Talk:The X-Files (film)/Archive 1

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• King, Mike (2008). "The X-Files". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 50–53. ISBN 0786439882.

Holes in plot synopsis

When you read through what is currently there, it makes mention of the alien invasion but does not give any prior indication to that or what has been going on within the film that would fill in that critical hole of knowledge. It should at the very least be assumed that not everyone who watches the film is going to have seen the television show up to the point where it gaps off into the film's timeline and story, so someone with the ability to convey it might consider giving a lead-in regarding the invasion plan just so it covers that hole. 4.225.18.145 06:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No mention is made of the post-infection alien gestation either.Jabberjawjapan (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind the first comment above was from over 5 years ago, and the article has changed substantially since then. :) I reverted some of your changes the other day because I didn't think that all the information was hugely necessary, and in film articles we try to keep plot summaries tight, avoid bloating, and only include what is necessary to understand the rest of the discussion in the article. That said, it's not perfect, and if you can improve it, then please do. Just keep in mind point #1 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - our articles on films are primarily for putting across how the film has been discussed in reliable, secondary sources, not to be a minute-by-minute plot description, with every possible detail included. I'm sorry if I "corrected" the point about the convoy (wrongly!) but I'm baffled as to how the number of firefighters in one minor scene is an "important plot point". This article has been reviewed and listed as a good article, so if it slips below the standard laid out by the good article criteria, it will be delisted. With that in mind, please do feel free to make further improvements.--BelovedFreak 15:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that plot summaries should be succinct and to the point - but they also need to be accurate. Careful wording and editing can balance the two. An extra noun or adjective here or there may add depth more easily than adding entire sentences. The summary here, for example, is 740 words, less than the 975 of the 2nd movie. But it does, as you say, have problems, so all editors should endeavour, in good faith, to improve it and discuss the differences they see. My POV was also for the reader who may not have watched the TV series. Jabberjawjapan (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Also the main story arc is the alien virus and its associated 50 year conspiracy/coverup. The body count is initially minor, but ultimately significant since it links the bodies to the bombing, and it triggers Mulders suspicions, since the 5 were already dead prior to the blast, the lack of attempt to defuse the device, the victims found in a building that was declared 'evacuated', then the bar room chats, the covert autopsy, and unofficial visits to texas etc etc. For fans, this initial connection is a plot weakness too - there are other simpler & cleaner ways to hide evidence, such as cremation (unless the conspiracy intent was to say that the 5 victims of the cave were evacuated alive but died merely from the explosion in the building they were evacuated too) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabberjawjapan (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 September 2011

I still think that some of these points are quite minor, and difficult to explain without getting too detailed. The X-Files mythology is notoriously confusing and difficult to understand, and this isn't the place to explain it all. I'm not discouraging you from making improvements, but remember we're not writing for fans specifically. Fans' opinions of plot weakness aren't really relevant unless they're discussed in reliable secondary sources.--BelovedFreak 09:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, "Neanderthal" came from one of the official sources, but as the casual reader is just as likely to query it, I'm happy for it to be left out.--BelovedFreak 15:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The most " Official" source I could find was the original production draft script ([1] & [2]) which refers to the two hunters as human "Primitives".Jabberjawjapan (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I can only apologise profusely. I had assumed that I'd added the term, in the time I was tidying things up before its GA nomination. The official source I was referring to was the official Making of book, but scanning through that, I can't actually see anything other than "primitives". Turns out, it was added way back in 2006 by an anonymous editor. I knew I never would have made it up, but for some reason it really rung a bell that I'd seen it in the book, so assumed I'd added it & with good reason! That's something that should have been checked prior to GA, so I am sorry about that. There is also a chance that it was mentioned on the DVD audio commentary; I don't have it to hand, but I notice that the second mention of it in the article is cited to the commentary. Either way, I agree it is misleading, so it's better to leave it out.--BelovedFreak 09:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I am glad that the article is a bit better overall than it was a few days ago.Jabberjawjapan (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

The movie was responsible for introducing the show to a new group of fans.

