Jump to content

Talk:The New Mutants (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Director Josh Boone posts script update

Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In production

As of today, the movie has begun filming. As such this page needs to be moved from a draft into an actual article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Brojam (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Title

From what I can tell going through all of the sources for this overhaul, this film is mostly referred to as The New Mutants, sometimes X-Men: The New Mutants, and occasionally just New Mutants. The shorter ones could just be a shortened version of a longer title, but I think it is unclear what exactly the film is called, so I've used the title it was announced with (The New Mutants) throughout the article, but I am happy to discuss this here. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've changed this to just New Mutants since that seems to be the one they are using ever since the release date announcement. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Obviously this has been changed back now, per the first trailer. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Characters other portrayals

I keep noticing that certain contributors keep trying to link the portrayals of this movie's characters to other portrayals in this article, as oppose to the relevant article. That should probably stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was nice and vague. The reason the other portrayal was noted here with a seemingly unrelated source was because the information was being consistently re-added, and the only source for this film that mentioned the previous portrayal did not mention the actors name. It is notable to note when a character is recast within a franchise, which has been explained to you before. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
And, as has been explained to you before, if the portrayal has zero to do with this film, multiple portrayals belong on the fictional characters page, not in an unrelated article. Disagree? Initiate an RfC. Do me the kindness of not trying to explain my position, though. Just notify me, and I will add it myself. Thanks in advance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

13th installment?

