Talk:We3

Suggested change

I'd like to suggest a change to the We3 Wikipedia entry. The original states "1 and 2 immediately attack and kill the father, an act for which 1 later exhibits great remorse." While 1 indeed is saddened following the event, calling himself a "bad dog," I believe that this was because he had let harm befall one of his teammates. Up to this point, all three animals have killed several humans with no remorse. The positioning of 1 against the badly wounded 3 in this scene also seem to suggest that this is why he is saddened.

While the matter is certainly open to interpretation, I do not believe the article should present the opinion as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.184.104 (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We3 and W3

Has there been any mention anywhere of a connection between Morrison's series and Osamu Tezuka's W3? There do seem to be a number of similarities in name and concept, and Morrison's description on We3 as a "western manga" also seems notable in this light. It's a striking coincidence if not deliberate. Kelvingreen (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While it may seem like they are very similar, I do not believe that it should be mentioned in the article unless someone who worked on We3 actually mentions W3.--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WE3 film adaptation could use an update

This is the best source I can find on the subject and may not be wholly suitable for the article, but essentially as of 2010 the WE3 film is on the shelf. It has not been officially cancelled, but according to screenwriter Grant Morrison, the film is not moving along. The wikipedia entry could use an update to reflect the current status of the film.

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/04/21/grant-morrison-we3-screenplay-violence-comic/

(108.204.182.87 (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC))

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:We3/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

In the Reception section of this article, the history tab will reveal a frequent back and forth between editors, one of which seems to insist on elaborating the "pro-animals rights" comment in an inflammatory manner. It is enough to say the book is pro-animal rights, do we really have to drag in evidence, particularly so brutal? It represents a stance I'm uncomfortable with, to suggest that the violence against animals is returned in kind to humans as "pro-" anything. Let's not turn this into a PETA side project. Keep to the facts or at least yield citations.

Last edited at 15:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)