Does that really merit inclusion in the trivia section? It seems out of place. Perhaps it would be more appropriate in a segment discussing the film's reception. — TheJames 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilkes Land Crater

the alien spaceship is located in the Wilkes Land crater but doesn't bother to mention it by name(it's an actual impact crater from 500 million years ago). H.P.Lovecraft set his novella "At The Mountains Of Madness" at this same site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.224.5.27 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Inconsistency

The intro reads, in relevant part:

"If viewed in the context of the X-Files chronology, the film takes place between seasons five and six of the TV series."

(emphasis mine). The trivia sections says:

"The movie was filmed in the hiatus between the show's fourth and fifth seasons..."

One of them is wrong. I believe it is the trivia entry. Would somebody knowledgeable please correct? Kjdamrau 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau

In re: "Inconsistency," both the intro and the trivia are correct. The film was filmed between the fourth and fifth seasons so that it could be released the next year, when it takes place in the X-Files chronology -- between the fifth and sixth seasons. 65.6.157.79 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

the link in the 5th footnote is broken. It'd be great if someone could fix it. Justerbuster 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of links. There is a link from the last of the pages of the series 5 and the first of the series 6 episodes to this one, as it is between the two. Shouldn't there be the same sort of "back to/forward to" on here? I would do it but I have no idea how lol daz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.76.20 (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects?