Like its all part of the same universe? I think not. All of the sources say this is something different (except for some of the fan bloggers, which perform mental acrobatics trying to shoehoen this into the X-Men timeline). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? It is very clearly sourced that this is a film in the X-Men film series. Seriously, it doesn't get more blatant than expanding the universe of the X-Men films. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
One article. In the crush of sources that think it is completely difference from every other X-Man film. SHould I bring the 10 or so other articles tha tdiscuss how this film is a departure from the X-Men series?
Don't for a moment thing that anyone here has forgotten about how much you squealed about the whole genre thing months ago, and now you are back to try to shoehorn it in again. Sigh. No. Bring more sources, please.
As well, this whole edit-warring bullshit of yours needs to stop, because its fucking childish. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
sources that don't consider this yet another installment of the X-Men franchise:
I could go on, but I think the point is clear: New Mutants is the beginning of its own franchise. It is specifically stated that NM is to be the first in a horror trilogy. Not part of the X-Men. Connected? Sure. Part of? Not so much. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Since we seem to be at odds with the wording, and you seem unwilling to initiate a RfC, I've changed to wording to reflect that the film was actually intended as part of a trilogy of Mutant Horror films. That way, we sidestep the murky synthesis and referencing issues that arguing this point are likely to entail. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The issue of whether these "new franchises" like the Deadpool films and The New Mutants are considered part of the X-Men film series or not has already been extensively discussed there, and the consensus has always been that this is still one film series (I myself have gone back-and-forth on this one). I don't think we should be making changes like this here when they will effect that article, where quite a few editors are invested in this very discussion, so I think going there is the best next step. Until then, the wording should remain as it was before the issue came up. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
With respect to your assertion tha tthis is part of a pre-existing consensus, you should feel entirely free to provide proof of that. Lacking that - or perhaps in spite of that - we are seeking (new?) consensus now. Use the talk page to sort stuff out. Understand that continuing to edit-war a ppet version is going to have negative consequences. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This is very simple. This line has been as it is for over a year. Discussions at Talk:X-Men (film series) have always ended with the consensus that there is just a single X-Men series, not multiple franchises within a shared universe or anything like that. If you want to have a new discussion about this and propose alternate wording then that is fine. But you don't just get to change the line to something that you like and then stop anyone from restoring it to what it has always been. Self-revert to the agreed upon wording that has stood unchalleneged for as long as the article has existed, and then I'll be happy to discuss whether it needs go be changed or not. Stop edit warring because you don't like how it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide any sources that point to the relevance of counting the film as the thirteenth one? I spent a few minutes reviewing recent sources about The New Mutants but am not seeing anything in that regard. While I understand that it helps to put the film in context per MOS:BEGIN, I can see why just this particular sentence is insufficient in terms of context. We shouldn't copy the wording used by MCU films because their chronology is very much intact. Maybe we can say something about this being the thirteenth film related to the X-Men (Marvel?) universe that 20th Century Fox has produced (especially to get away from any in-universe chronology phraseology) and also to indicate in the same sentence that it is a standalone spinoff as some sources state? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Let me point out that whatever discussions took place in X-Men (film series) did not occur here. As there are references that call it part of a trilogy - pretty much all of them call it such - we should call it such. If you want to build consensus for this being the "13th installment", go for it. I see my job as going through articles and removing stuff that isn't cited (or seems to be OR in nature); that is pretty much My Thang. The downside of that is that some folks consider that arrogance on my part. Maybe it is; being right has its downside as well as advantages.
The film is primarily considered to be part of a horror trilogy. We call it that unless we have references that call it something else. Might something else come along? Undoubtedly - comic book fans can't agree on the color of an orange - but we're an encyclopedia. We contribute content from references, not our own personal belief. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It would be good if your "Thang" included realising that what you think is right does not get implemented until consensus agrees. I don't disagree with either of you, and in fact would support wording along the lines of It is intended to be the first of a trilogy, and is part of the X-Men universe. The reason I have not done that is because of the overwhelming consensus against referring to there being an "X-Men universe" rather than just a single film series. Just because a discussion took place somewhere else does not mean that it does not apply here, and we should be consistent with this decision (not say the film is part of the series in one place and not part of it somewhere else). Again, my issue is not that I don't want to change this, it is that we need to have a proper discussion and get everyone who prrviously discussed this involved so that we can do this properly. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe adjusting the statement to reflect the X-Men component would be to avoid mentioning it in the Lead and instead on pointing out in the body of the article that the characters are featured in X-Men-related comics. Until the film comes out, or leaks reveal connections to other X-Men movie properties, we are somewhat limited in what we can say about this particular trilogy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not worried about that, since the director has been very clear that this is an X-Men movie, and that is sourced in the article. We just need to agree upon exact wording that we think the sources support, and then take it over to the film series page so all those who previously discussed the issue can have their say as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
What I am concerned about is the editorial qualification denoting it as the 13th installment of the X-Men franchise, when the crush of sources simply refer to it as the first in a horror trilogy. It seems fine distinction, but I think its an important one: we (as editors) cannot synthesize all of the X-Men movies into a math total; a source has to do that, and even then, the weight of sources seem to not conside this a continuation of the X-Men "series" per se. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you have a strong argument, which is why I think you should take it over to Talk:X-Men (film series). I just don't agree with us coming up with new phrasing like 'the first of a new franchise within the "X-Men Universe"' and using it here without discussing the issue where all the editors that have previously been interested in this issue can see it. I can start the discussion over there if you want, but I don't want to just go ahead and do it if you don't want to go over there, as that will just spread the problem thin rather than help come to a consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus against the proposed move (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The New Mutants (film) → The New Mutants – For the same reason why there is an upcoming film titled The Suicide Squad that doesn't redirect to Suicide Squad. Also, precision. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Maisie Williams quotes regarding the film's limbo

I stumbled across this while working the Sophie Turner article:

"She does have a big-budget movie in the can, playing the werewolf-y mutant Wolfsbane in the X-Men spinoff New Mutants, but the film seems trapped in corporate limbo, thanks to Disney’s pending purchase of Fox. She doesn’t mince words on the situation. “Who knows when the fuck that’s gonna come out,” she says. There were supposed to be reshoots to “make it scarier,” she explains, but they haven’t actually taken place. She says she saw one of her co-stars, Charlie Heaton, the other day and asked him, “What the fuck is going on with this movie?” He didn’t know either. She smiles. “Hopefully this interview will make everyone hurry up a little bit!” If it does ever come out, both she and Turner — who plays Jean Grey over in the main X-Men movies — are dying to get their characters together. “It would be ridiculously stupid if they didn’t do that,” Williams says."

