Talk:Logan (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Patrick Stewart OFFICIALLY confirmed

Here's a source where he talks about having 'more than an appearance' in the film. Npamusic (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

'Wolverine' title from SDCC?

At San Diego Comic-Con, they had logos for their upcoming film slate with 'Wolverine 3' simply titled Wolverine. Can we change the name of the page per this image? Npamusic (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What say you @Favre1fan93:, @TriiipleThreat:, @Rusted Autoparts: ? Npamusic (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If I can chime in, I think we should hold up on changing the title. Not that it really matters in the draft, but still... First off, how likely is it that the sequel to the movie "The Wolverine" is titled "Wolverine"? Not impossible, but probably not likely. It's too similar. Second, given the fanfare surrounding this movie (Hugh Jackman's last appearance and such) I don't think that Fox will want to announce the title in the form of an afterthought following an SDCC panel. It doesn't need its own event, but I would imagine that if they were announcing the title, it would be specifically and clearly stated, not left up to conversations such as this one to decide. My guess is that the logo was only there to remind the audience that a Wolverine movie is in the words. Rmaynardjr (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Page clean up / update..

The page needs updating with proper sources and the production section needs tweaking. Npamusic (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: the production section needs work done on it. I'm away on vacation for the next few days and won't be able to do anything about it after this writing. Care to help me out? Npamusic (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Production section needs its sources cited better. Npamusic (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Poster

Guys... Don't you think this picture is a little impolite? This isn't a street fans blog. It's a formal encyclopedia. 185.131.150.26 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Year

What year this movie take place? 2024 or 2044? -TeQuatro (talk) TeQuatro (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

According to the official synopsis, cited here, it is 2024. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I was feeling rather dubious of this "official synopsis", since it seems to confirm some stuff that Mangold has been unwilling to talk about so far, so I had a look through some articles and it appears that this synopsis comes from IMDb, which is not a reliable source we can use here. Also, the official trailer release does not include this (or any synopsis) in its description, which is what Fox usually does for its trailers on YouTube. I don't think we should be using this synopsis, and I think the year should therefore just be what Mangold said, which is 'after the epilogues of Days of Future Past.' - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize; I took Yahoo! Movies UK at its word. I'm astonished that a purportedly reputable source would so blatantly make a false claim, and I'll be more careful going forward. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry Tenebrae, it's an easy slip up. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been actively fighting this 2024 thing. It was most likely leaked from an outline by a Fox intern who thought that "ten years after Days of Future Past" meant 2024, when in fact that would make it 2033. There's no information either way but these leaks are likely an internal screw-up at 20C Fox. I get mad every time I see it because 1 year after DofP doesn't line up with what James Mangold has said about Logan being set far after DofP. I'm gonna change it to say something along the lines of "Set many years after Days of Future Past, ...". That good with everyone? Someone else can clean it up if they have a better way of saying something like that. GetRicht (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. When someone's source says, unedited, "is destroying the world leaving it to destruction", don't cite them as fact. Researching it, the leaked synopsis sounds most likely to be a draft that'll be cleaned up and distributed once they're ready. GetRicht (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've given it another pass, just using that trailer breakdown source. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. Liking how stripped down it is now, sticking to the stuff we know rather than the contentious Mr Sinister stuff. GetRicht (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Wolverine One Last Time" Poster

File:Logan 2017.jpg (Image changed to link because a non-free image may not be shown on a talk page even for the purpose of discussion. Click the link to see the image.)

This image is suitable and needed for the article because Hugh Jackman officially announced his decision to stop playing the character with this poster so it makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. CerberaOdollam (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Then this must be supported by multiple reliable sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It already has multiple reliable sources in this section. I only added the image. CerberaOdollam (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bartallen2: Unfortunately It is almost clear that you are deliberately trying to remove this picture from the article without any rational reason. When a section requires a cleanup it does not mean that we cannot add an image. As I said this poster is definitely necessary and useful for the article. "You" have uploaded and inserted a photo of Boyd Holbrook for Marketing section and you insist that only this image must stay on the section. This is a personalizing edit and It's not constructive for article. Jackman is the leading actor of this film and he is the face of advertisements, Holbrook is not even the supporting actor so infact this image that you have added is superfluous for the "marketing section" but One Last Time poster is an important and famous image because Jackman officially announced his decision to stop playing the character, which he's been portraying for the past 17 years with this poster. We have these sentences: Jackman, on his Twitter, posted an image of Logan giving the middle finger with his claw, coupled with the hashtag "#OneLastTime", to signify his last appearance portraying Logan so as I mentioned previously, this poster makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.

