Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Themes?

Maybe this is just the English major in me talking, but should there be a section dealing with themes in the movie? You know, like the whole "we don't need a cure" thing mirroring gay rights, etc.? (true, this is just one interpretation of the movie, but one can find a lot of support for this reading). What are your thoughts, wikifolk?

[edit] Small edit on DVD section

The original sentence indicated that no HD-DVD, Blu-ray, or UMD release dates have been announced. The film is produced by 20th Century Fox, which is a supporter of the Blu-ray format. As such, there probably will be no HD-DVD release. That is, unless HD-DVD wins the format war.

[edit] Orphaned points

This section used to put trivia-like points, that may not have a place in the article now, but may have one in the future if the situation is right.

  • There is a scene at the Institute in which three identical girls are walking in the backgound. These could be the characters known in the comics as the Stepford Cuckoos

[edit] This is a prime candidate for eventual GA or FA status

I think one of the hardest part of any article is getting the subject matter expertise down, but I don't think that will be a problem in this article, judging by some of the talk comments. Also, given the number of article edits every day, there seems is a LOT of interest in this film and this opens up the possible for some good collaboration. Thus, I honestly think this article has the potential to increase in quality much more quickly than other articles, and gain GA or FA status. That's my 2 cents. --P-Chan 18:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I've been following this article as well as the talk page for a few weeks. It's really strong and well written.Jaderaid 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean right now? No way, dude. It still has a long ways to go before it even reaches GA status. What I meant was that there seems to be a lot of potential... in the form of dedicated people, so collaboration, error checking and balance will be easier than in other articles with less traffic. Right now, when everyone is just coming back from seeing the film, is a good time to move forward with an article like this. That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 00:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
But with that said... this is REALLY good considering only two weeks have pasted since the film first opened.--P-Chan 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganized sections

I just reorganized some of the sections in the article to make for a more logical flow.

  • Most of the points from the trivia section have been moved to their respective sections in the article. A new section called "Comparison with the comic" was created, as half of the trivia points were in that category.
  • Some sections were merged together. Reception and Box Office are typically placed in the same section on wikipedia film articles. The Novel and Video Game sections were merged into an "Adaptations" section. Plus, cast and casting were merged together.
  • Reorganized the Project background section, so that now we talk about the "Development of the film", and then move into a section on the actual "Production" and filming of the movie.

Comments are welcomed. --P-Chan 18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporal edit

The reason for my edit removing "To date however, X-Men: The Last Stand grossed over $175 million in the United States, outgrossing even The Da Vinci Code" is the policy Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly.

Saying "to date", drawing comparisons to another film in current release, and citing a figure that will quickly change is all of a temporal nature. Conversely, the notation of a box-office record being set, and the statistical drop afterward, are statements that will remain the same for the life of the article. When the film eventually leaves theaters and Variety, etc., publish the final box office gross, that, too, would be a more permanent, non-temporal bit of information to add. I've noted this at User talk:203.177.161.61 as well. -- Tenebrae 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question re: comics basis for film

A new user, with no content on his/her User page or Talk Page, deleted the following content from the lead. Since it was only partially restored afterward by an IP-address user who has made only one edit, this one, I'm putting the material here so that other editors can examine it to see whether or not all the info should have been restored.

I haven't read Endsong, so I don't know whether that part is accurate. Why the years of the comics were removed, I have no idea! I've gone ahead and returned the years, as well as the Joss Whedon information — he did write the "Gifted" arc that's cited as a comics basis, so it's relevant. Likewise, for parallel structure and relevancy, I've the author of the "Dark Phoenix Saga, Chris Claremont.

Here's the full sentence as originally there before the new/single-edits users made their edits.

The film is loosely based on three X-Men comic book story arcs, the "Dark Phoenix Saga" in The Uncanny X-Men; writer Joss Whedon's six-issue "Gifted" arc in Astonishing X-Men (2004); and X-Men: Phoenix — Endsong five-issue miniseries (2005).

-- Tenebrae 06:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary bloat / Beast / Leech

Its nice to have a short summary and everything, but surely at least some mention should be made of the mutant power blocking kid who was integral to the story?

Ah! That's a good point. There is no mention of Leech in the plot summary, who plays a very important part in the film.--P-Chan 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I took him out on purpose. He's not essential to the plot of the film. All that matters is that a cure has been created. Angel, Juggernaut, and Madrox also are non-essential and could easily be replaced by other characters.--Chris Griswold 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Not essential no, but I think it would add value. Right now, I think that the plot summary could use some minor expansions. After the massive cuts, there is now room to work with. When you compare this summary to the summary of the other Feature Article, this one seems a little small. That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with P-Chan. Leech's power supplied the cure, without him we have no cure, or at least a harder time making one. I feel mentioning he is the source of the cure is meaningful.AUburnTiger

I have commented out a trivia comment that read "Leech's power is supposed to negate only those characteristics and abilities which are the result of the mutant gene, but when Beast approaches him in the film, his blue fur disappears. In the comics, his fur was not the product of his mutation, but rather a side effect of an experimental chemical compound he had tested on himself." I am not sure that this is necessarily contradictory. IIRC, Beast's fur was not part of his original mutation, but the chemical compound caused further mutations. This was explained further as "secondary mutation", the same plot device used to give Emma Frost her diamond form. Therefore, it is not contradictory that Leech's power could remove his fur, as it was the result of a mutation, albeit an induced one. Can other comic book geeks chime in here? --DDG 16:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I almost removed the same passage for the same reason. Obviously I agree with your logic - the blue fur-Beast was a secondary mutation. CovenantD 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the comics, there's no evidence whatsoever that the movie Beast hasn't always been furry and blue (he did have a cameo in the second film as a human, but that could have been a holographic disguise). The movie version of Beast is more important than the comic version in this article alone. Perhaps it should be noted in the "differences from the comics" section, but that's it. EVula 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't even think we need a "differences from the comics" section. If there is, it shouldn't be a list and I would assume its main focus would be on the fact that in the comics a whole lot of characters aren't dead/depowered. WesleyDodds 04:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that we make the section; I was under the impression that it already exists, which it does. I don't see why it (the entire section) shouldn't be there, as it is highly relevant to the topic and isn't quite what you assumed it would be. EVula 04:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-Men 4

I thought Magneto did loose his powers, because he tried to move the metal chess piece, but couldn't so he was forced to move a shaky hand forward and move it *gasp* by hand! Sorry if this was already mentioned.71.99.124.115 02:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Look closer, the piece did move albeit slightly

[edit] (Post)Development contradictions

I am reposting this in hopes of getting a response this time.

The production history includes this paragraph
Fox Films Entertainment Chairman Tom Rothman said The Last Stand is the end of a trilogy, but not necessarily the end of the X-Men film series: "These three movies work as a trilogy. These characters in this relationship, it's the culmination of that saga. It's the culmination and the resolution of those relationships laid out in the first two movies." In a recent interview, Brett Ratner echoed Rothman's comments: "We wanted to make sure the audiences knew that this was a trilogy. Even though they weren't made together like Lord of the Rings, this is really closure for the X-Men series. ... This is the last stand for sure." [1]
The emphasis is mine. Reading those two quotes, don't they seem to contradict each other, instead of Ratner echoing Rothman? If Rothman is stating that it's not the end of the series and this quote is reinforcing that, then Ratner's quote seems to contradict that. Moreover, if you read the article that the quote is taken from, it contradicts the whole paragraph, stating "a spokesperson from 20th Century Fox confirmed that X3 will be the final film for the mutant team." --Newt 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I posted this in the wrong place earlier, sorry about the repost. --Newt 01:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Further research: I found the article from themovieblog.com that quotes Tim Rothman as "confirming" an X-Men 4, which you can see here. While the article is entitled "Fox Confirms X-Men 4" the article just states Tim Rothman "all but confirmed" (emphasis mine) it and gives an ambiguous quote. However, as I said before, another article from MTV.com quotes a 20th Century Fox spokesperson confirming it's the last film for the team. I think the fourth paragraph of Development is misleading. Am I off base here? Can I get a response? --Newt 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It Is the end of a trilogy X-Men Vs. Brotherhood --- now enter Apocalypse ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.130.150 (talk • contribs) 08:06 June 29, 2006

[edit] The Connection between the comic and the film

"The film is loosely based on two X-Men comic book story arcs: writer Chris Claremont's "Dark Phoenix Saga" in The Uncanny X-Men (1980), and writer Joss Whedon's six-issue "Gifted" arc in Astonishing X-Men (2004)."