It's from an interview conducted with both Williams and Turner regarding growing up together while filming GoT and their friendship. Use whatever you want from it. Cheers, - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC notice - Distributor

There is a request for comment whose outcome may affect this article: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films. Nardog (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Archived at WT:WikiProject Film/Archive_74#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films. Closed with comment The general consensus here is to retain the credited distributor ("20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures") and as such, to not unilaterally change names of credited subsidiary distributors to their parent, "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures". Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah...its a horror film

There's been some ping-ponging about whether the film should be classified as either horror or superhero genres. One contributor reverting even offered the silly (and incorrect) reasoning that we could only use one defining term. Since there is a truckload of references noting both genres, we include both genres as well - we follow the references, since they know that the hell they are talking about.
And if anyone wants to argue that the film isn't horror, they should probably look at the many sources classifying it as such. Be thankful that someone didn't want to add a teen genre as well, because there is substantive basis for that as well. With a glut of superhero films, classifying this movie as horror, which appears to be sidestepping the capes genre, is inescapable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, we only list the primary genre per WP:FILMLEAD. I didn't make that up. Secondly, this is a discussion that comes up for just about every superhero film, since they often are styled as something else on top. For instance, Deadpool and its sequels are obviously comedies, but the consensus is that they are superhero films styled as comedies, so superhero is the genre listed in the lead. Likewise, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a political thriller, but it was decided that it was a superhero film styled as a political thriller, and so superhero film is what is listed. That doesn't mean these other genres are not listed at all, in fact they are thoroughly discussed in the respective articles, we just don't list them in the opening sentence of the article. Relevant discussions for this have taken place all over, with a recent one being Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Superhero genre. If you still take issue with this, I suggest we head over there to continue the discussion, but I don't think this is that big of an issue: this is a superhero film that has been styled as a horror film (which is what reliable sources are discussing it as, i.e. breaking new ground by going the full-blown horror route), so we note the primary genre of superhero in the opening sentence, and then discuss the horror direction/tone/feel/inspirations later in the lead, and then again throughout the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, you should probably read that section again, paying closer attention to the word "should" more. After that, wander your browser on over to WP:FA, and take a look at some of the Featured Articles for film. There are several that note more than one genre. I ge tthat your knee-jerk reaction is to simply revert and then discuss, but you should keenly grasp onto the fact that tactic is going to get you zero traction in discussion, especially with me. Keep that in mind, bc it gets in the way of you and I finding any common ground. It's a pet peeve with me. Once I feel the need to report you to EWN, you lose tons of credibility.
Now, on to the meat of the matter. As noted earlier, there are plenty of exemplars of musliple genre film articles (and tv articles. And literary articles, etc.) Now, if you are desperate to only use one genre, there are more articles classifying the film as horror, so if you are all for dropping the superhero genre, cool, but that is no more accurate than dropping the 'horror' genre. The key factor to be used in deciding what genre to use is not your personal opinion but rather that of references.
And, since the Lede is seen as a brief overview of the article en toto, it seems disingenuopus to not note the genre in the Lede.
If you want to discuss this over at the MOS discussion, that's cool, but we should leave this with the proper genres listed until we arrive at a solution/compromise - of for no other reason than to avoid the friction by a back and forth revert-warring by yourself. Be cool, leave it be, and we can discuss the matter at the MOS discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so it's a horror because you say so. You obviously know nothing about the genre. Edit stuff you DO know about and leave The Marvel Universe alone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.136.253 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there a problem with calling it a “superhero horror film”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.179.195.219 (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We generally try to just have a single primary genre per the recommendation at WP:FILMLEAD, to avoid long strings of genres being added to the leads of film articles. The current wording in the article is a compromise with this that was agreed upon after discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, these are superhero films that happen to invoke other genres. If we were to list secondary genres, then we would end up with very messy ledes with everyone trying to include every justifiable genre. So, a film like Ant-Man could end up with genres like "heist, comedy, family, sci-fi, fantasy superhero" etc. So, it's just safe to go with the primary genre, which is superhero. Starforce13 00:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but in this case we have slightly different wording per this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I like the "horror film within the superhero genre" wording we have because it avoids the problem. Starforce13 00:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Cancelled(?) Sequels