We need better copyright info - the fairuse rationale does not seem valid. Also the argument for the significance of the image is not convincing. That Jackman tweeted it and someone commented does not make the image famous, or suggest it is of central relevance to the movie.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

But we have 3 reliable sources here and I can insert more credible sources too. You mean this image is less significant than this one? CerberaOdollam (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think marketing footage is significant at all. Not before it starts being commented on by sites that are not just about hyping the movie. And I also dont think the sources presented suggest that this image (or the one with Peirce) are notable or significant enough to merit fairuse.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but this is exceptional. the reason that I add this image is that it was an official announcement that he is leaving the long-running role. CerberaOdollam (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC) CerberaOdollam (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus:So neither of these images should be placed in the article?CerberaOdollam (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I would advise against adding them. We are not in the business of publishing advertising for movie companies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright. But my aim was not publishing advertising for movie companies. I just wanted to add the image for the reader's understanding of the subject.CerberaOdollam (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I honestly dont see how any of those pictures contribute to the readers' understanding.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC about the photo in the marketing section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Marketing" section contain this image? Jackman officially announced his decision to stop playing the character, which he's been portraying for the past 17 years with this poster therefore, it contribute to the readers' understanding of the subject, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CerberaOdollam (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the image does not add anything to the article. All we should be saying about his announcement is that he posted an image with the tag "OneLastTime". Nothing from the image besides those words is particularly noteworthy. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The image itself is not important. Facu-el Millo (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it doesn't contribute anything useful. Text can sufficiently explain the issue. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 07:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the content can easily be conveyed by words. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time an actor reneged on such a statement. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree the photo has no place on Wikipedia. It's a ploy and is not to be taken seriously given the nature of film marketing and casting negotiations. Sourcing is to be found describing certain aspects of this operation and I see no reason why the image would increase comprehension of the text in any case. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caliban

Sources are saying that Caliban in this s film. Which actor is playing him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.147.89 (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Only time will tell. But we are in no hurry to add the actor's name. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Merchant is playing Caliban. Npamusic (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2017

Hugh Jackman should also be credited as playing "X-24"; Logan's clone. This information involves spoilers, but has been already registered under his name on IMDb. 134.126.240.167 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Please note, we are not worried about "spoilers", but IMDb is NOT a reliable source Arjayay (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

spelling mistake corilation ==> correlation

corilation is a mispelling of the word correlation 75.82.47.112 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank-you for pointing that out! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017

Hello,

I request that a sentence is added to the Hugh Jackman as Logan/ Wolverine section. In issue 333 (page 67) of Empire magazine with regards to a more personal story the actor states "That's always been really his dilemma, coming to terms with who he is".

I would like this to be added as it sums up both the personal tone of the film and a core element of this character but also something that the actor views as central to Logan's conflicted nature.

I suggest inserting this sentence after citation 16 as that is when the subject of tone arises. I would have done it myself but not enough edits to my name!

Thanks

Sasquatch1201 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Sasquatch1201 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary anytime soon?

I know that this movie has already premiered in Germany. Will there be a plot synopsis written and posted by someone anytime soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.88.8 (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2017

The word "outmatched" in the plot section is misspelled. 24.170.255.141 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The plot summary is written in present tense, and thus "outmatches" is acceptable. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

please correct this grammatical error:

"Logan also saves money since he wants to buy a yacht with he can escape with Charles to a better place."

to

"Logan also saves money since he wants to buy a yacht with WHICH he can escape with Charles to a better place."

Tosinbells (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Tosinbells Tosinbells (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

Append the following to the last paragraph of the Cast section:

"The sequence also features a cameo appearance by Stan Lee."

