Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Re-titling of this page as a whole

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.

---

I have moved the Television series closer to the top of the page as it's own sub-section, seeing as Bryan Singer has clarified that though Legion can stand on its own, it will connect to the planned and upcoming future X-Men films. This means it is no longer simply tie-in material, but an official part of the series. Usually when a series expands into multiple formats, as opposed to just being a ' (film series) ' they are then retitled to be a ' (franchise) '. With Fox now trying to follow the format which Marvel Studios has before it, (with a cinematic universe) -- this page needs to be retitled as a franchise, or as a 'cinematic universe'. Burningblue52 (talk)

I have reverted your edit for now, because until consensus is reached on this, the scope of the article remains as a "film series", not a multi-media franchise. Get consensus to change the article's name, and then the section can be moved. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As an uninterested party, I agree mostly with adamstom97. I don't see the Marvel cinematic universe as the same type of thing as the X-Men series (the X-Men films are much more concise), and this article currently portrays the X-Men films as merely a series. Wikipedia has numerous pages of "book series" and "TV series" with other media in them, and I don't see that as a problem so long as the article name captures the majority of the work (or how it's best known by the general public). I do, however, see Burningblue52's point, and would say that with consensus and a great deal of rewriting, a name change etc. could work. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is for the film series. This is not X-Men in other media. Keep the TV shows under tie in materials just like the video games and books connected and related to the films. There isn't also an official name for the cinematic universe for the live action X-Men films and the TV shows produced by 20th Century Fox compare to Walt Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe.SuperHotWiki (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Though I can understand the confusion, I feel like a lot of that comes from the fact that the X-Men films chronology and relation to each other have always been very jumbled. Something that I think confirms that it is more than just a 'film series' now, is the fact that the studio is creating TV series to be directly linked to the film series. Maybe a title such as 'X-Men film universe' works better? It at least acknowledges the fact that there's more than just the films now. Regardless of what the page title changes to, adamstom97 definitely, we need to move the TV series up underneath the Film Series section on the page, seeing as the fact is that now the TV series are a part of the same continutiy/series/world; whereas before it was a lot less specific and merely tie-in material. Burningblue52 (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

How about stop trying to force this becoming into "X-Men Cinematic Universe" or "X-Men film universe" article. Those terms don't officially exist and if we make a move for that, it will make this article sound like it was a created by a "fan" who constantly posts news site sounding materials (doing it by copying/pasting) that I had to clean it up in order to meet Wikipedia's standards. Even if is this is titled as "x-Men film universe" which is not even different to its current title "X-Men (film series)", Legion is still not a film. It will be still be just like the videogames and books connected to the film series and it will not change the fact that it is a tie-in material to the films. The article is good as it is. I think some people are just fascinated by the idea of a live-action television series that they feel like they need to revamp this article and make it something else which is in my opinion, wrong. Anyway, you want the TV shows to have its own section and not a sub-section, there's X-Men in other media for you to edit.SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I could see this becoming "X-Men (franchise)" or something at some point, or Cinematic Universe if that ever becomes official, but for now this is a film series with one future TV series confirmed to connect in someway to fiture films. Keeping the scope as a film series with tie-in TV therefore seems appropriate to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? Man, I'm not trying to 'force' anything, nor sound like a 'fan'-boy or anything that you stated. No need to get hostile, nor pick things apart. My purpose in even becoming an editor on Wikipedia is to correct the MASSIVE amount of grammar and sentence format errors within the articles. Not only that, but to help the site stay consistent with correct information. Seeing as the TV show Legion IS live-action, and IS now officially a TV series in direct continuation with the film series (as declared by Bryan Singer who is one of the producers of the TV series, and an individual who has written the stories of the films, and directed a few of them) -- I don't see how your argument that the TV series isn't a film. There are varying FRANCHISE pages that include lists of films, TV series, books, etc. that are all related and within the same continuity. The fact that a TV show will directly link to future films, and potentially have influence over them validates my original statement, that the title should at least be changed to 'X-Men (franchise)'. The fact that the studio has sited the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a blue-print for what they hope the series now becomes (since X-Men: Days of Future Past), also validates that by involving TV series - also validates my reasons for even starting this talk-page section. The studio has Legion and another as-of-yet unnamed TV series in the works.