I think the above lead sentence is an important one, for talking about the origins of the film. Unfortunately, it's only mentioned in the lead. It would be great if someone familiar with the X-men universe could expand on this connection in the body of the article. Also, the Cure element in the film seems to be a totally seperate storyline than the Phoenix Saga. Was this taken from another X-men storyline? --P-Chan 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, several, if you think about it. The cure idea has been passed around, but I think, for the most part, it's Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg's seperate idea.
"In the film, Phoenix is the name given to an evil "split personality" belonging to Jean Grey, which manifests itself by changing Jean's eye color and skin tone..."
That's wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. First of all, the Phoenix in the movies hardly manifests itself by JUST changing her eye color and skin tone (and it doesn't even do that). It's a split personality, an almost seperate being. And her eye color isn't changing. It's getting blacker, and expanding. Her skin becomes ashen, and this sort of 'veiny' effect.
"During the film's initial Danger Room sequence, Colossus appears to transfer his organic metal skin to Rogue to protect her from falling debris, implying that his mutant ability includes being able to protect others with his organic metal. On closer analysis, Colossus appears stunned and disoriented after the incident, indicating that Rogue merely sapped his power. However, Colossus only touches Rogue's hair, where her absorbtion powers do not extend in normal comic continutity and in the first two films as well."
Er... I'm pretty sure the idea was that he was touching her skin. In fact, if you looked, he WAS touching her skin. Evan 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Just so you know, I've never read any of the comics. (I'm just going to presume you know your stuff.) Would it be possible for you to contribute to the article by listing the Comic influences that contributed to the story of the film? For example (and I'm just pulling this off the top of my head).

  • The phoenix saga comes from issues "XYZ", in such and such series.. and in contrast to the comic, the film's Phoenix is Jean's split personality.
  • Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg's Idea of the Cure comes from XYZ comics by XYZ
  • This movie also heavily borrows from series Y, Z.

I'm not sure how much there is to this, but I think that if it is significant, it would be valuable to this article.--P-Chan 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I just found what I was looking for.--P-Chan 03:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
P-Chan is an editing machine. I am really pleased with what you have been doing. --Chris Griswold 03:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks man, it's much appreciated. I think the article is at Omega level 2 now, so we're all getting closer to our goal. :) --P-Chan 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the name, the Phoenix in the film has little to do with the comic book incarnation. In the comics, the Phoenix Force is the embodiment of life and passion throughout the entire Marvel Universe. It's along the same order as abstract beings such as Eternity, Infinity, and Death. It's a practically omnipotent force capable of obliterating entire solar systems. In the comics, the Phoenix Force actually inhabited Jean's body and created a duplicate of her own body while leaving hers in a kind of stasis at the bottom of the Hudson River, but she would eventually inhabit the real Jean's body I believe. The X-Men had just returned from a mission in outer space. I'm not completely familiar with all the facets of the Phoenix story because the whole thing was started well before I was born. The Phoenix manifested it's powers through Jean's physical body, causing the force to experience sensations that were completely alien to it since it'd never had a physical form itself. Jean's telepathic and telekinetic abilities were enhanced to levels beyond belief, she could manipulate incalculable amounts of energy, she could basically do anything. The only real limit was Jean herself. No physical being had ever really felt that kind of power and omnipotence, so Jean/Phoenix could actually be manipulated to a certian degree. Now, I'm leaving some parts out of this I know, probably more than I really realize. It involves the Shi'ar Empire, the Imperial Guard, and all different manner of aliens. The story was changed entirely from the comic book origin because, to do it properly, it would've easily been the most expensive movie ever. So, inseade of "Phoenix" being this all powerful cosmic entity, it's a seperate personality that also acts as a manifestation of Jean's mutant powers heightened to their full potential, at least their full potential in the films. Odin's Beard 02:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes.--Chris Griswold 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The double-row cast picture -- what's going on?

I was about to fix the caption for the cast picture in the Main Cast section, and clicked on the picture to get a better view of the image. To my surprise, the underlying picture is different, and the caption is correct for it. The thumbnail, though, doesn't show Ian McKellan in the upper left-hand corner, but the guy who portrays Warren Worthington III/Angel.

What's going on with the picture? --Joe Sewell 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Try clearing your browser cache. The thumbnail matches for me. --Facto 02:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References vs. External links

Hi, all. The reason I've changed "External links" to "References" comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.) Thanks!

1)

Complete citations in a "References" section
Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work.

2)

External links/Further reading
The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Where there is a references section, editors may prefer to call the external links section "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further reading section may contain items that are not online.

So from what I understand of the above, sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. I'll hold off on changing things back to the above policy for a day or so till I hear from you. Thanks, — Tenebrae 20:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! This was in reference to the edit of "03:18, 5 June 2006 P-Chan" with edit summar "(→Development - Changed reference format. (Please try to use full in-line citation references))."
The edit removed the first four citations (including the official site plus a site, The Numbers, used for box-office figures) that were used as references sources for the article. They were placed under "External links," although, as direct article references, they would normally be listed under "References." Thanks again for your response, P-Chan! -- Tenebrae 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason I merged those two sections was because I was unsure as to how some of those links were being used in the article. It's far better to use in-line citations to reference the article than it is to use a general reference system. It's all about precision--P-Chan 01:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You should specify what part of the article takes information from the official movie page.--P-Chan 00:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
All throughout. It's all the very basic official information. -- Tenebrae 00:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean like the cast and the date of release?--P-Chan 01:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections needing expansion

The Production and the Comic comparison section both need to be solidified into real sections. I think a $200 million dollar film would naturally have an interesting production history. As well, the comic origins of the film, I think, would be highly relevent. (Smaller details involving other parts of the article I'm sure will eventually get ironed out naturally.) That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kelsey Grammer and stunts

I found some information that seems to contradict this production note "All the actors (excluding Kelsey Grammer) performed some of their own stunts.[citations needed]"

The information comes from the article here http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060526/ENT01/605260318/1123/ENT

And Grammer, the Beast, displayed courage as he tried his stunts. "Most of my work was trying (to make) him look good with the stress, since he was not a physical guy. He surprised me, where he did a flip off the wall himself."

--Facto 03:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah! You're right! We'll have to change that to something else.--P-Chan 03:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Final Fight section (and Leech)

I like this part of the plot summary, about the final fight:

Following the loss of Xavier, the X-Men regroup and confront Magneto's army, which is attacking the pharmaceutical company. During the fight, Beast injects Magneto with the cure, nullifying his mutant powers. After the battle, the Phoenix emerges and begins to destroy everything around her. Momentarily gaining control, Jean begs Wolverine to save her. Telling Jean he loves her, Wolverine reluctantly kills her with his claws.

Now, I have made some concessions to others on this paragraph, and it's nice to see that some other editors have similar ideas on what should be here. I have been having a dispute with Bignole about those past two sentences, and I love that P-Chan has restored them to the way I think they should be. Awesome, P-Chan.

But I know some people feel that there should be some changes in this section. For instance, the inclusion of Leech. Due to discussion on this page, I have been diligent about preserving the size of this summary, as some editors want to keep increasing it with minor details. Here's my thought on Leech: If you remove him from the movie, it doesn't change anything about the plot. Without him, the pharm corp still creates a cure. His existence is incidental, and in the interest of brevity, I removed non-essential elements from the plot summary.