Shouldn't X-Files 1, The X-Files 1 redirect here? 70.55.88.176 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. While Joe Editor might confuse The X-Files (film) with The X-Files: I Want to Believe, the title is correct according to the naming conventions as the two movies do not have the same title. JPG-GR (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The subtitle of the first X-files movie "Fight the Future" is helpful in disambiguating it from the second movie The X-Files: I Want to Believe. Lets get rid of the (film) business since there are now 2 x-files films. Convergence Dude (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The semi-subtitle "Fight the Future" is more than enough to disambig between the 1998 and 2008 movies. Convergence Dude (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the film was called. See, for example, the film itself. Rehevkor (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The current error is a disambig error, not a specific movie studio label issue. The unofficial or semi-official subtitle of the first movie was "Fight the Future" which is more than enough information for us to use to disambig. It just looks very wrong to have the title of this article be "X-Files (film)" given that there are now 2 X-Files films. Think about it this way: there is increased need to disambiguate better because there are now 2 X-Files films. Convergence Dude (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, since the second movie is clearly called The X-Files: I Want to Believe. Providing blatant incorrect information for the sake of disambiguation is.. pointless. Rehevkor (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are missing my point. Can you at least rename this article to something like X-Files (1998 film) so the incompleteness with the word film by itself is fixed? Convergence Dude (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Convergence Dude. Renaming this to something that distinguishes it from the other "(film)" would make sense. Perhaps "The X-Files (Fight the Future)", or "The X-Files (1998 film)". Something like that is needed here. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See {{xfiles}} -- they've already used "(Fight the Future)" to distinguish this film from the other. I think that's the best option for this article's name. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that (Fight the Future) is the best option, can someone make that change or change it to (1998 film)? Is page moving an admin only function or do you need to have made 100 edits before you can do it? Convergence Dude (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can do it, but I'd wait a bit more to see if anyone else wants to weigh in on this. If no one else comments in say 24 hours I'll do the move. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommend bringing this up at WP:RM before making any hasty moves. Rehevkor (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made the request there and noted it at the top of this talk page. Convergence Dude (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about the new title. It does need changing but I'm thinking "1998 film" is better. See my comment at RM. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "Fight the Future" is more than just a tagline and a good way to disambiguate between the X-Files films. "1998 film" is good but the movie also has a better working title that can be used. Convergence Dude (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. No other movie series is handled this way (see X-Men (film), Superman (film) and a thousand others) and using Fight the Future would be giving the article a blatantly wrong name. The fact of the matter is disambiguating is totally unnecessary here. Rehevkor (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. "Fight the Future" is a better title/disambiguation option. Those other films you mention should at least have the year added to the disambiguation. Those other first in a series of movies might not have had a working title or subtitle and nickname that was commonly used at the time of their release like The X-Files (Fight the Future) does. Convergence Dude (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Rehevkor has a point -- precedent seems to be in favor of keeping the title unchanged. For some reason or another, when a sequel is released, the original keeps the "(film)" title. Whether not this is the best way is debatable... but I don't want to get into that now. To be perfectly honest I don't feel particularly compelled in either direction right now. There are good reasons on both sides, and neither would have any significant effect on how easily the article would be found. I suppose if someone is unaware that there was a first film before "I Want to Believe", they might mistakenly think this article describes it, so in that case Id go with "1998 film". Again I am definitely against "(Fight the Future)", though. That wouldn't be helpful, except to fans who are used to hearing that tagline. Simply creating redirects for all these titles might be the best option here. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I believe precedent to be obviously insufficient here. Convergence Dude (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you feel that way -- it's not a special situation, rather it's the same situation as the X-Men or Superman moves. PS I've created redirects for both. If the decision is eventually to move the article, it can still be moved over one of those redirects. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Those other movies should at least have the year added to the disambiguation. The claim of a precedent is effectively allowing incomplete disambiguation to remain uncorrected. Convergence Dude (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone comes here looking for the 2008 film, the otheruse template already in the article is all that's necessary. Rehevkor (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If we correct incompleteness in article titles there will be less need for {otheruse} templates. Convergence Dude (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I might agree in principle, but this isn't really the place to change such a practice. To do that you might want to make a suggestion at WP:WikiProject Film or WP:Village pump (proposals). Keeping titles consistent for the time-being isn't a terrible thing, though. If the change is made centrally, I think I'd be for it. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your position, you seem to be saying error or incompleteness in article titles is ok since we can just create a {otheruses} template, I disagree. I prefer to fix error and/or incompleteness at the source. Maybe I should try harder to convey to you just how wrong even the slightest of article title confusion or incompleteness is. The title is the first thing readers see so it's paramount for it to be as accurate and specific as possible. Convergence Dude (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't believe the current disamig convention is wrong at all. Rehevkor (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing that there may be a better way to handle movie titles in general, and that's why I suggested you bring this up centrally, rather than trying to go against the general tradition in one specific case. This isn't the place to make this kind of argument, CD. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors that follow this X-Files (film) or any article can and should be the ones to break with tradition especially when tradition is incomplete. Though I agree I should start making my case elsewhere, though the lack of traffic on this talk page is not a good sign. Convergence Dude (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What your proposing is overkill really. The purpose of the "(film)" bit is not to differentiate it from the other movie(s), it's to differentiate from the series/franchise itself. It may reduce the need for other use tags but it's create a slue of other disambiguation pages, i.e. The X-Files (film) would become one. And they're just not necessary. Rehevkor (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of disambiguation is to differentiate something from everything. Now that there is a second X-Files film the equation has changed, it more than just an issue of tv vs film it's now an issue of tv vs film vs film 2. Convergence Dude (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just think you're seeing a problem where there isn't one. Rehevkor (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, movie title disambiguation can be better. And another thing The X-files (movie) would be better than The X-Files (film). Convergence Dude (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Film" is a more generic term for movie. And the one used according to wikipedia policy. Rehevkor (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again Wikipedia policy might be incomplete or inaccurate. Convergence Dude (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• As was said, here is not the place to dispute tried and tested policy. Rehevkor (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Think globally, be bold locally. Convergence Dude (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert locally. Rehevkor (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you've never heard of the Wikipedia policy Be Bold? Convergence Dude (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I have, but it has limits. If you're going to go against established policy over what is mostly personal preference it's going to get reverted, flimsy pretense of being bold or not.. Rehevkor (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't see that some movie article titles are incomplete and unclear doesn't mean my proposal is flimsy. Convergence Dude (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that. End of the day, the disambiguations ("(film)" etc) are only there to differentiate things of the same title. The X-Files movies do not have the same title. Rehevkor (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone that reads the title The X-Files (film) is going to know ahead of time that there is more than one X-Files film which is exactly my point, we need to go one more disambiguation step by making it clear there is more than one film and distinguish it from the 2008 film. Convergence Dude (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguating is a complex system, what you're proposing would complicate it further and make actually getting to information harder. But still, I wish you the best of luck with your proposal! I'd be interested in following it so please let us know where you put it. Rehevkor (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some other articles on Wikipedia already include the year date in the disambiguation section so your characterization that my proposal is complex and difficult is inaccurate. Convergence Dude (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If the articles are named correctly it is because there're multiple films with the same name, an example would be Sunshine. There have been 2 films of that name so they need the years to differentiate between the two articles. There is only one film called The X-Files so further disambiguation is wholly unnecessary. But yeah, we're going around in circles here but I encourage you to take this proposal higher if you do not understand my reasoning. Rehevkor (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation is not just about whether there are 2 X-Files movies with the same name, it's about being as clear as possible for everyone including people that might not know there are 2 X-Files movies at all. I believe a random oblivious Wikipedia reader would want the title of the first X-Files movie to disambiguate between it and the TV show AND the second film. Convergence Dude (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, disambiguation exists to clear up confusion, I believe oblivious readers are likely to be confused by the number of X-Files related articles and will need an extra step of disambiguation. Convergence Dude (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a took at Wikipedia:Disambiguation for a clarification of what disambiguation pages are for. HAND Rehevkor (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire point of having a disambiguation page is to clear up confusion, I don't need to look at the specific policy page to know that the word "film" by itself is insufficient. Convergence Dude (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you'd be wrong there, they're for "resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic", for things with the same name basically, not resolving any kind of confusion. If you dispute that then go and tell them. On that page. Not here. Over there. Go on. Toodle pip. Rehevkor (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The conflict that needs to be resolved is within oblivious readers minds, generally speaking an oblivious reader might search for X-Files and become confused with the lack of title specificity with "film" for the first X-Files movie. If we add "1998" or "Fight the Future" that adds specificity and clarity. Convergence Dude (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Naw. Rehevkor (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Rehevkor. Davhorn (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it needs moved at all, the well established conventions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) are clear: The X-Files (1998 film). Iamaleopard (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• So are you in favor of moving it to The X-Files (1998 film)? Convergence Dude (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because the new film is not at The X-Files (2008 film). If the two films were both only called "The X-Files" and were unrelated, it would be the best idea. But The X-Files: I Want to Believe provides disambiguation by itself, so moving this article is not necessary. Iamaleopard (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article titles don't have to be exactly what the movie studio choses. The second movie is sufficiently disassociated because it has a extra part to begin with, the first movie needs extra disambiguation to begin with because it could be confused with the tv show and needs disambiguation even more now that there is a second movie. Convergence Dude (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) suggests The X-Files (film). The year only needs to be added when there's a film with the same title. Rehevkor (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying it's impossible that using the year adds clarity even if the 2 films don't have exactly the same title? It shouldn't be that hard to see that if "film" was a good idea to disambiguate between a tv show and a movie that it would then make sense to go with at least "1998 film" once a second movie is made. Convergence Dude (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• sighs* if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The naming convention is perfectly clear here. If you want to dispute that, then take it somewhere else. Right now you're coming across as a troll. Rehevkor (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because you can't or don't see that it is incomplete doesn't mean it isn't incomplete. Convergence Dude (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But it seems you're the only one who feels this way. Once again, I suggest you take it higher up, requested page moves is not a forum for policy change. HTH HAND Rehevkor (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought there would be more X-Files fans monitoring these articles that might agree with me. Since this proposal has received such low traffic I am discouraged. Convergence Dude (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Rename it to The X-Files (1998 film), or Fight the Future (X-Files). It's often referred to as "Fight the Future". Ofcourse, The X-Files 1 and The X-Files 2 would work perfectly... 70.55.88.176 (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