This page will change titles eventually. I'm only trying to help the process move along. Burningblue52 (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you are the only one enforcing this change. And given by the credibility of your editing skills by making the TV series section sound like a news site with words like "reporting" and copy/paste editing skills and then suggesting a name change that isn't even given by Fox. I don't see why we shouldn't even consider your plea.SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly the name X-Men (franchise) would make a lot more sense to me as well. At this point the page includes 6 X-Men films, 3 Wolverine films, Deadpool, and a lot of potential spin-off films that aren't actually X-Men films, but fit within the X-Men universe. Now I know Wolverine has never really been recognized as a stand-alone series (though maybe it should), but the same argument really can't be made for Deadpool, or upcoming projects like New Mutants. That along with the TV-series that are connected to the films should be enough to show that this 'universe' has grown beyond the X-Men films. Though I would not use phrases like Cinematic Universe until Fox starts using that as well. 2001:982:4947:1:C4B7:50F5:FC41:E1A (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe X-Men (franchise) works since a franchise includes everything from comics to movies to paperback books to toys. That's a bit overexpansive, with things that could be articles in themselves. The films alone are big enough to warrant an article. I would say pretty soon "X-Men (TV series)" would as well, what with the new shows and the animated series. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A valid point that I hadn't considered. Any names to indicate it is the live action Fox-owned X-Men franchise would probably either be too long or unofficial (for now). 2001:982:4947:1:C4B7:50F5:FC41:E1A (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I brought this up awhile back... I don't want to jump the gun on retitling the page, but there is a credible source in which the writers of Deadpool refer to this "universe" as the X-Universe. That could very well be a name made up on the spot to refer to the continuity, but it does give weight to the notion that this continuity is no longer just the X-Men film series. It's larger than that. -RM (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an argument which should take further inspection, given the continuing news that the TV series, Legion will in fact have 'connections to future movies', further the franchise's relativity in the expanding superhero film realms, and will reference film events and characters. Further more, the word X-Men (film series) suggests that the films are all X-Men movies. Though they are all within the same continuity, and within the world of the X-Men, a different title should be found. There are reliable sources simply calling the franchise the X-Men Universe. Excellent points that User: Burningblue52 brought up.

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether anyone else has picked up on this yet, but Noah Hawley who is the producer, writer, and showrunner of Legion stated that though the series is a part of the X-Men "universe", he feels like by having the TV series first stand on its own, they can "earn their way into the universe". He stated the franchise as being a "universe", here...doesn't this verify that the series is no longer just a 'film series', but a "shared universe"? The very least it is definitely now a franchise, as there are multiple media-forms involved in the continuity. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Also...

Given the new updates on the intended influence that Legion will have on the franchise as a whole, and the additional TV series that is currently in development it is safe to say that it is intended that what was once merely the X-Men film series is turning into a franchise/shared cinematic universe, inspired (obviously) by the Marvel Cinematic Universe - much like all other cinematic shared universes these days. With that being said, shouldn't the TV series within this page now be moved up to just below the film installments listed? For example, even though the page isn't yet retitled, if the page had the heading 'Films' (which it does - and lists them), THEN had 'TV series' and listed those (much like how the MCU page does), wouldn't that be more fitting now - given the tight-lipped, but revealing news supplied via reliable source here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a tie in material to the film series.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Series producer Lauren Donner, who has been involved with the X-Men franchise for a very long time, recently discussed the television's creative freedom from the film series (i.e.: the fact that Legion has it's own continuity due to the character's disillusion to reality), and also stated how the TV series will also tie-in to the cinematic universe. That is stated here. While some may get confused at the fact that she states they are their 'own' thing, this has already been stated before, saying that they want the TV serieses to be able to stand on their own, before they "EARN" the abilities to tie into the larger universe. Bryan Singer has stated that Legion will tie into future films in the film series, while Professor X will also appear in Legion. I think that it is obvious now that this is a FRANCHISE. There are both films and TV shows within its instalments, and the producer even called it the 'cinematic universe' in the above interview. Where this page needs to be retitled X-Men franchise, or X-Men cinematic universe - they both would serve the series as a whole better than just the X-Men (film series) title it currently has.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