I would ask that if anyone wants to make changes to this paragraph, that they please their case here. I am open to compromise; I hope you are as well. --Chris Griswold 07:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the plot section as it stands, why? Magneto was attacking the company in order to destroy the cure, but with a little thought (although I appreciate how little thought most people will put into reading a plot summary), you have to wonder why. Any sensible company would stockpile the cure and attacking them would only make them use it. In reality Leech was the specific target of Magneto, as (as the woman commented earlier in the film) 'presently we can map his DNA but not yet replicate it' - without Leech there could be no more cure. Thus, to anyone interested enough to read that much into it, the plot summary doesnt make sense from a tactical viewpoint unless Leech (as teh object of the attack) is included. 80.229.251.98 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine that someone who hasn't seen the movie will wonder about the tactics when reading this summary. They won't have thought as much about the stockpiling situation as you might have. --Chris Griswold 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you're underestimating Leech's importance to the story, and Angel as well but we'll get there in a second. Leech's body is the source of the cure. He's the whole reason the war starts if you think about it. If he wasn't the source of the cure, Magneto would have just attacked the clinics giving out the cure again until all the vials were gone. He's comparable to Helen of Troy in the Trojan war in that sense. He didn't actually DO any of the fighting, but he was central to it starting and was the ultimate goal for both sides. Plus, it shows what a villian Magneto has become, being willing to kill a kid to stop a cause he believes is wrong. Angel is also important in my mind because his dad developed the cure because of him. You don't have to say "Angel was about to get the cure when he broke the harness holding his wings and ran to the window and jumped out and flew away." Or "Leech was kept in a white room and played a video as Beast came to visit him." That would be overkill, but I believe each needs a little bit of mention. Just say something like, "Leech, a mutant child, is the source of the cure." AUburnTiger 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telepathically?

After the credits, does Xavier talk to Moira telepathically? I wondered how he was able to have the same voice, but did he mindchat her? --Chris Griswold 07:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, because he sent his consciousness to a normal human body. Even if it was a mutant, who is to say that mutant body had the x-gene for telepathy. That is a gene, so he wouldn't keep it if he tranplanted his consciousness to another body. I think that was an error on there part, and also a hint for us to know that it was Xavier, by hearing his voice. Bignole 11:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it was him, he in did in effect transfer his "essence" into the human host. And why are we discussing if he could talk with a mindlink or not, it's a movie with a guy who turns stuff to ice, and a girl who can walk trough walls. Is it one thing Marvel has thought me about their comics, anything is possible. Havok (T/C/c) 11:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the question concerned how he could do it if his body was destroyed. He sent his mind into this comatose body, but he couldn't send his DNA into it. Since their powers derive from a mutation in the x-gene then his power of telepathy would have vanished with his brain. I think it was more for us to hear his voice and know he is still alive. Bignole 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What about Psylocke or Proteus? Didn't they maintain their powers in other bodies they possessed. I think Marvel considers there's a mind body disconnect and mind related powers may still exist in absence of the body (i.e. astral projection and all). I still think he spoke to her w/out a mindlink though. --Newt 12:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That is the Marvel world, and this is the film world. You can't interchange one thing for the other to support theories. Anyway, this discussion is rather mute because it isn't like it would be included in the article. To satisfy curiousity, since the films restrict the powers to a genetic abnormality/evolution then it becomes grounded in the DNA and cannot be taken with when the consciousness leaves. Also, astral projection requires a physical body to come back to. Xavier's body was completely destroyed, there is nothing to come back to, or to produce further telepathic powers (in the film universe). Bignole 15:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
My explanation is no more speculation than yours, as I don't believe the films have ever explained how the X-gene works. If you want to ground the (science fiction) films in actual science, it's going to be a while explaining what generates Arclights concussive blasts, where Madrox keeps the mass of his duplicates, how Pyro can increase the volume of fire and direct it... and so on. I agree that it's moot. --Newt 16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I saw the guys mouth move, but I think that using Patrick Stewart's voice was just the filmmaker's way of letting you know it was Xavier. Other wise it'd be this:

Guy's Voice: Hello Moria Moria: Charles? Audiecne: She went crazy! It's like when Superman uses his fire-eyes thingy. The people around him don't see it, but we do so we know it's happening and not just spontanious combustion. AUburnTiger 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Though, I think we all had already agreed on it, and just wanted something else to talk about now that the movie is over and done with and the article is in clean up mode. Bignole 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I only brought it up because an editor added it to the plot summary. (But I was wondering, also, because a new body would not have Xavier's voice.) --Chris Griswold 04:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think one way or the other it's impossible to prove. But I stand by my original assesment. Either way, I think it's something that shouldn't be in the summary since it's up to interruptation. AUburnTiger 05:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping this clears a few things up:

"Some suspension of disbelief is definately expected in a movie such as this, but in this scene is Xavier supposed to be sepaking to Moira telepathically, or are we to believe that Xavier's consciousness changed the physical anatomy of the body's vocal chords so that it be his own voice.

  • I'm hoping that when the DVD comes out, the identity of who is lying in that hospital bed will be clear. When it is, this question will be moot. Incidentally, even if that body was a little girl's, I have to believe that Xavier could make his voice sound like whatever he wants when he's in someone's head." [[1]]

Answered by Zak Penn on the X-Verse boards. Evan 03:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart plays the bearded, disabled man on life support in the coda. it says so on The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.130.150 (talk • contribs) 08:06 June 29, 2006

Patrick Stewart plays the man in the coma because according to the script he is Xaviers Twin brother born without any brain functions or something to that effect. Listen to the commentary on the DVD special features to verify this. In the comics, Xavier had a "twin sister" of sorts (see the comics section on wikipedia for the details on Cassandra Nova), so in the movie version they made it a twin brother. So his voice is the same as a result after he telepathically transfers his mind into his twin's body. He even mentions the possibility of doing this during the movie to his students, so this was his worse-case scenerio plan all along. POV: I'm not sure who you can blame for the big descrepancies for the differences between the comic and the movie, but its my understanding the director had never picked up one of the comics when he got the job, so no big surprise. 5by5 18:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks

I am noticing that wikilinks are constantly being removed. Why is this? --Chris Griswold 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe another editor has removed some redundant links, per Manual of Style: Internal links. -- Tenebrae 00:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think it's time for a peer review

I'll launch one now. It should give us some fresh opinions about this article.--P-Chan 02:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you do that? Whom does the notice go out to? --Chris Griswold 06:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This should explaine everything. Wikipedia:Peer_review--P-Chan 06:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Juggernaut, Bitch!!

I think the line about the ...Juggernaut, Bitch!! skit is misplaced, or the heading is incorrect for the section it's contained in. It has nothing to do with the comics. I agree that it is notable, however. --Newt 14:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved it to the casting section.--P-Chan 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Casting format

The new format allows comments be made in an organized manner beside each of the character/roles. There seems to be a lot of character specific trivia that may not fit well into other sections, so this format might be better.--P-Chan 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty Pryde

Note that Kitty's character is never referred to as Shadowcat in the film. Nor is she given that nickname on the official website. --Madchester 05:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Whenever i watch these discussions i feel a sudden, pressing urge of murdering someone. i can't explain why.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.1.82 (talk • contribs) 14:16, June 13, 2006

I have some theories as to why. For instance, life in Amsterdam might not be as cool as everyone in America thinks. --Chris Griswold 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Although the man does have a point. (I'll archive a few of the high-energy threads).--P-Chan 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, user Griswold for giving me the opportunity to better focus this impulse. in addition, i would be more than happy if you would like to help me further by providing me with your adress so that i might encounter less difficulties in finding my destination during my future trip to America.