missing redirects

The X-Files 1, X-Files 1, The X-files 1, X-files 1, Fight the Future (X-Files) should redirect here. 70.51.8.190 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

done Equazcion •✗/C • 04:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

Does the Movie fit between seasons 4 and 5 (as alleged in the X-Files Wiki's article about the Movie) or between 5 and 6 (as this article)? Luis Dantas (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Between seasons 5 and 6. You can see this in both the release date (released between seasons 5 and 6) and also the plot itself where Mulder and Scully are not part of the X-Files. Davhorn (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Marketing

Did Fox use any major marketing on the film? If so, i think the article should deserve a marketing section. When the film itself opened, I vaguely remember a possible action figure line. Anyone know more of this?--Snowman Guy (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Score

Why is that link directing to an album released about the same time of the movie, with X-files inspired music? It is *not* the soundtrack! --David Munch (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthals in North America

Was it really a Neanderthal that found the cave in north Texas? They've only been found in Europe and Asia.--TEAKAY-C II R (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugg, Thog think you have good point. ;) Neanderthals are (or were) supposedly found only in Europe and Asia, although they were in existance at the time of the movie's opening scene. It's actually not said in the movie what group the individuals depicted are from, although they would supposedly be from a pre-Clovis culture. I'm wondering if the generic term "cavemen" might be a better used, in the absence of a proper identification of the characters' culture? Kt'Hyla (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced/reworded this misleading terminology. They are "Neanderthal like", but the movie scripts describe them as Homo sapien "primitives".Jabberjawjapan (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The Mall

I have clarified the reference to the 'The Mall' in the plot synopsis. The bare term means different things in different countries - anyone in Britain would assume it referred to The Mall, London for example. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Stars" in infobox

With regard to this reversion re-adding John Neville to the infobox under "starring", I'd like to discuss who should actually be included. At {{Infobox film}}, we are instructed to add "the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles in the film." Obviously major is open to interpretation, but I really don't think that there are eight stars of this film. Some films have large ensemble casts with lots of "stars", but this isn't the case here. While John Neville may have an important part in the film, he's not one of the stars.

As this is relevant to more than just this article, I started a discussion at the template talkpage. it was suggested there by another editor to use the top billing from the theatrical poster. While the poster used here is not very clear, I'm pretty sure that it would just be David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson. I suggest that we cut the list in the infobox down to just Duchovny and Anderson. Thoughts? --BelovedFreak 21:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it'd be better to cut down the list to just Duchovny and Anderson. If we're talking about the stars of the film, they're the real stars. If we do, as he suggested, to do 2 or 3 more, I suggest that we do Martin Landau, Mitch Pileggi, and William B. Davis, because they got more screen time than anyone else. Blythe Danner and Armin Mueller-Stahl were important, but not in the movie that much, and John Neville was in it a decent amount, but he's not one of the film's stars. But I think just Duchovny and Anderson would be a good idea , too. J52y (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards just the two. It's a pity the film poster is so hard to read! At some point I'll try to watch the film again and see how they do the billing, but for now, I think just the two stars will do.--BelovedFreak 10:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I just recently watched it, and if I remember correctly, they don't do credits at the beginning of the movie like most movies do. But I like just Anderson and Duchovny being in the infobox.J52y (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cast Section

Shouldn't we have a cast section on this page? Most movie pages do. J52y (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Many do, but as articles develop to GA and then FA stage, it becomes less common. (See Fight Club as one example without a cast list.) That's not to say that no FA articles have cast lists but there is a general shift away from having them within the film project. If you haven't already, you might be interested to read the film style guideline, specifically WP:CASTLIST. There is no "rule" either way but the guideline encourages cast details to be kept to prose. In this article, the names of the key actors are included in the plot section, and then there is a casting section further down which discusses notable casting details. It is more common for less well-developed articles to have cast lists, especially when a decent prose section on casting has not yet been written.--BelovedFreak 12:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think it's just a personal preference of mine. I like to look at the cast list before I watch a movie (thus I wouldn't wanna read the summary), but that's more what imdb is for.J52y (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)