^I've read the article and happen to agree with this. The producers are using X-Men universe, and cinematic universe interchangeably. Donner in the article just restates what the others have said before: TV shows will be developed to stand on their own first and foremost, and then will be more fluid with the rest of the franchise. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, there's no official name so no thank you. Legion doesn't even exist within the established film series.SuperHotWiki (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And AGAIN - producer Simon Kinberg calls it the X-Men universe, here, about half-way down the page when questions turn to Deadpool. In response to your 'no thank you' to my previous source-- Producers Jeff Loeb, and Bryan Singer have both stated that Legion will tie into future films in the franchise. Series developer says that Legion almost seems to be in its own timeline, as the character's psychosis makes it so the series can 'stand on its own' as the viewer also doesn't know what is real and what is his mental illness. He has stated that the TV series will eventually tie into the films more. So I would also disagree with you.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

They can call it anything they want, but Fox has yet to label the films and TV series as X-Men Universe or whatever you are trying to suggest. You want the TV shows and Films to share an article? There's X-Men in other media for you to play. But leave this article alone. It is good as it is. And I can definitely posts sources that contradicts about Legion having a connection to the film series, but that's another issue.-SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

When they talk about the "X-Men universe" or the "cinematic universe" they are just talking about the fiction of the films. Not everything has to be a big shared universe just because Marvel has one. This is still a film series that has some tie-in TV shows (one that won't try to tie-in with the continuity, and one that does plan to). No need to make this more complicated than it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No need to get defensive. I only brought up a valid point. Noah Hawley, the writer/director/producer/creator of the Legion tv series has said that it is a part of the same continuity as the film series. He states that where it takes place therein is not clear because of the fact that the character's reality is all confusing (given he is on medication for the 'schitzophrenia'). The fact that the TV series are going to be connected to the films in one way or another, is 20th Century Fox trying to take a stab at what the Marvel Cinematic Universe has so effectively done. There are various studios doing similar things, but with the X-Men they are trying to make the TV shows stand on their own and be successful first, before diving head-first into having film crossovers, etc. This argument about whether the page should be renamed due to the TV shows is a sidenote -- I believe it should be listed as a 'franchise' simply because of the fact that it's not just about the X-Men. The films are about the X-Men, Wolverine, Deadpool, and will soon include New Mutants, and X-Force, and Gambit - and others. Though 20th Century Fox hasn't given it an 'official name' as pointed out - clearly with their attempts to expand the "universe" in their X-Men, it is a franchise now. By stating it as such, it would clear that up a TON. Whether it's done now, or in the future - it will eventually happen. Just thought it'd be fitting already given the differing films and media (film vs TV).

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

On a side note -- why is it that the Television series section on this page doesn't list the shows as a sub-heading section under that section (i.e.: for Legion and the untitled X-Men tv show)? I've seen some edits that try to do so, done neatly with formatting and information, only to see them reverted several times. What's the reason for doing this?

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Because DisneyMetalhead won't let this topic go. If anyone wants to read these comments again to see that there was no decision for a name change.SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

There was no decision, but there were suggestions for it, hence why a requested move discussion now exists. -- Alex^TW 11:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

....'there was no decision for a name change' = "I have not been convinced". There are a handful of editors that agree on this talk page. All of us have given reliable sources for the reasoning behind a name change. Just because you are obsessing about the minutia and discounting reliable sources does not mean that you are correct.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2017 (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.

Stop using comicbook.com as a source

Comicbook.com is a fan site which is not allowed to be used as source in Wikipedia articles. Now I hate to keep saying the same stuff again and again, that's why I'm posting here and asking to please don't use that site as your source for your edits especially you User:DisneyMetalhead. Also refrain from posting unofficial film synopsis. Thank you for your consideration!SuperHotWiki (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Proof that it's a "fan site"? Freemanukem (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say it's not a fan site, i.e., run by a fan as a hobby and not professionally, but it's very rarely WP:RS. Most of its reports are not original, but attributed to The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com or other sources, so we would go to the original source. Secondly, it may well be a fancy amateur site, since if you go the links for "COMPANY > About, Contact Us, Advertising, Staff" etc., you just get taken to a YouTube video about The Belko Experiment. Under "Legal," there's just boilerplate that could have been copy-pasted from anywhere.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree regarding going to the original source - always. However they have their own exclusives too; http://comicbook.com/marvel/2017/02/24/alpha-flight-exiles-and-more-are-on-x-men-movie-producers-radar/ "Speaking to ComicBook.com in an exclusive interview ahead of Logan's release", which suggests it's not a random blogger writing from his home. Regarding that video you are talking about, that's on your end, as for me all links works correctly and I see no such video. On Staff they list four editors, so, supposedly, they do have editorial. Personally, I conclude that it's not a fan site. Freemanukem (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources using comicbook.com has been removed in different film articles such as Marvel Cinematic Universe articles. I thought that is a common knowledge when it comes to editors who are editing film articles of Marvel live action films. SuperHotWiki (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You're correct: Comicbook.com is indeed generally removed as a generally non-RS source. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That may be the case, but given the fact that they cite their own research to original articles, have an editorial staff, have their own original articles (i.e. the interview with Simon Kinberg, etc.), the webpage is not a 'fan site'. Argument for using original source, makes perfect sense however.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Continuity