[edit] Cast

What's with the bolding of all actors and character names in the article, see X-Men:_The_Last_Stand#X-Men ? --Oscarthecat 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Oscar. Good to see you. Actually, it should be on all of the characters and has been fixed now. When all the descriptions have been filled in for each character, it would help to keep everything readable. (Right now, though it looks awkward).--P-Chan 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rothman quote

Tom Rothman, head of 20th Century Fox, has made comments to the effect that there will most likely be a fourth X-Men movie. {cite web | url=http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2006/01/fox_confirms_xmen_4.html | title=Fox Confirms X-Men 4 | publisher=The Movie Blog | accessdate=2006-06-06}}

Despite the headline at this blog, Rothman does not say what this sentence says he says. Additionally, the sentence is speculative: "comments to the effect of" is an interpretation. Pls give his actual comments, which require not interpreation. Finally, this blog is quoting from another source. It's always best to go to the original source, not some removed-from-context quote-of-a-quote. -- Tenebrae 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree totally. It shouldn't be there.--P-Chan 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. I tried to bring this up twice before, but with no response. I also moved the paragraph it's contained in to the Possible sequel and spin-offs section but it since appears to have been moved back on this edit and I don't know if that was a malicious revert or what, but it seems to have been unnoticed if it was. --Newt ΨΦ 20:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ultimate comics

I argue that not only are the "Ultimate" comic books themselves adaptations of the Marvel Universe characters, the mention of those series and characters is confusing to a non-reader of comics without explanation, something that would be awkward and unnecessary within the context of this article.

The section comparing the movie to the comics, should not include other adaptations, even including those within the same medium. I also ask to remove references to the animated series within the section. --Chris Griswold 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah go for it. (Although the Juggernaut bitch should definetly be included somewhere in this article, even in a section by itself). But in regards to the rest of the section, I think optimally, it should really only focus on the two primary themes (Phoenix and the Cure). The reason I'm saying this is that there are a tons of tiny differences between the film and the comic, and we had no limits, the section could get all rambly. I'm not too familar with X-Men canon, but is the Astonishing X-Men considered part of the main X-men storyline? (The Wiki article on this, left me with questions). If it is part of it and if you are familar with the "Gifted" story arc, I suggest you make an extensive expansion yourself.--P-Chan 01:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at what I did. It used to be just a series of FunFacts™ but now it has chesive paragraphs. Still not sure where mention of the awkward "Juggernaut Bitch" line in the movie should go, however.--Chris Griswold 21:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind; I got it. --Chris Griswold 21:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Chris - I'm concerned that such a big change [2] ought to have some comments as to what the aim was of such widespread modifications to the article. Perhaps you could clarify here? --Oscarthecat 21:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, this conversation so far should clarify the goal. The section is about camparisons to the comics, so I removed the references to other adaptations, such as the cartoon and the Ultimate comics. As for the rest, this section had originally been a list, and it still read like it, so I made the paragraphs make more sense and flow better. Finally, I had to find a place for the Juggernaut Bitch bit, so I placed it with the Juggernaut. Is there anything you would specifically like to discuss? --Chris Griswold 23:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well done. I changed a few things that read oddly to me, but overall I'm impressed. --Newt ΨΦ 03:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie continuity

The "Movie continuity" section, added this morning by Menthys, seems to be overly wrought on speculation currently. Anyone want to take a stab at making this a little less OR and speculation, if possible? Is it necessary? --Newt ΨΦ 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems full of OR. Take it away. CovenantD 14:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Took it upon myself to do so -- I was just about to post to you both asking you to keep an eye out. --Tenebrae 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty / Juggernaut Problem

I was bothered how Kitty's powers were handled when she phased the Juggernaut into the floor of Worthington Labs. Wouldn't he instantly die once she released him as his body would have been molecularly fused with the floor? (Kitty used her powers this way a few times in the comics)

Also in the movie it's stated that the Juggernaut is unstoppable only if he has momentum. When Kitty phases him into the floor, he's completely immobile. How would he have been able to break free? --Navstar 14:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Poor writing. --Chris Griswold 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
As explained by the writers over at the X-Verse forums, Juggernaut is able to push the molecules of the floor away from his body. And in terms of him being unstoppable, I think that was just his own strength, which he must have. He's strong immobile, but unstoppable in motion. Evan 03:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If memory serves. Juggernaut was given his powers by the Ruby of Cyttrak (sp?). The magic allowed to become immortal, basically. So in regards to the floor squeezing him to death. The easiest answer would have to be "It's magic." --Mr Vain 15:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Magic is not the "easy answer" because they left the Ruby of Cyttrak out of the script to make it seem more "real" if you'll pardon the word. They made Juggernaut a mutant instead of a magically enhanced human. Otherwise, Leech wouldn't have caused him to knock himself out when he struck the wall, now would he? 5by5 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omahyra Mota

What happened to her?? She just disappeared from the cast list!!!!!!! Lil Flip246 02:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a messageboard

Everyone is talking about an X-Men 4 even though they have stated this movie The Last Stand is the last of a trilogy, what I think is this is an end of a trilogy the fight between the X-Men and Brotherhood in the next two movies I think it will be about the comming of Apocolypse and the union of the Brotherhood and the X-men. Thats why this movie is called the last stand- between the Brotherhood and the X-Men. just had to get that off my chest because everyone is talking about X4 and 5 like the same old and seems everyone forgot about Apocalypse. Apocalypse also made a minor appearance in an ending to X2: Wolverine's Revenge..hint hint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.130.150 (talk • contribs) 08:06 June 29, 2006

i think that was more about x-men legends 2 (which was about some quasi-age of apocalypse) as he kept cropping up being generally sinister at the end of x-men video games and going "i'm gonna get you etc" like some retarded scooby doo villain. still, legends 2 kicked arse. 87.112.193.156 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some pointless trivia i spotted

when Logan is in the garden at Xaviers memorial and has a funky Phoenix moment, he falls to his knees. In the swirling leaves and debris a Bee lands on his left (our right) shoulder and crawls into a fold in his jacket.

213.249.159.244 11:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember spotting it the first time I watched the film, you'd think they would've re-shot the scene... Goroliath

I don't think you should discriminate against non-humanoid students.--Chris Griswold 13:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've spotted another one: the way wolverine slays the phoenix is just the same -desconsidering the claws- as the way Bruce Lee slays The Big Boss in his 1971 movie. Unintentional? Ukuk 00:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is probably a good example

[3]

This is probably a good example of material that would cause the article to lose focus. In my opinion, the more stuff like this there is in a film article, the less valuable the article looks. What would happen if the Star Wars article were to dedicat a quarter of it's space to errors and continuity issues? It would look weak. In order to keep the above changes, the author has to show or explain the encylopedic value of Jean's eyes, etc. That's my 2 cents. --P-Chan 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cast Section

In thinking about the whole issue of accessibility and "fan material" and encylopedic material... I really think it would be usefull to have a ROTS style Cast section, where a sentence or two would be used to explain who the character is. I know it might be silly to explain the characters to fans of the comic, etc, but I'm willing to bet that a sentence or two would help a lot of people with this article. Besides, who the characters are in the film, and the comic are very different in some cases. I'll do a few of them and hope someone will join me. --P-Chan 05:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done what I can, which is most of them, but the film doesn't really develop a number of the characters listed here, which makes it pretty clear how minor they are. --Chris Griswold 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying Something