I don't think the sequels were actually announced to be cancelled. The article linked as citing New Mutants as having Watts say its the last of the X-Men film series is a quote of her saying Dark Phoenix last one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.79.120 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It has since been corrected by adding the announcement that Fox's X-Men films that were in development were cancelled after Disney's purchase of the company ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It also looks like it initially was supposed to be linked to X-Men: Apocalypse, but references to the film were removed after bad reviews. It's worth mentioning that the timeline is set in present day after the last few entries in the franchise were set in the past [1] --Ursula johnson (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC) UrsulaJohnson

  1. ^ ChristianJosephAllbee

If the where no re-shoots, is Antonio Banderas in the film

This page describes well the convoluted journey this film has been on, it seems that though re-shoots were planned several times, no re-shoots where actually ever done and that the film coming out in April 2020 is the directors original visio. So was the post credit scene re-shoot to replace Jonathan Hamm with Antonio Banderas actually filmed? I cant find anything either way. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we should remove the small paragraph at the end of the Cast Section referring to Antonio Banderas, now the director has reconfirmed that no reshoots or any other filming was done after 2017? Source Exclusive: The New Mutants director sets the record straight on reshoot rumblings “Everybody said we did reshoots! We’ve never done reshoots."

Ok if he is fibbing we can add Banderas back, but the article will not look too good if he is not in it. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"Thirteenth and final installment"

Currently, the beginning paragraph states that the film was "initially developed to be an installment of the 'X-Men' film series". Since it is still considered to be part of Fox's 'X-Men' series, I would like to request permission to rephrase it as being the thirteenth and final installment in the series. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I am a bit late here. Is it the the thirteenth and final installment of a 'X-Men' series, or a stand alone 'X-Men' film? (Related to this is the separate modern time setting mention by Ursula johnson above.) (While I ask this, I am not sure it matters.) Though it is at the moment it is seemingly highly unlikely that the will be any sequels, can we say in wikipedia, with our crystal balls, that we know definitively that this film is the final installment. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
With the cancellation of any Fox "X-Men" films not already filmed, it's pretty safe to say that this will indeed be the final film in the series. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Without a direct statement from some reliable source explicitly stating that this is the final film that will ever be made just leave it out. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
But The article does not say it is the final Fox "X-Men", it says it is the It will be the thirteenth and final installment of the X-Men film series, we do not know if Disney or 20th Century Studios or other company will produce a series of X-Men films in the future. ~ BOD ~ TALK 09:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Would it not be better to say simply The New Mutants is the last Marvel movie produced by Fox before the studio was merged with Disney, provided that was supported with a reliable source. ~ BOD ~ TALK 10:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Technically, the X-Men (film series) article is specifically for the Fox X-Men universe / film series... it's not an article for the entire X-Men franchise. If Disney produces a new X-Men series, that will be a different series, not the existing Fox X-Men series article. There's a difference between a film series/shared universe and a franchise. Disney also made it clear that all future Marvel movies will be made by Marvel Studios and Feige said they were going to do something different with the X-Men in MCU, rather than continue with the Fox X-Men franchise. So, there's no question that it's the last Fox X-Men film. So, as long as you understand what a film series or a shared universe is, that shouldn't be the argument.
The only real argument is that it would be WP:SYNTHESIS / WP:CRYSTAL since Disney/20th Century has never explitly called it the final installment. The only one they called final was Dark Phoenix but because of the constant delays, it ended up getting released before The New Mutants.— Starforce13 01:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