Lee's appearance in the scene is already covered by both sources. 50.133.124.17 (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 03:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Shouldn't the logic that adamantium poisoning and slowed down healing rate lead to death by impalement be included to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.31.104 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

typo

The third sentences of the last paragraph of the Plot section has an unnecessary word, " Critically wounded, Logan tells turns to Laura as his daughter and tells her [...]" -- 2A02:8109:9400:474:34D2:70E7:13B6:43A4 (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Easter Egg/Old-Man Logan

Not sure what the issue is with having a link to Old-Man Logan in the plot summary? The text describes him as "aged". Though I see now that there's already a link in the lede. Drsmoo (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please review WP:EASTEREGG and WP:EGG. Keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links, that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Wikipedia is not an Advent calendar. Also remember there are people who print the articles. DonQuixote (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2017

92.30.126.19 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Add a little detail to the plot

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Another Comic book influence======

Old Man Logan is not the only influence; The film also has a lot of elements from The Death of Wolverine story arc!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.69.172 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Relationship of Laura and Logan

Her character description says she is a "female clone". This is directly contradicted by the plot summary which describes her as his biological daughter, which is also what I understood watching the film. DNA was taken from him and other mutants (not specified what kind of DNA or how) and used to impregnate Mexican mothers, resulting in the children we see. That's the only thing that is asserted in the film. So that DNA could simply have been spermatozoa and ova plain and simple, nothing to do with cloning, in her case, or the other children. What I'm saying is, the film does not support that description (I'm not even sure it's possible to have a female "clone" and for it to still be a clone, not that it matters for the purpose of editing this article). So if there is a reliable source that describes her as a clone, I suggest the character description must still be rewritten to account for what the primary source (the film) says but also take into account the potentially contradictory RS (which may be dated, misunderstood, wrong, actually referring to X-24, etc.). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Footnotes in lead

Just saying: We don't put footnotes in the WP:LEAD for non-contentious facts that are cited in the article body. Plain, objective facts like "The locations used for Logan were mainly Louisiana, New Mexico, and Mississippi" don't need to be cited in the lead, since they're footnoted below. But one editor seems to be a bit proprietary about this article, so I'd like to suggest he or she address this, rather than my doing it and possibly creating an issue with this editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This hasn't been addressed, and the WP:OVERCITING in this article is over-the-top. A simple casting fact does not need five citations. This reeks of using WIkipedia to push traffic to unneeded, additional cited sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Xavier freezing the Reavers

Moved from my talk page:

After Xavier says that he did "what [he] had to do to save Laura", Logan counters by saying that "all [he] did was panic and have a seizure", which is what happened. Either way, Xavier did not have "control" over his freezing of everybody; even after Logan had killed all of the Reavers in the room he still had to inject Xavier with the suppressant to end the seizure.

What do you mean that Laura is not Logan's biological daughter in the "commonly accepted sense"? She may not be his daughter in the commonly accepted sense, but being born of his DNA and a Mexican woman she is indisputably his biological daughter. Vrrajkum (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

While yes, I accept that Logan then says "Bullshit - you had a siezure!", the fact remains that Xavier claims otherwise, and that the seizure was otherwise an incredible coincidence that it happened just when some kind of action was required.

Xavier shows other occasions ewhen he is lucid enough to use his abilities - the horses on the road for example, and in general discussion with people.

Additionally, the adamantium poisoning him is not a "fan theory" but a well known part of his background, and history. It may not be implicitly stated, but the implication is reasonable enough. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You know, I would be willing to listen to discussion regarding this, were they not just drive-by edits made by editors with no other contributions, and a lack of edit summary - despite my edit summaries constantly pointing out both the reasoning for the distinction - and the fact that this topic is here, awaiting input from those wishing to make the change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

"On February 23rd, it was reported by numerous sources that the Theatrical Release of "Logan" in Mainland China will be shortened to 123 minutes, with 14 minutes of strong bloody violent sequences censored from the Original version, due to a lack of film rating system in Mainland China as of now." Aandwdabest (talk)

Here are the links: http://news.mtime.com/2017/02/23/1566638.html https://www.inverse.com/article/28477-chinese-censors-logan-for-violence-boobs Ahmed Kamal khan (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Is there a reason you quoted @Aandwdabest:'s request below word-for-word? (Also, that edit needs to be checked for grammar/clarity.) V2Blast (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the words or phrase "censor" or "123 minutes" in the article as I post this, but I can confirm I just saw someone's bootleg theater recording clip of the ending on Youtube with what looked like Chinese subtitles and the scene where Laura shoots X-24, instead of part of his skull being blown off, he just falls to the ground intact as if just shot in the back, so yes there is censoring going on for certain markets. I don't intend to edit the article on this topic, just confirming the censoring for this one scene. 5Q5 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I commend whoever that came up with this proposal, but who exactly has what conflicts of interests? Based on my discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Runtime, it seems censorship info should be put in the Release section not the Reception section as in Logan (film)#Outside North America. In the meantime, for the soundtrack, should we create a separate page for it, since the movie uses a number of other songs that are not included in the score soundtrack? For inspiration, see Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack)#Music not included in the soundtrack and Wonder Woman (soundtrack)#Music not included in the soundtrack. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Marked edit request as answered, seems to have been added to the article by another editor. Altamel (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Logan (film) to Logan (2017 film)