Just wondering about the artificial cure and it's supposed "permanent" effect... I think the majority believe that it in fact isn't, since Magneto begins to regain his abilities. However, I think it sort of is, only to a degree, though... the whole "mutant class" storyline element is properly introduced in this movie, which may be a key to figuring out the cure's actual impact. Lesser-class mutants would be completely cleansed of the Mutant X gene, while much stronger mutants (Magneto, Xavier, ETC) have become so powerful that they're more mutant than human, making the cure only a form of tranquiliser until they can regain their abilities. Their mutant genes are too much a part of them already to be completely removed from their DNA, if you get me. I guess this theory's already been established, just wondering if anyone agrees or can officially prove it incorrect. Goroliath 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a theory; the movie makes it pretty clear with the ending. --Chris Griswold 13:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Which theory are you referring to? There's a lot of people that think characters like Mystique and Rogue have the potential to regain their abilities, but that just ditches a whole reason of introducing the mutant classes in the first place. Goroliath 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Just purely out of curiosity, which parts of the article does this refer to?--P-Chan 16:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the ending makes it pretty clear that something's up with the cure's feasibility, if Magneto, who got about 50 needles in him can still move a chess piece. I don't think that needs to be thought of as a theory; otherwise, I have a theory that bees love Wolverine. --Chris Griswold 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree: it's already obvious that the cure isn't permanent. Whether it's just in Magneto's case, or if it's affected by how powerful the mutant is, we don't know. But it doesn't matter; we're given obvious evidence that it's not permanent. Besides that, there's no reason or evidence we're given to tell us that it only effects more powerful mutants. The only thing we see is Magneto slightly moving a chess piece. Evan 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Magneto got 4 needles stuck in him, not 50. Your point remains valid though. If some got an overdosage of the cure, and he was able to regain his powers (we can't say to what degree), then it would be a logical assumption that the cure isn't long-lasting. --Mr Vain 15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm always leery of phrases like "pretty obvious," since I can think about a half-dozen scenarios that the final scene might represent, a couple of which have been discussed on this page.
Which leads to the more pertinent point: If I know one thing about writers, it's that all and none of those scenarios are true. Screenwriters almost always leave something like this deliberately ambiguous so that the studio is later free to take the story in any number of directions. What the final scene represents can't be obvious to anyone — since, in the absence of a writer/producer stating something definitively, even the filmmakers don't know what it means! -- Tenebrae 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pyro can't create fire.

Aaron Stanford as Pyro / John Allerdyce: Former Xavier Institute student Pyro can control fire and has recently learned to naturally create it. He holds a grudge against his former friend Bobby Drake.

I've just watched the film, and I saw some type of gadget at Pyro's wrist. This is visible at the last scene where he starts a fire (against iceman). I think this gadget generates a small fire that Pyro can, then, manipulate and amplify. Could someone please confirm that, and make the change? --CrazyTerabyte 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right.--Chris Griswold 05:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Film's Budget

We have two very different budget figures. $210 from Boxoffice Mojo, and $150 from the Numbers. Is there any clue or piece of evidence that might say that one is more accurate than the other?--P-Chan 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Box Office Mojo is wrong. It says that Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest's budget is $225 million
I fail to see how that proves that Box Office Mojo is wrong on this particular movie. --Newt ΨΦ 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a good question, how exactly is Box Office Mojo wrong about the budget for this film? Just you saying so doesn't make it a fact. Odin's Beard 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea how to figure this out for sure, but I'll just say that BoxOfficeMojo, seems generally more established as a source.. so we'll go with that for now.--P-Chan 23:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo got their Superman Returns budget wrong though - Singer said it's $204 million, not $260 million. Also, in Empire I saw the sum as $150 million to compliment The Numbers. So I go with $150 million.

[edit] Footnote 10 is kind of strange

There doesn't seem to be a source for it. It's a quote in itself.--P-Chan 01:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

This article has been put for for a GA nomination. Who ever makes the decision as to whether or not this articles passes, please examine the article closely and leave comments as to why you made the decision you did. This article far from FA-level of quality, but I believe it has already reached a GA level.--P-Chan 04:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

Well referenced, broad, well-written. Congrats. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Good work, everyone. --Chris Griswold 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fandom Critics

What about all of the critics from the Fandome ? Gambit is one of the favorite x-men amongst fans and rouge should be a mature, sexy and determinent gal, for fast example. 89.1.249.53 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Budget

As Tawkerbot4 rightly notes in his revert, please do not make budget changes wtihout citations. Wikipedia requires that information be verifiable. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ending summary

I know this shouldn't be a bit-by-bit summary, but could someone add the scene where Xavier talks about the comatose man to the students, to give some context to the last scene where he transfers his mind to the comatose's body? --DrBat 00:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think showing the comatose man previous to the ending scene is trivial, at least as far as the plot is concerned. --Newt ΨΦ 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Grey's allegiance

Jean Grey has been moved and is now listed under Brotherhood characters. Is it consensus that this remain so? --Chris Griswold 08:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think she should stay under the the Brotherhood because she joins the Brotherhood in this film and dies a member of it. She also is apart of the Brotherhood's Army in this film.--Dil 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

She never rejoined the X-Men, leaving them after she woke up from her coma. She spends the majority of the film with the Brotherhood. --DrBat 13:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Dark Phoenix

Image:Phoenixjean.jpg or Image:Cap1410bw3hm.jpg Which do you think is better? I prefer the second one, for having a closeup of Jean's face (I uploaded neither, btw). --DrBat 18:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Xavier's Reincarnation

It absolutely needs to be pointed out that:

  • The patient in question is not just "comatose." He was born without any higher mental functions whatsoever.
  • Early in the movie, Professor Xavier discusses in his classroom whether it would be ethically acceptable to occupy that particular patient's body. His doing so does not come as a total surprise, nor as Deus ex machina. He had been thinking about it.
  • He does not "call out." He says very calmly: "Hello, Moira." Das Baz 16:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
His return is such a minor point that I don't believe it needs to take up as much space as some of the more important plot elements. That he returns is alright to have in (although I know at least one editor has said above that it's not even that important), but to explain it in detail reveals that the whole thing was kind of tacked on. It certainly felt that way when I watched the classroom scene in the theater. --Chris Griswold 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I get the opposite impression. The fact that so early in the movie Professor Xavier is discussing the possibility in his classroom creates the feeling that his resurrection, far from being tacked on, was part of the plot from the very start. Das Baz 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tacked on or part of the plot from the start, it's a minor point in the overall plot. --Newt ΨΦ 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm amazed that the resurrection of the founder and leader of the X-Men could be considered a "minor" point. But whether major or minor, it should be described accurately. The professor does not "call out" to Moira. He simply says "Hello, Moira." He says it in a quiet, conversational tone.Das Baz 16:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If it were a major plot point, it would not have been left as an easter egg for those who sat through the credits. --Newt ΨΦ 17:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe it was left as an easter egg so the fans wouldn't lynch the director. It's so much against canon it isn't even funny. I do not believe it was 'tacked on' either because there was a serious mention earlier in the movie. Saying that Xavier was planning taking over the patient's body is pure speculation. Xavier (to my knowledge) cannot foretell the future, so it is unlikely that he foresaw his demise. So that leaves another conjecture as to why Xavier would be planning this -- that would be so he could walk again. If this patient was born without any higher brain function, then chances are the muscles would be so atrophied he couldn't walk in that body either. My opinion is that Xavier saw he was in a losing battle and just escaped into the convenient body. I may have drifted away from my topic, but I don't think that Xavier had any intention of going into the body while he was discussing it in class. The 'tacked on' ending is an apology to the fans who had to suffer through this inexcusably bad plot. --Mr Vain 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. Well, I'm very glad I stayed for all the credits.Das Baz 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic Book and Movie Continuity

It absolutely needs to be pointed out that there are both major similarities and one crucial difference between the story of the X-Men in the movies and in the comics. In both of them (August 2006):

  • Most mutants have lost their powers and have ceased to be mutants.
  • Magneto is among those who have lost their powers.
  • Professor Xavier is missing.