Before notifying admins, I'd like to make one final appeal to User:RodgerTheDodger, whom I've already asked on his talk page not to edit-war with three other editors. He appears to have violated 3RR, and I'd like to ask him to discuss his edits, which violated WP:SYNTH. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Tenebrae, all of the information is based from the movie studios own description of the movie settings; each movie is set within a certain time period. I have simply used this as a guide for the continuity section. I don't see how this is a violation of WP:SYNTH. The movies are a mixture of prequels and sequels, released in an out of continuity order, not unlike the Star Wars series of movies and like the Star Wars movies there is a correct timeline that the movies can be ordered in, I have simply listed the movies in that order as it is a key element of the movie franchise. I'm not trying to start a edit-war, I just don't see how this is a problem. If I am missing something, please let me know. RodgerTheDodger

My proposed edit:

As a result of multiple prequels and the time changing events of X-Men: Days Of Future Past; there are extensive continuity errors throughout the franchise making the correct viewing order different to the release order. To follow the story correctly the movies should be viewed in the following order:

1. X-Men: First Class (based in 1962)
2. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Primarily based in 1979)
3. X-Men (Based in the year of release 2000)
4. X2: X-Men United (follows events of X-Men)
5. X-Men 3: The Last Stand (follows the events of X2)
6. The Wolverine (follows on from the end of X-Men 3: The Last Stand)
7. X-Men: Days Of Future Past (Set between 2023 and 1973)
8. X-Men: Apocalypse (Based in 1983 on the new timeline established by Days of Futures Past)
9. Deadpool (Based in 2016 on the new timeline)
10. Logan (Based in 2029 on the new timeline)

References

I appreciate the effort at discussion. I know all the other editors involved on this page do. And I can see you've put in a lot of effort and are making a good-will effort to improve the page. However, you're just citing your own reading of each movie and your citations are to a wikia, IMDb, which isn't allowed as a reference cite. In any event, you're taking disparate pieces of information and synthesizing them into your version of the films' continuity.

What you would need is for such a list to have been compiled by a reliable-source, journalistic/academic book/website/article. That type of secondary sourcing is part of what separates an encyclopedia from a fan site.

If it helps, there's a really quick'n'easy guide to encyclopedic sourcing and editing called the Five Pillars of Wikipedia that all new editors might want to read.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if this continuity section Has reliable sources, it's incredibly trivial and fansite territory. I am pretty sure this continuity section was deleted before for those reasons.SuperHotWiki (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This information though helpful to viewing the films, isn't needful. Should there be an official chart of the X-Men films' timeline, that could be added to the article instead.--65.130.161.156 (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and been opposed. The Apocalypse film is not affected by the Days of Future Past film, because events before that were changed anyway. Unofficially, First Class was a reboot, but Days of Future Past "burrowed" events from the previous trilogy. What complicates things is that The Wolverine is clearly following on from Last Stand, yet has Wolverine in a terrible state because he hasn't gotten over Jean, even though he was fine at the end of Last Stand. Either way, making a timeline is fan subjective. Deadpool also doesn't help in any way shape or form. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

TV series are NOT tie-in material

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.