X-Men spin-off

Question - @Bodney and Facu-el Millo:, I noticed that you're also removing any mention of it as X-Men spinoff in the lede. Just wondering, which consensus concluded that it's not an X-Men spinoff and how was that reached? The director and every reliable source from the time it was ordered describes it as an X-Men spinoff. None of the related talks seem to have come close to that conclusion. While it's debatable whether to call it "thirteenth and final" per WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CRYSTAL, since when did it stop being an X-Men spin-off? — Starforce13 01:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I was just saying that it was being discussed above —still is, with your comment—, and no consensus was reached. The status quo seemed to be not to include it, but ChristianJosephAllbee just kept adding it. I thought he should keep the discussion going before making the change again. El Millo (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Debating whether it is or not the thirteenth installment is almost the same as debating whether it is an X-Men spin-off or not, if by "X-Men" we mean the X-Men film series and not the comics. It can only be a spin-off if it is part of the film series, otherwise it is either completely standalone or a reboot. El Millo (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Based on these discussions we'll have to figure out in which way to include this film in the film series' article, whether as a normal installment or as something else. El Millo (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes definitely I agree we are in the same universe, I have no objection to calling the film a X-Men spinoff in the lede. A lot of my worry, was the concern that far too many incorrect things have been said about this film in the press, that we needed in Wikipedia to be more solid in our facts. My concerned was the WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CRYSTAL of calling it the "thirteenth and final" film in the lede, without a very clear statement from an authoritative film production source (in a equally reliable press source). It is correct to say that it is the final Marvel film produced by Fox that is being released. I may have been wrong in not separating the Fox series from future Disney or 20th Century X-Men films, I believed it is too early to know the future. I am personally less worried about calling it the 13th film in the series than calling it the final film, though New Mutants does appear to be a increasingly separate spin off rather than part of a series. Using one of the links that has been used to support the 13th and final argument in the article ...‘New Mutants’ Trailer Reveals Final Chapter For Fox’s Old ‘X-Men’ Series "...in the broad scheme of Marvel and Disney’s library, what is this thing? It’s the last remnants of a dead franchise, existing neither as reboot nor franchise-starter nor component of an existing brand." The article concludes "It’s not intended to launch or sustain a franchise or a cinematic universe. Come what may, The New Mutants is just “a movie.” Nothing more, nothing less." When the is doubt, keep it simple. ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose we change 'installment' to 'standalone spinoff' of the X-Men franchise.* The word 'installment' suggests a very much closer tie to the rest the X-Men, another film related in the continuing saga of the main X Men characters everybody knows. New Mutants is something very separate in so many ways, yet still in the same universe. If the is ever a sequel we can deal with that later.

<http://deadline.com/2015/05/the-new-mutants-x-men-josh-boone-the-fault-in-our-stars-fox-1201425641/>

~ BOD ~ TALK 15:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Since there has been so much division over this discussion, I'm willing to leave the article as it is (simply stating that it's an installment in the "X-Men" series and not necessarily the "final installment") ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I do prefer 'standalone spinoff' as it gives the reader a better understanding of the film's relationship withe rest of X-Men franchise and the rest of the Marvel cinematic universe. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we should be putting any more descriptive wording into the sentence as we just don't really know at this point. It is confirmed to be part of the X-Men film series so calling it an installment of that is accurate and works fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Future" vs "Sequel plans"

The reason I feel like it should be restored to "Future" as opposed to "Sequel plans" is that "Future" is a more neutral term and the possibility of any sequels is still unlikely in light of Disney's purchase of Fox. Whether a sequel is made or not, the future is the future. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and per Adamstom.97's reasoning that "Future" suggests to [him] that there is potential for the sequels to be made, while still highly unlikely, there is a possibility that sequels are made. El Millo (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the future includes all possible future out comes, leaves it as open as it is. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

So are we in agreement, then? ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but i guess we wait a little while for any other contribution, before we can confirm any consensus. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion really because we usually use "Future" for sequels that are going to happen but have not been made official yet. If you guys still think "Future" applies then I am happy to go with that. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree. First, we usually use "Future" even when sequels are more likely than this case. Second, it's neutral and works with or without a sequel. So, that should always be the default consensus. So, I don't know why this has been such a big deal. There seems to be a persistent faction of mostly IPs who really want the Fox X-Men series to continue, so, they keep rewording these articles to fit that notion. — Starforce13 04:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Disney the distributor?