The big difference is that all three of these are blamed on Wanda the Scarlet Witch in the comics, whereas in the movies the first two are due to the Cure, and the third one to the Phoenix. Das Baz 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it "absolutely necessary" to include this information? We can't really just take it at your word. --Newt ΨΦ 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, though on a different note. Those similarities are vague and I'm sure that if we catalogued every time a superhero loses his power in a comic book, the list will be immense. Yes, the Scarlet Witch's story arc was important, but she isn't even mentioned in this movie. And I feel that the similarities found are a bit forced. Sorry. --Mr Vain 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So don't take it at my word. See the movie and read the comics. Das Baz 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In the third film, it's not indicated that most mutants have lost their powers after recieving the cure. In fact, it's not even indicated in the films how many mutants there are on Earth. Almost all of the names of all the mutants appearing in the film weren't even mentioned. As to Magneto losing his powers, he has regained them in the comics. As to how he lost them in both the latest X-men film and in the comics, it occurred for two completely different reasons. The fact that he lost his powers in two completely unrelated ways in two different media continuities is hardly vital information. As to Xavier, he wasn't missing, his body was destroyed in X-Men 3 and he transferred his consciousness into the mind of a completely comotose patient. In the comics, Xavier's location simply isn't known. No indication at all that he's dead. They're two completely different incidents. I don't see any similarities, certainly nothing that absolutely must be included. Odin's Beard 00:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The drug thing

Regarding this edit, we're not talking about what the drug actually does (as much as a fictional drug can do much of anything, but still...). We're talking about what Magneto was saying would happen, which was part and parcel with his fear mongering (hence, not necessarily tied to reality). As such, the "exterminate the mutant race" bit is perfectly valid in that section (and that section only). I'm restoring the extermination line. EVula 18:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Extermination" means that it will kill mutants, but it does not. I have chaged it to reflect both our interests. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
An excellent compromise. Thanks. EVula 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Alcatraz Island

I strongly disagree with editor Griswold's initiative to undo my changes. The reason i have added the Alcatraz mention is that this island was the scene of the crucial battle, a plot element which should be mentioned. Furthermore, there is a picture depicting Jean Grey unleashing "her power at Alcatraz Island", and this comment should be supported by the summary. Therefore, until someone can provide me a serious argument Alcatraz location SHOULD NOT BE mentioned i will keep it there. Kamikaze 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Due to plot summary bloat, we have tried to keep the summary as concise as possible and thus have eliminated details less important to the plot. That the last battle takes place on Alacatraz Island is inconsequential; the location was changed several times before the actual shooting because of this, and the fact that it is Alcatraz does not affect anything in the plot whatsoever - it could have taken place anywhere. You'll notice there are many other details missing from the summary, many of which are much more prominently featured in the film than the location of the battle. To mention Alcatraz in a plot summary as condensed as this gives it undue attention because it is a minor element of the film. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

seems like everyone is bent on removing this element stating is is ungrammatical and don't even bother with this talk page (though I am sent here). then i would propose deleting the "Alcatraz" mention from Jean Grey's image comment. Since the place of the crucial battle is unknown (according to editors' will), that comment will be somewhat meaningless.Kamikaze 20:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the Alcatraz mention was removed from caption comment and yet no one has bothered to explain why the mentioning of battlefield name is "needless". i wonder what is wikipedia's official policy when one refuses to use the talk page for justifying his edits.Kamikaze 20:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down; it was only about 16 minutes from your first talk page comment to your third. Not everyone is circling this article, waiting for changes. You may have to wait a while. I, on the other hand, have no life, and I did respond as soon as I saw your first comment; due to an edit conflict it didn't get posted until a few minutes agon. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, no one needs to explain their edits on the talk page until they are questioned. Yours were, so you came here. You questioned mine, so I did as well. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I am sorry if you perceived my comment as a bit harsh but I too did not receive well the fact that User:Tenebrae was mocking my edits. Kamikaze 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

and one last thing. I advise User:Tenebrae to review this due to his edit summary when he reverted my changes. Kamikaze 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Hey, in the future, if you ever need anything, let me know. Just use the red phone. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think what you may be looking for is [[WP:DICK|this]]. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you and sorry for being rushed. I think i should review that too.Kamikaze 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I went through a day or two during which I linked to that excessiveley when I started editing. I finally realized that while it's cute, there are much better and less antagonistic/rude ways to get the point across. Kamikaze will have to learn that now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not list Arclight, Spike, Quill, and other "minor" characters?

I just saw the movie for the first time, and came here hoping to find out who the characters I saw in the movie were, and links to their comics versions so I could see how they related. I saw that a few of the memorable characters that I noticed in the movie were not listed, so I added them. User:ChrisGriswold reverted my additions with the message "rv per talk page. We decided to only list major characters. If you disagree, make your case there".

I'm sorry if this has already been discussed in Talk, but I can't find any such discussion above. What am I missing?

In any case, I'm not sure I see the rationale for leaving out major characters from the comics who have minor roles in the movie (such as Moira MacTaggert). Or, in other cases, a minor character from the comics who has a big scene in the movie: the character Spike, who has a memorable fight scene with Wolverine.

In particular, the characters I added and their rationales (italicized) were:

Major comics characters whose presence is important to fans.
  • Lance Gibson as Spike: Spike can extrude bony projectiles from his body and hurl them with great force.
  • Omahyra Mota as Arclight: She is able to project focused seismic waves to destroy particular materials or objects.
  • Ken Leung as Quill (erroneously credited as Kid Omega): Quill can extend hard porcupine-like quills out of the surface of his body.
These characters all had significant, memorable roles in the movie. Spike had a major fight scene as mentioned above, Arclight appeared in several scenes and was responsible for destroying the "Cure" weapons, and Quill appeared in numerous scenes with dialogue and had an important role in the final fight (killing the doctor and almost killing Worthington Sr.).
Cameo of major comics character.
  • Bill Duke as Bolivar Trask, an advisor to the President in charge of dealing with criminal/terrorist mutants.
Both major comics character and had dialogue in several film scenes. Also important because his presence probably foreshadows Sentinels in future films.

I'm not sure I understand the rationale for not listing/linking these characters. It's not as if it takes up much space, or that Wikipedia has a lack of space for that matter. Any objection to my re-inserting some or all of them?

