summary would provide an opportunity to move a lot of the cast information into context and slim down the other sections. Also previews have been shown in the UK tonight, the point will be moot soon if it isn't already. -- Horkana (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's out in Australia now, so I assume adding a plot would be acceptable now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dertop (talk • contribs) 11:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Headlines

Exclusive Hugh Jackman interview Seems like this has a lot of info on the film --155.178.6.10 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I request an administrator implement this interview with the director: X-Men Origins: Wolverine Will Have Multiple Secret Endings! Alientraveller (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For the editors looking at these sources, do you have a specick stament that you feel should be added to the text? Or is it "just add the links"? - J Greb (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to the theatrical run that "each print of the film will have a different post credits scene", citing the source of course. Alientraveller (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And added - J Greb (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Contest

I'm not sure if anyone wants to put something in about the contest for the premiere, kinda like the one held for The Simpson's Movie. I think it's fairly notable. ONE^der Boy 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never done this before, but I am a huge fan of Gambit, and I know that the power he has is not to manipulate potential energy, but to change and object's potential energy to kinetic energy. You're character discription is not entirely true, and the link is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit_(comics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveshltn (talk • contribs) 00:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

power discriptions

Shouldnt the descriptions of the characters be edited, most describe the comic book characters while others are just completely off. -- Paulley (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Info to add

I'd do this myself but the article is locked - see http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/04/24/x-men-origins-wolverine-will-have-multiple-secret-endings/ --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

See #Headlines... That aside, Got a specific sentence you'd like and place to see it? Or just tacked onto the Theatrical run section? - J Greb (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just really that the theatrical release will have multiple versions (although from the source it's unclear). something like em..er..The studio plans to release multiple versions of the film, each with a different after-credit sequence. in the theatrical run section. I'm sure someone can think of a decent wording... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

ah and you did - good stuff, thanks. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Major or Gen. or Col. William Stryker

There is one problem with Stryker: Most sites refer to Stryker as a Colonel, but that's probably not his rank (he was only Colonel Stryker in X2). Some refer to him as General, but in a trailer [4] (it's in large) he refers to himself as a major.

But his rank might change over the years (maybe years, then how did Blob become normal to obese). So could someone give me a good reason or a good answwer to what is his rank?

Jal11497 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot can be added now

I've seen a lot of talk about whether or not the plot should be included, with a lot of people citing that it shouldn't because the only way to know it is due to piracy. However, the film has just been legally released in New Zealand (just got back from seeing it), so there is definitely a way to know the plot now. I would add it myself, but unfortunately I don't have a great memory for detail and so wouldn't be able to do it justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.87.163 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Special Endings

The version of the film I saw includes a short clip after the credits (hardly secret). Logan knocks back a shot and (in Japanese presumably, but according to the subtitles) asks for "Another". He is asked if he is American and replies he is Canadian he thinks. Asked if he is drinking to forget, he replies no, he is drinking to remember. if others make note here of the end clip they saw they could then be added to the article in some sensible way. -- Horkana (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The section on the after credits ending includes a cited article which mentions an appearance by Deadpool in the ending seen by that reviewer. Also that article seems to be source of the misnomer "secret ending". -- Horkana (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, are these endings after all the credits, or are they during the credits? Because I didn't stay to the very end, but the version I saw had the ending currently mentioned in the article's plot summary, with Stryker being taken in. Is that on all versions, and then there's an extra scene after the credits, or is that the scene that's different? - Chris McFeely (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dammit. I saw the Stryker bit but I assumed that was the only credits scene bit meaning I missed the Deadpool and Wolverine scenes. Ugh I hate when that happens. From now on I'm staying in my seat til the entire thing is over.

86.26.82.69 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just previewed a print. No Deadpool scene, but the Wolverine scene was there. WhoIsWillo (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The workprint supposedly has several minutes of missing footage. Not a reliable source. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 18:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I work at a movie theater. I saw a release print. WhoIsWillo (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Release date

This film was released in New Zealand on 29 April (I just saw it at the cinema), not the 30th, as the article states. This should be updated. Roche-Kerr (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The release date for Australia is also wrong. It should be 29th as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dertop (talk • contribs) 11:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Main Timeline

The article originally said the movie was set about 20 years before the first X-Men movie. No date has been given, still 20 years is highly unlikely. Cyclops in the first X-Men movie wasn't even in his thirties, and in "Wolverine" he is attending high school, therefore he's 16 to 18 years old. So my point is, the movie is likely set about less than 15 years earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedric diggory (talk • contribs) 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Cedric diggory (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)