---

I have to bring this up again: With the Tie-in material section on this page, produced materials such as video games and books and comics are listed. This makes sense as it is connected to the films' releases, and could include anything marketing-wise that has the X-Men films stamp on it. What I don't yet understand is why in the world is the TV series listed there? It has nothing marketably noteworthy to do with any of the X-Men film titles, but instead is its own installment in the franchise. In my mind, shouldn't the TV series REALLY have its own section? Legion is seperate from the X-Men trilogy, the prequel trilogy, the Wolverine trilogy, and the Deadpool film. That makes it its own entity (as the producers and creators wanted it to do - stand on its own), but is a part of the franchise as a whole. Producers and creators have stated that the series will have closer ties to the films in future seasons, AND Patrick Stewart recently stated he would reprise his role as Professor X on the show -- so why is this still an issue? --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Without any rebutle this argument falls into the silence consensus as regulated by Wikipedia. Should there be an edit without discussing on this page, then the edit would be classified as a edit war on another editor's fault. I agree that given the fact that the TV serieses are not spin-offs of any of the films, but instead their own installments they should be listed in a different section, possibly just titled TV series. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki, you reverted my edit when there is a new argument thread here on the talk page. I made a valid argument as to why the TV series should not be listed under tie-in materials. Tie-in materials if you look at them, are marketing products (i.e. video games, comics, books, toys even, etc.). These TV series have ZERO relation to any of the films. They are not spin-offs of the movies, but will be their own installments into the franchise. This argument alone validates the fact that they need to be in a different section. They are not tie-in materials at all. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

if they aren't Tie in materials, then you should be removing them. Mind you, this article is for X-MEN FILM SERIES. This is not X-Men in other media. There's no new argument,since you suddenly tried to Revamp this article when there's already a consensus that TV series, like the comics/videogames related to the fikms, it should be under tie in materials. Again this is for the film series, not live action adaptations of X-Men characters.SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki, since you agree that it shouldn't be in tie-in materials (a.k.a.: X-Men in other media), then that also backs up the previous point brought up earlier on this page, that the page's title as a whole needs to be changed. The TV shows do not fit under tie-in materials as they do not relate to any of the already released films. However, they have been stated to be a part of the larger X-Men franchise, and both will have ties to the film series. Patrick Stewart went as far as to say he would reprise his film role as Professor X in Legion when called upon. The fact that their pursuing him, indicates the closer ties to the films that will be coming. Perhaps the easiest thing given the information is to rename the page X-Men (franchise), and have sub-headings Film series, TV series, etc. The page is out-dated and needs some revisions. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the content should be listed here, just as at Marvel Cinematic Universe; there's not enough for a separate article for related television series, so they should be included here. The untitled series is obviously part of the franchise, with the confirmation that it's set in the same universe and all; concerning Legion, there's been discussion on Patrick Stewart reprising his role as Xavier, so that makes the series related to this article as well. I would support a move to X-Men (franchise); perhaps a Requested Move Discussion? Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not entirely sure why Legion was removed from this page. It is obviously not as connected to the film as Bryan Singer's 'Heaven' will be (due to the nature of the show itself), but they have stated that there is a possibility for cross-overs and tie-ins. Legion's world right now doesn't appear to be the same world as the one the X-Men movies take place in, but that doesn't mean it's not the same universe, or that they are not connected. I mean this is a show where the premise revolves around questioning what's real. Furthermore they've already flown in X-Men props that will be used in Legion season 1 and Patrick Stewart has said to be interested in appearing on the show. 92.111.179.110 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

what I don't get is the "obsession " of trying to make this article look like X-Men cinematic universe when the name doesn't exist especially when these TV shows were announced. This article is about thefilm series. Legion isn't connected to the films and now I've removed it (they were removed before by other editors and reappeared for an unexplained reason). While The upcoming Fox would be that's why it is under Tie in materials section. You can't rename this to X-Men (franchise) since that would include other stuff that isn't even connected to the film series such as the videogames from the 90s, the Generation Xpilot, the cartoon series, toys, merchandises, etc. There's already an article for that which is X-Men in other media. SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