—Steven G. Johnson 02:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This article achieved Good status after removing such a list, among other edits. That a minor movie character is important in the comics does not matter as much in an article about the movie. The characters and their resemblence to their comic book counterparts is noted. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any record of the "good article" discussion. This issue is not mentioned in the Peer Review linked above; can you point me to the discussion? And, frankly, you haven't addressed my points. First, some of the characters above get a significant amount of screen time and are not all that minor in the movie. Second, the fact that a cameo by a major comics character does not matter as much as the major film characters is not disputed—that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter at all or that this is not a point of significant interest to a major segment of those interested in the movie or that listing them detracts from the article. Clearly, it is more important to list Magneto than Spike, but why does listing Spike make the article worse? —Steven G. Johnson 14:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, the fact that some of the characters above are mentioned in the prose paragraphs seems to contradict your point—if the characters are important enought to describe in the text of the article, surely they are important enough to include in the cast listing. (The converse is not true: one would generally expect a terse cast listing to be more exhaustive than the prose plot description.) —Steven G. Johnson 16:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I am busy with other things right now, so I haven't been able to look for this too much. I've contacted another editor, who was largely responsible for thsi article's success, to help look. He may be busy with other work as well right now. I would like to mention that at one time, we had even decided to remove a cast listing for Colossus because he barely matters in the plot. That he is in it now was a compromise.
The article succeeds because of it brevity and efficiency. We have a concise plot summary; only characters mentioned in it affect the plot in some way. Any of the characters you mentioned could be easily switched out with another character. Just because an actor is on the screen alot doesn't mean it's important. Most of those actors had maybe two lines or fewer. The characters are mentioned for the reason I said they were: To compare to the comics, which is the only real reason to discuss them here. If you can give a more compelling reason than that they are onscreen alot and that one or two of them are major characters in the comics, I am interested to read it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
What can I say except that I disagree with your judgement. I don't think that including more characters in the cast list will make the article "fail" as you seem to think. Or will detract from the article—in fact, a reader expects a cast listing to be reasonably complete. I know I did. And it seems obvious to me that a if character is onscreen a lot, plays a key role in the plot, and/or is a major comics character, they are of interest to readers and that's a perfectly good reason to include them. —Steven G. Johnson 18:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It's trivial information. That's basically it. And Wikipedia frowns upon trivia. This is not supposed to detail everything related to a subject (such as complete cast lists). Rather, information is included according to importance and to illuminate understanding of the subject. It's not essential to know that some model appears for a few seconds onscreen as a character fans love. WesleyDodds 20:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, several of these characters appear for much more than a few seconds on screen. And I never meant to suggest that complete cast lists be included. (By "reasonably complete" I meant characters of significant interest to readers, as I explain again below.) And contrary to your edit comment, no instance of archived discussion on this issue has been pointed out. Trivia would be including "Lawnmower man" and "Newscaster"...including a character like Spike that is central to a long fight scene is not trivia. —Steven G. Johnson 23:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There's been quite a bit of discussion about this. And yes, we have to address what's significant to readers, but the general reader, not X-Men fans. WesleyDodds 23:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the discussion you quote cites only the need not to list "every single" cast member. I completely agree. I am not talking about "every" cast member. I am talking about a few characters of significant interest to a large number of readers. Nor am I talking about the Infobox, which I agree should be kept small.
Second, regarding the "general reader": (a) anyone who reads this article can be presumed to have some interest in the X-Men (the film and/or the comics), otherwise they wouldn't be reading it (by your argument we should delete essentially all of the higher-mathematics articles, by the way); (b) we already have a segment on comparison with the comics so should we delete that too? (and if not, how can a character be notable enough to describe in the text but not in the cast list??); (c) characters like Spike and Quill and Arclight played significant roles in the movie, as I explained above, and anyone who saw the film would naturally expect to see them listed under the brotherhood mutants (my girlfriend did...she is not a huge comics fan but saw the movie and wanted to know who the spikey people were). —Steven G. Johnson 23:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally I can go for Arclight and Moira being listed, but not Quill, Trask, and certainly not Spike (who appears for a brief action sequence, has no dialogue, and isn't named). In the grand scheme of things, they're like Alcatraz in this movie; they're just window dressing. Plus just because someone is interested in this movie doesn't meant hey have interest in the X-Men comics, or the X-Men as a whole. After all, the top X-Men comics sells about 100,000 copies whenever Whedon and Cassaday get an issue out. That's a huge gap. WesleyDodds 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Now I really don't understand your priorities. Moira appears only tangentially in a brief interrupted video in the film, and is apparently uncredited (is she even named?); as I said above, she is a essentially a cameo (albeit one by a major comics character). In contrast, although he has no dialogue, Spike is central to one of Wolverine's longest and most detailed single fight sequences (as opposed to his numerous 3-second flash-by fights); thus, in the film he is a memorable character that any viewer might be surprised not to see listed in the Wikipedia article (I know I was: I had never heard of Spike in the comics and was therefore doubly curious to find out who he was in the film). Quill not only has dialogue in several scenes, but is central to a key scene at the end where Dr. Rao is killed (by Quill) and Worthington Sr. is almost killed. Trask is named, has dialogue in numerous scenes, and is undoubtedly foreshadowing Sentinels for future movies. —Steven G. Johnson 04:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, a simple question: how does it hurt the article to add a few secondary characters in the cast listing, each of which has significant interest to many readers according to a clear rationale: they either play a significant role in key film scenes or have "behind-the-scenes" importance because of prominence in the comics? We're not talking about adding dozens of characters here, so it's not a question of "clutter." —Steven G. Johnson 04:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
But they are in the article; your main thrust appears to be that they are of interest because of their relation to the comics, and they are in the comparison section. If there is any information you feel needs to be added, add it there. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
First, if they are important enough to discuss in the article, then they are important enough to include in the cast list. Second, have you even been reading what I wrote? I think Quill and Spike and Arclight are important to list because of their prominent role in key scenes in the film. Conversely, they are rather minor figures in the comics. Third, you still haven't answered my question: how does it hurt the article to add a few secondary characters of significant interest to many readers to the cast list? —Steven G. Johnson 14:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I have answered your question: It's excessive. The information is in the article already. What more needs to be said about these background characters? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed the comments you left on User talk:P-Chan. I think you are misrepresenting my actions, and I don't appreciate it. I have never suggested that "every single character" should be listed in the cast listing, all the way down to "Lawnmower Man" and "Newscaster". I merely think that any cast member of significant interest to readers should be listed. To my mind, this means any cast member who has significant onscreen time, plays a key role in major scenes, and/or is an major character in the comics. Why is this so unreasonable? —Steven G. Johnson 18:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how these are minor characters at all. They are Magneto's closest allies, they follow him everywhere, and are the main villains just underneath Magneto, Juggernaut and Pyro. They are analagous to the younger X-Men underneath Wolverine and Storm. Additionally, whenever a film is adapted from another source, there will always be interest in that original source and how the characters compare.

Also I don't know many of the rules here yet, but if anyone is spreading gossip about others or "misrepresenting" them just because they don't agree with them, I'd have to say that's pretty messed up.

[edit] CGI

"Senior actors Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen had their faces completely "de-aged" by co

I don't see why that would matter. Magneto had went through the Holocaust in the cannon of the comic books and the movies - shown in the first one and his tattoo in the third movie. We know these men are old. If the CGI effect was done, I would think it unnecessary. Besides, I don't think is this true. All one has to do is see the final scene in the movie where the camera gives a close up of Magneto. The bags under his eyes are ...well, huge. --Mr Vain 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my computer gliched out when I was trying to finish that. What I meant to write was that the article says "Senior actors Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen had their faces completely "de-aged" by complex keyframing, in which no CGI elements were used." I am confused about the meaning of that. Keyframing is a CGI technique, so why does it say no CGI elements were used? It's very confusing.

Sorry for misunderstanding what was said. As to the keyframing, I have no idea what it is so i can't weigh in on that subject. --Mr Vain 16:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOT BIT PARTS

After reading the entire dialogue about so-called minor characters, I don't at all see why the characters in question - Arclight, Psylocke and Quill - shouldn't be mentioned. The person above who is against including them seems to me to be harboring some sort of antagonism towards these characters, their fans or the source material in general. However, the movie does not exist within a vacuum. It was based on a comic book, and these characters (Psylocke in particular) are indeed extremely important to a great many people. And even within the film, these characters have a significant amount of screen time. They clearly rank higher than all the other random Brotherhood members like "Lizardman" who clearly count as "bit parts". These characters also link to pages in which not only their roles in the movie are mentioned, but photos of the actors are included.

I didn't link to Spike because both the character and the actor playing him are obscure and it doesn't link to any substantial articles. However the argument that he has a siginificant amount of screen time during his fight with Wolvering is compelling. I did include Phat because he has his own deleted scene in the DVD release, and because his character's article leads to an interesting comment on sexual diversity in comics and popular culture in general; and I added the actress who plays Moira McTaggert who despite also having one of the MORE important scenes in that she appears in the controversial and much-spoken-about secret ending, unfortunately goes uncredited in the film.

Adding the doctor who assists Mr. Worthington might also be justified since she was mentioned a long time before the movie's release in the cast list.

I feel this makes the article more complete. If anyone disagrees with this, they can choose to ignore the mere four or five lines that were added if they wish, but I know a substantial amount of people are interested in these characters, including myself. I would not deprive curious people of information in favor of risking the omission of potentially interesting articles and links.

Your accusations are bizarre, and your reasons for inclusion are not for the good of the article, but because you think some other articles are interesting. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"your reasons for inclusion are not for the good of the article, but because you think some other articles are interesting" They are for the good of the article, you are picking on only one of my reasons. And anyway, no kidding sherlock. One of the major reasons why people read Wikipedia is to branch off to other articles of interest. If all you're looking for is basic information you can easily choose not to click any link and read only what you want, but if other people are more curious and intelectual and want to learn more, they should have that option.