I saw an IP making this change, and it got me thinking as well. After the merge was complete, Walt Disney Studios is now the distributor of any Fox films it inherited and 20th Century Studios is now simply a production studio, on a similar level as Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel Studios, etc. Is this wrong? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

According to our own article on 20th Century Studios: "Similar to other Disney film units, distribution of 20th Century Studios films is now handled by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, while Searchlight Pictures operates their own autonomous distribution unit."[1] So I guess we should change it to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures in all films produced by 20th Century Studios. El Millo (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: in light of this information, should we change all 20th Century Studios articles' distributor to WDSMP? The King's Man, for example, doesn't have 20th Century amongst its production companies, but only as the distributor. El Millo (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
If we have a source to make that change then it would make sense, I think at the moment we just have holdovers because of the way Fox used to work. Have any 20th Century Studios films been released already that we could look to for confirmation? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The Call of the Wild (2020 film) and Ford v Ferrari have, but both have 20th in the distributor and I think both of those are wrong. Also, it is curious that Call of the Wild and Ford v Ferrari at the BBFC both have 20th Century Fox Film Co. Ltd as their distributors. I'm going to see if I can find Ford v Ferrari's credits online. That should have the info to fully check. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Ford v Ferrari wasn't released under 20th Century Studios, it was still called 20th Century Fox at the time. El Millo (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but it still was released post the merger with Disney. Based on all I'm finding, I wonder if all of these Fox films are just simply keeping the 20th name as a formality for their distribution, despite it being run by Disney. At least for the time being, nothing should be changed here or on other articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

At that time, Boone expressed interest in completing his planned trilogy but said this was unlikely to happen due to Disney's Marvel Studios gaining control of the characters.

The has been a little edit dispute about were this sentence should go, at the end of the lead or in the paragraph that refers to Disney. In other articles information about future films might logically go at the end of the lead, but this sentence has nothing to do with the corona virus pandemic & delay final paragraph, but instead directly refers to the time of the Disney takeover and how impacts the original planned trilogy. So I believe in this instance it really does makes more logical sense to have this sentence that refers to the effect of the Disney takeover in the same paragraph which talks about the Disney merger.