Hello, shouldn't we change its name from Logan (film) to Logan (2017 film)? Because there is also Logan (2010 film) which includes it's year. I mostly edit video game articles and whenever there are games of the same name we usually adds specific year in its article's name. Opinions regarding this matter. Thanks! Pure conSouls (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion continues on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Logan (film) to Logan (2017 film)? Daß Wölf 18:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Logan (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161113120637/https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-983-thursday-february-25-2016-202-listings-44-pages/ to https://www.productionweekly.com/production-weekly-issue-983-thursday-february-25-2016-202-listings-44-pages/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161113041020/http://www.thelocationguide.com/blog/2016/02/third-wolverine-film-to-be-shot-in-new-orleans-and-new-mexico/ to http://www.thelocationguide.com/blog/2016/02/third-wolverine-film-to-be-shot-in-new-orleans-and-new-mexico/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wga.org/news-events/news/press/2018/2018-writers-guild-awards-screenplay-nominations-announced

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

antihero or Superhero?

Would you call Logan more of an Antihero film rather than a Superhero? Maybe along the lines of the Deadpool? I was wondering if the lead should be address the same as Deadpool. Govvy (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Either way, the general genre is "superhero film". That doesn't mean that we are saying the main character is a superhero. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Length of page and amount of content

The development section alone is over 1200 words, the filming section goes into to detail about the exact locations in which filming took place (down to the intersection of two highways) and the exact days on which filming took place. There's a lot of reiteration, and frankly, I think a lot of it is unnecessary. I'm not saying let's shorten the whole thing to "filming took place in the US during summer 2016," but I don't think we need as much as information as we have. It decreases the readability of the article. Thoughts? -RM (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe the page needs to be cleaned up drastically. Everything seems all over the place and it seems as though other contributors on this site aren't taking the proper time to fix these pages. I don't understand it. They have all this time to work on the other Marvel pages, but make this one look like crap. Npamusic (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

So would anyone be opposed to me purging the page? Removing all irrelevant information, etc. -RM (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Filming sections are supposed to be detailed, and several categories depend on their existence.

The Development section is pretty much useless, as it contains detailed summaries of interviews and such phrases as "Deadline.com had revealed that Hugh Jackman will be reprising his signature role". This is replicating the cast section. This should be written in summary style and should avoid reflecting the hype of the film.

The post-production is somewhat ridiculous, as it is verbatim quoting sources about Jim Mangold doing his job. It confirms there was a post-production phase, but tells readers nothing useful about it.

The visual effects section pretty much consists of a company credit. It can be summarized as "The effects were provided by Image Engine." It has no other information on the effects.

The Music section is a bit odd. Four references are used for the claim that Cliff Martinez would be the composer of the film. A single reference is used for the claim that Martinez was eventually replaced by Marco Beltrami.

The Influences section provides useful information on the (intended) visual style of the film, but I would like to see it integrated to the development section. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Filming should be detailed, sure, but read that section. It's overly detailed, to a ridiculous level. It's like a day-by-day review of when and where production was occurring. We can certainly shorten it, at least a little bit -RM (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we can first decide what all can be removed from the "Marketing" section. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we can shorten marketing significantly. The only things truly worth mentioning are the first poster and the subsequent trailers (which will result in a rather short marketing section until later this week when we get a second trailer). How about this? (reference numbers subject to change)

The first official poster for the film, which doubled as an announcement of the film’s title, debuted on October 5, 2016.[216]

Later that month, a 90-second teaser trailer was released, along with a slightly altered red-band version.[255][257][258] The Hollywood Reporter's Aaron Couch praised the trailer, stating, "If Logan delivers on the promise of this trailer, it will be a true rarity in modern superhero movie making.”[260] James Dyer of Empire described the trailer as, “artfully constructed.”[261] Empire Magazine later chose the trailer as the best of the year.[259]