anyone could bring back Legion to this article once the connection to the film series has been made. But "I want to appear in the show" (Patrick Stewart) is nothing but words.SuperHotWiki (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue that Legion right now is no more or less connected to the X-Men Movies than (for example) Jessica Jones is to the MCU. The connections of both these shows rely on comments of the creators mostly. Heaven in this case would be the S.H.I.E.L.D. type show that is more obviously connected to the universe, while Legion is largely standalone. What would constitute a connection to the movies in your opinion though? Using props from the movies, as they've said they will, puts them on the same level as the Marvel Netflix series as far as being 'connected' goes in my opinion. 92.111.179.110 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hotwiki your edits have become 'obsessive' if any on this page have. No one is moving for an X-Men Cinematic Universe (though it will likely acquire a similar name eventually). The argument here is that this page needs a new title. X-Men (franchise) would be similar to the Alien (franchise), Cloverfield (franchise), or any other for that matter (of which there are MANY productions made that are not canon, or are even unrelated).You have now removed a series that by those who are involved with making it have confirmed there are 'ties' 'connections' and 'future plans' to further tie the TV series to the films. That is against Wikipedia policies, and is an unjustifiable move on your part. Sounds like your opinion, is overriding the facts at this point. Patrick Stewart said that "100%" he'd star in the show. That sounds more like an acceptance, or commitment. Series creator Noah Hawley has even stated that season two will have greater connections to the film series. This all points to the fact that it should be listed here, (not removed) and that the page needs to be retitled as it is no longer simply X-Men movies; that ended when they made the first Wolverine film. The page is outdated, and needs to be updated.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I missed this post earlier and have just looked at the Alien and Cloverfield Wiki pages you link to and I now change my mind, I think there is a strong case to label the page X-Men (franchise). This appears to fall in line with how Wikipedia handles similar properties. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Side-note: you obviously misunderstood my argument. My argument was not that Legion is not a part of the franchise. My argument was that tie-in materials always tie-in to the movies, as marketing propaganda. For example, an X-Men Origins: Wolverine book ties into the movie as well. Legion the TV series is not a spin-off of the films, or a sales point for the films. It is its own INSTALLMENT within the franchise as it is an origin of the charater, who is the son of Professor X. My comment was to prove that the page is outdated. Legion belongs on this page, as its own entity. Not as tie-in material. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Tie in materials meaning materials that aren't films which expand the story that originated or connected to the film series. Comics, Videogames, Short film all fell into that category. The Fox show would if they indeed reference the films. Again, you are forcely trying to make this into something else. This article isn't about the X-Men in live action adaptations but a series of films. This topic has been brought up before and there's ZERO consensus for a move or name change. Again, an article of X-Men (franchise) would be similar to X-Men in other media but would also include the X-Men comics itself since it was the source of this X-Men franchise. Now do you really want an article of that? SuperHotWiki (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And no, until the Legion show actually connected or referenced the movies into the show. Then okay. But as of now, I see it as merely all talk from the producers and Patrick Stewart and no actual confirmation that the show will be connected to the film series. And as you've said before, this isn't connected to film series, its not a tie in. I just agreed with you and now you're suddenly changing your thoughts? Okay.SuperHotWiki (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Though you continue to ignore the valid points made by several editors^, the importance of changing the name of the page still remains. "Tie-in materials" sounds like you've created your own definition of what that section header means. The difference being that those items listed under there are all for marketing purposes regarding the X-Men Trilogy films. The TV series really doesn't fit that category. It also doesn't fit within a page simply titled X-Men (film series) as you've pointed out numerous times, but belongs on this page as the page is about shared continuity. Until the studio has an official title for the group of media, the page needs to be titled X-Men (franchise0 or something similar. Your argument about needing to include the comics on such a page is invalid -- all other pages given the "franchise" title do not include source material listings. All that would need to be stated is that it "is a live-action film media franchies, based upon the Marvel Comics of the same name". End of story. You cannot deny these facts.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, I second your move for a page title change discussion. The Request Move Discussion would be a productive thing to do seeing as there are multiple editors agreeing with the topic at hand. There are multiple definitions for a 'franchise' -- whether it be topics completely unrelated (the many many Godzilla films), a film series (Jaws), or a film series that includes other media adaptations a.k.a. the new X-Men TV shows (similar to the Alien franchise having spin-offs etc). The page is out-dated and has been since the first "spin-off" film was released with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The X-Men are a team. The films that focus on other characters default the page's title. This on top of the expansion the franchise is actively pursuing justifies these page changes.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

keep ignoring the conversations that were done in thr past few months regarding this topic. The editors have discussed it and no title change was done. What makes you think it will be different this time? Also your other suggestions were already turned down by other editors.SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason it's different now is that there are more details and further evidence to support our argument. You do not own the page Hotwiki, and have engaged in edit warring multiple times in the past, on this page. The facts are plain and simple. TV series that will serve as their own installments in the franchise, do not equal tie-in material. Therefore calling the page (film series) also doesn't work. What's your solution to that? Let's hear it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2017 (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.

X-Men in film move

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.