To Quote da rules that all editors know.... Wikipedia has no firm rules, while Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, (and common practices and styles etc), they are not carved in stone... their content and interpretation can evolve over time, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires allowing exceptions, especially when they make logical sense. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This clearly belongs in the "Future" section which is dedicated to any discussions about the future of the franchise... especially since they're just wishful thinking. Likewise, content about rumored reshoots should go to Production section. That's just the natural logic. Both the reshoots and future possibilities were neither official but rumors and hopes. So, including them in the lede is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT because they're not defining qualities of the film. — Starforce13 15:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Starforce. This info isn't substantial enough for the lead and, seeing that its placement within it is causing problems, it would be best to remove it from the lead altogether. El Millo (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Starforce13 That's not how the lead works. All the content should go in the section of the body that is most appropriate for it, and then the lead needs to summarise each of those sections. This film does not have standard release or sequel info due to some unique circumstances, but it still has release and sequel information that needs to be included in the summary in some form.
The lead, like most film article leads, starts with basic info about the film and a brief summary of the cast and plot. Then there is a summary of production info which is where discussion of the reshoots is included (this is a huge section of the article and definitely needs to be included in the lead to give it due weight). And then the third paragraph includes release, reception, and sequel information. At the moment our "release" info is explaining why there is no release date, there is no reception info yet, and then our sequel information summarises the most recent update on the sequels. There is no good reason to change this basic setup for just this film. There is definitely no good reason to move the sequel info from the end of the lead as it is about different (potential) films and should not be mixed in with info on this film. And I think the current wording makes sense since both updates happened at the same time, but if we need to updated the wording to avoid any unwanted implications then I am happy to discuss that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
If it stays and is placed at the end, I think it needs to be reworded, especially removable of "At that time", which the reader might think is connected to the delay caused by the 2019–20 corona virus pandemic. As it the film was always intended to be part of a trilogy I think it is ok to somehow mention it, but I am not fixed in the need for it. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC) ... ok i just reworded the sentence, please reword or reject if you want :) ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I am happy with your new wording if others agree with it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The new wording is much better. El Millo (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
lol I think it could be improved, by trimming, as the idea of a trilogy is introduced in the previous paragraph, sorry i reworded again. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC) ... I will try not to tamper again for the time being. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"No good reason": actually, yes, very good reason, because that section deals with—as Bod pointed out—the Disney merger and the completion of the film, and it was at the time of the completion of the film (and not later in March when it was pulled from the April release date because of the virus) that Boone expressed his continued interest in doing a trilogy. Boone did not express his interest at the same time or as a result of the film being pulled from the schedule, which is what the previous version clearly read as, especially given the "At that time" which could only be seen to be referring to "at the time the film was pulled from April". This is chronological logic... not sure what is so hard to grasp about that. Anyhow, it's definitely better now than it was (thanks Bod) but this dogmatic adherence (on one editor's part) to "we can't talk about sequels until the very end of the lead" is counterproductive and results in very poorly structured writing. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Joeyconnick that we shouldn't just place it at the end of the lead simply because of some black-and-white logic that makes it lose context. Otherwise, it's just misinformation. And Adamstom.97, the lead section is not supposed to summarize everything in the article. It's only supposed to summarize the most significant things about the article per MOS:LEAD. Not everything belongs in the lead... especially if it happens to just wishful thinking... or rumors mostly spread by unrealiable fan-interpretation sites like Collider. Giving such things a major prominence in the lead is part of what UNDUEWEIGHT is all about because it creates a skewed impression of what the topic is about. — Starforce13 01:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Guys, these are some pretty basic ideas here both in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and common sense. We should not be putting information about future films in the middle of information about this film. We should attempt to put things in the most logical place for the reader, based on consistency withing the article and with other articles that they may be familiar with. We should attempt to accurately reflect the entire article in our summary of it (the lead). We should not let whatever personal problems we have get in the way of the truth (we should not pretend that the director telling us about his plans for the future is "rumors mostly spread by unrealiable fan-interpretation sites"). We shouldn't pretend that perfectly respectable and widely use sources are not simply because someone may not like them. I'm not interested in carrying on this discussion much longer. I think the latest wording from Bodney is fine. I would also accept removing the future film discussion from the lead if enough people actually do object to it since the films at this point do not exist. I will continue to fight against randomly sticking this information in an arbitrary place that makes zero sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I rarely, if ever, have seen sequels that aren't already in development in some form or another be mentioned in the lead section of a film article. I would support removing it. El Millo (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Unlike maybe many films, this film was originally pitched as a trilogy. If we remove the sentence completely (which is OK by me) do we also need to remove 'The pair pitched a *potential film trilogy* to X-Men producer...' as well from the lede/lead whatever it's call. ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