Hey guys, I haven't really been keeping up with this article of this discussion recently, but at some point soon I may go through the article and try and get it up to the standards of the MCU articles, which I am heavily involved in. Just letting you know in case that affects your plans in some way. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: We'd love your help! Any particular changes in mind? I think most sections, especially filming, could use a severe culling. -RM (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't had a good read yet, but I would look to make sure everything is well written and not repeating information or anything. I also think there are probably some good things that aren't included yet, so I would have a look around for some stuff. I recently did a big edit of Doctor Strange (film), taking what a whole lot of people had already done and expanding some of the production information and making it all better. So far we have promoted all of the MCU film articles to Good Article status, and I don't see why the X-Men pages shouldn't as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for my huge overhaul of +83,405 on the Logan page on November 12, 2016 (I agree my marketing addendum was a little iffy) ~--Bartallen2 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a complete rewrite, though some more fat could be trimmed from the cast section. A lot of it is just praise from the director to his actors. Also I didn't bother cleaning up the references or verifing them. From what I could tell there is a lot duplicate sourcing: using multiple refs when one would do, also some of the references (particularly in the filming section) could be repeated instead of using different ones to source each piece of information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

As I promised, I am now working on an overhaul of this article (a full year after I said I would). I am just working on it in my sandbox, and I'll bring stuff over here when I am happy with it. I did the same thing with Deadpool (film) last year and that is now a GA, so hopefully we can get to the same status with this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

an imperfect clone...

I think it's relevant to point out that X-24 is an imperfect clone, and it certainly doesn't detriment the article by pointing it out. The article itself points out that there are differences between Logan and X-24: "X-24, a soulless and sadistic feral younger clone of Wolverine" Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:FILMPLOT, we don't include unimportant details in plot summaries. That X-24 isn't a perfect clone doesn't affect the plot. It's obvious that there are differences between them from the description of their actions. Popcornduff (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Image to represent Hugh Jackman

• 
  1 - Terrible colour, highlights blown out, waxy skin and blurry from overprocessing, face is small part of image, and taken nine years ago
• 
  2 - Natural colour, well exposed, crisp detail, face is large part of image, recent image
• 
  3

I have tried to change the image to represent Hugh Jackman from the first image above, to the second. Despite how truly terrible the first image is, it has been reverted.

Opinions on which would be better - or a suggestion of another image would be welcome. (Hohum ^@) 14:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Image 2 is far better, for the reasons stated (natural colour, crisp detail, etc.). NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Image 2 is obviously better, for the reasons given by OP. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Image 1. We don't need to show a picture of him with nose bandage! Plus it's not infobox so it's not necessary at all to use a 'recent' image. CerberaOdollam (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a film made recently, so a recent image is obviously relevant. The nose bandage is barely noticeable, versus unrealistic waxy skin, strange skin tone, bad photoshopping and blown highlights of Image 1. (Hohum ^@) 19:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a recent movie but the image is not about the movie, the caption is: 'He has played the role for 17 years in nine films.' it's about Jackman playing the character since 1999 so there's no need to insist on using recent photo. CerberaOdollam (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Was he waxy faced and blurred due to bad photoshopping back then? (Hohum ^@) 23:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no 'photoshopping' in this pic it's bad lighting. CerberaOdollam (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, the article is about the movie Logan, so showing him now, 17 years in, is as (or more) relevant as showing him 17 years ago. We've had a WP:THIRD opinion, and a fourth. Time for you stop beating the dead horse. (Hohum ^@) 23:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The horse is not dead yet Mr. self-sure. I suggest the third image which he's in the world premiere of Logan. CerberaOdollam (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The third image also has a nose bandage (it's from the same event), but it is acceptable to me. (Hohum ^@) 18:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the best action movies of all time

Can we add it as one of the best action movies content with reference. . Ashokkumar47 (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You'd really need more than a single reference for the claim "of all time", preferably spanning different countries as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Lead section

I've revised the lead section to mention Hugh Jackman as Wolverine (which was not even linked before) in the opening sentence of the first paragraph. I followed that with mentioning the context of other films, as well as the premise. Before, the section opened with naming companies involved, which runs afoul of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Naming companies involved need to be done with care because it comes across very much as puffery, like the official spruced-up synopsis on a studio's website. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)