---

I hate to start a new section, but since the others are already full of comments, I am starting a new one. Anyway, long story short. The only article move that I would agree on is to move this to X-Men in film. Like this article, it will be about the X-Men films just without the non film materials. This could be similar to Fantastic Four in film and Spider-Man in film. We could include the early attempts of making a X-Men movie and the films that were canceled like Magneto.SuperHotWiki (talk)

Why include projects that never came about? Also this would make things more complicated as it would/could have various continuities involved. The original issue at hand is coming up with a better word for this page, that deals with shared continuity....definitely oppose this move.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, its better than dragging animation, books, videogames, television shows, stage play into this article that has/had nothing to do with the X-Men in the medium of film. You'd be doing that in your proposed idea of a X-Men franchise article. Which would just bloat the article.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

SuperHotWiki your opinion is valid and considerable, however I believe that if the title is specific enough to be 20th Century Fox's productions then we needn't even worry about this. The discussion did begin as a question about what to name the X-Men continuity. At least until the studio does so itself.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion SuperHotWiki, as this is a bit of a hot topic we need to make sure that everyone gets to voice their opinion, with fair reasoning, so I and everyone else appreciate you taking the time to comment. Now that we know where you definitively stand; let's hear from everyone else. I have create a list of all proposed new titles above, can everyone please state their choices and provide reasoning. Hopefully we can get the new title decided on by the end of the week. RodgerTheDodger (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome.SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2017 (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.

Deadpool in Logan

I have made an edit a couple of times to include Ryan Reynolds under Logan in the Recurring characters chart list. The reason being is that there is a scene filmed to pre-cede the beginning of the film, which is completely Deadpool-centered. The scene references the Logan film, and Wolverine character, and then procedes to have a paragraph reference to the story of Logan. This scene can and should be viewed as one of the "stinger scenes" which are usually placed in a film as a post-credits scene. The placement of the sequence as a pre-film sequence is smart by the studio in that chronologically Deadpool 2 will take place decades before Logan, and should it be at the end of Logan it would create timeline confussion. Also - it's very tonally and stylistically Deadpool; and would have taken away from the end of the feature film it is a part of. As the scene was made to stand as a sequence teasing one of 20th Century Fox's new and upcoming X-Men projects, just as they have with every other X-Men film; this scene is a part of Logan. Because of all of this -- Ryan Reynolds is technically a part of the film; even if it is in the non-post-credits, pre-film sequence, and because of this should be listed on the chart under Logan. In the context of the film, his listing would make sense and could even have a new note label made, to explain it was in a tease-sequence (i.e.: like a mid-credits, post-credits scene; only this time it should be noted as a pre-film sequence/scene). Reverting my edit, and making a note for editors to come here and talk about this subject. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

it's merely a teaser, promo or a short film attached to Logan. Like how Pixar films included a short animated film before a Pixar movie started. Its not even screened outside of North American screenings of Logan. And that bonus footage has it's own credits.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The Deadpool sequence was actually shot specifically for Logan. The long, fast-moving text at the end of the scene is not film credits, but Deadpool's homage to Logan by relating a poem to him. The footage even has Wolverine and Logan references throughout it. Like it or not -- it is not a teaser, nor a trailer -- it's an actual film sequence. The odd placement is simply because Mangold decided he wanted his film to be completely self-contained and maintain the tone and style of the film from start to finish.

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

it's a short film. Do a research next time. [3]--SuperHotWiki (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Just because he says 'it's a short' doesn't mean it's a "short film" as you just stated. The sequence was filmed specifically for Logan. The reason it wasn't used after the credits is because the director didn't want anything after the credits. You can find that on the internet. No need to belittle other editors on here Hotwiki. The 'short film' released on the internet is different from the sequence that was used in the Logan theatrical release anyhow.

--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

References

In a recent interview with Comingsoon.net -- one of the writers Rhett Reese stated that: "We also wanted that open to feel like the start of Logan, so if you were going to see Logan and the first shot came up you would think it’s gonna be Hugh in the hoodie, and then when it turns out to be Deadpool you realize what’s going on. That was the goal and I think he pulled it off wonderfully." The sequence was filmed specifically for Logan, and was placed there with the intent to be in such a way that the audience perceives it as a part of Logan. The studio obviously did a pre-film sequence, instead of a mid- or post-credits scene, because Mangold wanted his film to be self-contained from start to finish.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)