WTF is with people wanting to err on the side of incompleteness? And how do people not see the importance of linking to the source material? You want to treat the movie as if it exists completely independent of the comic book? That's insane. In literature courses if you get to watch the movie in class do they tell you to treat the movie and the book separately? Of course not! They compare them.

And for the last time, these characters have considerable screen time and important roles. If you want to pretend like the comics don't matter go ahead, but either way these characters are prominent IN THE FILM and should be mentioned.

Please read WP:CIVIL. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I've already read it. I do not feel I am being rude, I am getting frustrated at the lack of explanation for constantly deleting these characters. The entire reason why I looked up this movie on Wikipedia was to find out more about them. The only reason I wanted to know more about them was that they played prominent roles in the movie. If I only wanted the most basic information about the movie I would look at the back of the box.

Nobody has yet given a good reason as to why these characters should not be mentioned. The only criteria is not to list bit parts, and these characters have a considerable amount of screen time. If you are going to delete them, then you must get rid of Colossus and Multiple Man as well, they have about as much screen time and dialogue.

In a movie that is jam-packed with a diverse cast of characters, a longer list of characters should be expected.

If you choose to delete them again provide a valid reason.

EDIT: I have written a compromise. The aforementioned characters are included very briefly in the other characters section. I still do not see why Colossus and Multiple Man are important enough to be mentioned in the main cast list, but this compromise should make everyone happy. Again, if you delete information you need to provide a valid reason.

EDIT2: Okay, an even bigger compromise. All I did was clean up the comparison section so that all the prominent minor characters are at least listed and will link to their comic book counterparts. This way you can appease the casual reader and have your brevity in the cast list, but the more interested reader will be able to dig a little further into the article and find what they are looking for. I trust there will be no objections.

Great compromise. It does exactly what you wanted the article too. I think you have not just compromised, you have improved the article. Thanks. Now go register so I can see your edits continue to improve. SMILE --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought I was logged in sorry.
Cool. I'm really impressed with how you made the situation into a positive one. Pleas ebe sure to sign your comments by adding ~~~~ so people know who you are. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


-I don't really see where people on Wikipedia such as Griswald get off thinking they are an authority on what is or isn't "significant" enough to be put in an article. It's not for you to decide. After all, if something comes up in such a long debate, it is more than likely significant enough to some readers to be included. If something were truely insignificant, it wouldn't be brought up in the first place. It does not hurt an article to have thorough information. With that said, I just watched X3 and the only reason I looked it up on Wikipedia was because I was curious as to who many of the unnamed characters were. Now that I hear there were characters such as "Lawnmower Man" and "Newscaster", I believe having a complete list of comic book characters depicted in the film would greatly enhance the quality of this article (or at least having a supplementary article on the subject). Some people would read this article wanting to know it's box office earnings, while others would like a plot synopsis and some would like to know who all the random mutants were. If an aspect of a film is of interest to any demographic, it makes that aspect significant, regardless of how significant it is to a film's overall plot. After all, encyclopedias are meant to serve as a reference to these types of inquiries. Howard999 06:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Rglong (talk · contribs), we now have that complete listing. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I appreciate the recognition for the hard work in creating the compromise, I still see the point of the above poster and others. The mutants could still just as easily be listed in the cast list and it wouldn't hurt the article in any way. I basically created the compromise just to make certain people shut up and stop deleting everyone else's contributions. If wikipedia is indeed a free dictionary, why do certain people get to claim authority and trump all other people's decisions with their own? Griswold's attitude has indeed been pretty condescending, and despite his complements of my work, I still question why he or anyone else thinks he should get the last say in everything. 24.196.83.29 03:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)rglong
I have a pretty face, that's why. Actually, I will concede to the addition now. It looks to me like consensus has changed. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious everyone else's consensus has been consistent throughout this dialogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rglong (talk • contribs)
Wow, man, you don't need to be a dick about it. Grow up. The current consensus is different from the previous one. If you want to force the issue, I can easily notify all of those editors about what is going on here and change consensus back. Don't press your luck. I've remained civil throughout this whole thing, but I'm not going to let you act like that after I conceded to your position. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CD track listing

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and a CD track listing is just not very enyclopedic, particularly in an article not about the album, but about the film upon which the album is based. Other sites are much more suited to such content. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD name

When you put the DVD (widescreen) in your drive and check your volume listing, the disc is labeled 'STANFORD_BRIDGE'. Does anyone know where this name comes from? --69.140.217.90 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kid Omega (Quill)

The article has this line Has porcupine-like spikes over his entire body which he can retract, or not.

I think it should read which he can extend or retract at will. or something similar. Retracted seems to be his normal mode, at least in the movie, so retract or not sounds odd. Any other thoughts? Prometheus-X303- 05:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References / External links

Tenebrae recently changed the "External links" section to be "References". [4] Why? I don't think the article is actually using the MySpace profile or IMDB website as references; the actual references are in the Footnotes section, meaning that the section is more accurate if named "External links". The cited guideline (ironically, WP:CITE) doesn't actually shed any light on this (unless I'm missing something). Just my two cents. EVula 18:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quill, not Kid Omega

The character has been verified by the movie's creators on the DVD commentary as being Quill, and the credits are incorrect in labeling him Kid Omega.Rglong 10:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He is, however, still credited as playing Kid Omega. You may notice that the the DVD says the commentary is not an official statement. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brotherhood vs xmen on dvd?

On the dvd it gives you a choice to choose the brotherhood or the xmen but i cant see the difference in either selection.Can someone tell me what i must be obviously missing.Thanks,Philly Harp

There is no difference, 5 octaves

[edit] Budget

The budget is given as $210 million at BoxOffice Mojo, which an editor added to the intro section with footnote. I've adjusted the budget figure in the infobox to match. For reference, I'm placing here the original cite for the earlier, $168 million budget figure:

cite news | last = Thompson| first = Anne| title = X-Men vs Superman| pages = 3| language = English| publisher = Reuters| date = 2006-08-18| url = http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2006-08-18T045739Z_01_N17336544_RTRUKOC_0_US-THOMPSON.xml| accessdate = 2006-10-06}}

--Tenebrae 18:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

BOM is wrong. For example, they list Superman Returns as way over $250 million when it's $204 million according to Bryan Singer, and Casino Royale as $150 million when it is in the $130 million region given it cost 72 million pounds (sorry, my keyboard is yankified). Wiki-newbie 11:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this supposed to mean ?

"Although it is the highest-grossing of the series, earning over $459 million worldwide, its budget of $210 million left only $249 million in returns. X2 earned $408 million worldwide on a budget of $110 million, leaving $298 million.[2]"

"Left in returns"? That's not how it works. This is bullshit.

[edit] Trivia

A recent edit removed the trivia section, see here. Ideally, the more interesting and relevant points ought to get integrated into the main body of the article, if anyone has time to try this. --Oscarthecat 17:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the trivia section as it is now--all of it was debatable: whether or not Kitty really seemed new was interpretation, Jean's quick death might be subject to any weakness from being in a coma for a few months or anything else, and so on... 163.153.64.30 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia = bad writing. WikiNew 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

The "comparison with other depictons" reeks stornly of original resaerch - advancing a viewpoint by stating the differences between the comics and the film. For instnace, Wolverine's killing Jean Grey bears some similarity to his killing love interest Mariko Yashida is advancing an original comparison. Please cite some sources on who besides WP believes this. It's also written in much of an in-universe perspective (WP:WAF), which should be rewritten. The "Novelization" could also be cut down a bit, too. Please resolve these issues or I will be nominating this article for Wikipedia:Good article review within two weeks. Hbdragon88 07:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colussus' Actor?

Why is Matt Singer listed as Colossus' Actor? IMDB and the DVD list Daniel Cudmore Leistentreter 16:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)