We could mention that the film was originally pitched as the beginning of a trilogy. But remove everything else about sequels from the lede until there's actually a sequel in development. As for reshoots, just because sites like Collider, Screenrant and Comicbook.com are used a lot doesn't make them reliable for everything. Most of their articles are based on rumors and fan theories. — Starforce13 13:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not true and silly to say. The discussion of reshoots in the article is supported by numerous reliable sources, including interviews with the director which you can't argue with. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: The main problem I have with certain passages in this article, regarding wikilinks to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article in prose writing, is that they often repeat the year twice in the same sentence, e.g. "...in March 2020 due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic...". The name was always meant to be a name used to disambiguate a Wikipedia article's title, and it's not an official name of sorts for the pandemic by any means, so it doesn't make much sense to me to be using "2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" in this manner. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There may be room for improvement to avoid duplicating the year, but stating the effective name of the pandemic ("2019–20 coronavirus pandemic") is way more appropriate for an encyclopaedic article than the very vague "a global coronavirus pandemic" which makes it sound like we have lots of those and it isn't worth identifying which one. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure why 'a ((2019–20 coronavirus pandemic|global coronavirus pandemic))' better than 'the ((2019–20 coronavirus pandemic))', surely the latter is more specific with a clear wikilink, while the former also suggests to me that the might be more than one covid outbreak in this period. (())'s standing in for [[]]. Though I do like the addition of global. So I would perhaps change to 'the global 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic' as a compromise. ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97 and Bodney: Perhaps a better compromise would be along the lines of "Disney removed the film from its schedule amid a global coronavirus pandemic which occurred in 2020, with the intention of rescheduling the film for a release later in the year." No repetition and no weird-sounding "due to the 2019–20" kind of English. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 16:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I still prefer "Disney removed the film from its schedule in March 2020 due to the global 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic with the intention of rescheduling the film for a later date." or maybe "In March 2020 Disney removed the film from its schedule due to the global 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic with the intention of rescheduling the film for a later date.". A little less repetition and heck :) whats weird about "due to the global 2019–20 etc etc", and "the" is more specific than "a". ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Saying "global" pandemic is redundant because "pandemic" already means it's global. That's literally part of the reason why W.H.O. changed the classification from "epidemic" to "pandemic". Although there hasn't been another coronavirus, historical events like these are usually often stated by the year because they give a complete historical context. — Starforce13 17:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bodney: You italicise global like it's the focus of your sentence, but I already had "global" in mine, so I'm not sure what you're on about there. My problem was writing it as "due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic", like it's the official name of an event or something, like a football tournament. It's a useful name to disambiguate the title of a Wikipedia article, which the name was invented for in the first place, but it's unusual to use in prose writing, since it's meant to sound à la normal conversation. That's why I'd prefer the year to be written more naturally, such as "a coronavirus pandemic which occurred in 2020". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It still seems like we're trying to jump through unnecessary hoops. I understand the desire to avoid the date repetition, and I think we can solve that. But I again don't see the need to pipe the link to 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic to some other text. In that case, it seems unnecessarily vague, at least in the first mention of it. I'd be fine removing the dates after the lead/first body instance, but we should stick to 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic in those instances. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Exactly! This is the kind of piping that doesn't really improve the text. Mentioning the year alongside major events like this is natural language too, not just for disambiguation reasons. So, piping to avoid the title is unneeded.— Starforce13 17:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, looking once again at the three instances of "coronavirus" (the lead, Final cut section, and release section) March 2020 is necessary for inclusion to know when Disney made these changes, and both the lead and Final cut section need the link and full article title. We can remove "2019-20" in the release section instance if desired because we've already established the pandemic earlier in Final cut and there is no other pandemic on this article it could be referring to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: hi, sorry global was only italicised to simply show I agree with its inclusion, sorry for any confusion. But as User:Starforce13 reminds me, 'global' in this instance is redundant. As for "due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic" I prefer to call a spade a spade, where it makes sense. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

September 2020 release?

Hi, so I had a look at this page today, and I saw that the movie is reportedly being released in September 2020, according to this page. However, Box Office Mojo doesn't have any official information on the release! Is this just somebody's prank or is this actual release date? Blogorgonopsid, 15th April 2020 14:50 (GMT+1)

I can not see any official date from any source credible or dodgy, so I have reverted the edit. The are one or more persistent visitors to this page who regularly make such unsupported edits. ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Amazon pre-order

I saw today some venues reported the film being available for pre-order on Amazon, like CinemaBlend, MovieWeb and IGN. Should we include this now or should we wait for official confirmation? El Millo (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

IGN has updated their article with a notice 'Amazon has now removed The New Mutants from being available for pre-order.' ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_New_Mutants_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=988782731"