Talk:X-Men Origins: Wolverine/Archive 2

Critical Reception

This should say "mixed to negative reviews" and NOT "decidedly mixed" if this section is meant to be impartial and consistent with other film's summations of Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes scoring. The Yahoo letter grade is not a reliable or consistent system and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.209.226 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sister

Her powers seem to fit Diamond Lil, not emma frost.

Any help here? David.snipes (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Diamond Lil's power (last I checked) is invulnerability that is "on" all of the time. The character in the film transforms from a normal appearance to a crystalline form that protects her from damage, which is consistent with the "secondary mutation" that Emma Frost first manifested during Grant Morrison's tenure with the X-Men, and as of this writing still possesses. -- Pennyforth (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are both wrong, the powers belong to the female version of 'Penance' who was in the X-Men series when Mystique accessed Stryker's computer files and Penance's file was shown on the computer. Please fix this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.169.211 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

X-Men First Class

So, what is the issue with adding it to the infobox? Looking at Wikipedia: Crystal Ball, it appears to be acceptable.

• Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
  • X-Men: First Class is notable since its the planned fifth installment of the X-Men franchise and it is certain to take place. A director has been hired, a release date has been confirmed, casting is currently taking place, crew members have been hired, and filming will take place in September.

• If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
  • Preparation for the movie is well-underway and the article for the movie is well-referenced.

So, why is it unacceptable to add the film to the infobox?-5- (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As I just pointed out on my talk page to you...

The concerns are:

• How WP:FILM deals with CB - The film is at the development stage, which seems fine for an article of its own. That doesn't make it fair game for in other areas.
• There is no guarantee that it will follow as part of the X-Men franchise and not be a reboot. Looking at the infobox parameter, it's geared to films set in a single continuity only, that is something that can only be guessed at until later in the development of the film. Or its release.
• The film is very likely to happen, yes. But it can still be derailed, even after filming starts. Again, looking at the parameter, the intent is to deal with existing, released material. Not what was once intended, what could have been, or what may be.
• This is a discussion for the article's talk page, not on user talk pages.
• Last, before reinserting the information, garner consensus for it.

- J Greb (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think all of your points are valid, so I won't change it again. I won't try to garner consensus for it because frankly I don't care about it that much. I was just trying to keep consistency among articles. Your best point is that it cannot be determined whether this is in the same continuity. However, once that is determined I don't see how this should not be added to the infobox.-5- (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And there I'd agree - once the film is released and shown to be part of the continuity set, it's right an proper to add the field. And since we aren't a news site, we have the luxury to wait for the film to be released for that information to come in. - J Greb (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Vaughn has confirmed that X-Men: First Class is a prequel to the other X-Men films. He says it in this article. So, I hope when the time comes (which isn't too far away) that there will be no debate about adding it to the infobox in this article.-5- (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with adding it to the article, but to clearly state that X-Men Origins: Wolverine is "followed by" First Class seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL pretty blatantly. Again, I don't see any problem with it being in the article, but this in particular strikes me as something that needs to be changed in some way or another. Friginator (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is it because X-Men: First Class may ignore Wolverine? There is a precedent with that with Superman Returns. Even though Returns ignores Superman IV, it is still listed as following IV because it is part of the film series started with the 1978 film since it is a sequel to that particular film. If there is enough consensus to remove it from this page and the First Class page for the time being I have no problem with that. I suppose there is also the issue of a Wolverine sequel and if that should be listed in the "followed by" parameter in the future when that film comes. We need some other editors to weigh in.-5- (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I haven't done thorough research but I do believe the creators confirmed this to be a sequel not a reboot. And does seem to be the next film coming. And it doesn't seem to violate WP:Crystal because it not unverifiable and it's not speculation. It also states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Which I think this qualifies as of. Plus it having it's own article seems to warrant it being on here. Per WP:NFF this is as reliable as it comes for an upcoming film. If this is proven wrong it can easily be changed. -5-, we might need a source where you placed it (confirming it's notable and it's certain to take place) so it will have less chance for it to violate WP:Crystal. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, and at the risk of seeming rude, I neither know nor care about the continuity between films. Nor about sources. There is no source for the future--only schedules, general rules and plans which predict but can never verify. Wikipedia doesn't deal in prediction.First Class is scheduled to be released, but we can't say for sure that it will be. "Will it be released?" is not a question Wikipedia or anyone else can answer. The portion of WP:CRYSTAL that Jhenderson is quoting above pertains to inclusion of a scheduled event, not an attempt at verification that the event will take place, as the infobox is currently doing. "Followed by X-Men: First Class", as the infobox states, clearly attempts to verify a future event (in this case the release of the next film in a series), assuming and asserting that a future event will take place. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should not allow that in an encyclopedia article. What I would suggest is altering the text so that it no longer attempts to verify this particular future event. If there was (or is) a way to change the text from "Followed by" to something along the lines of "Scheduled to be Followed By", (or, again, something to that effect) I would suggest adding it as a solution to the current problem with WP:CRYSTAL. Friginator (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I see your point, it might be more constructive when there's a trailer coming out confirming this really coming or something. But I ain't going to lose any sleep over it being there. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Whew. Okay, thanks. Hopefully I made myself clear. Friginator (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Incubator for Wolverine 2

This is just a notice that an article for X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2 is being incubated at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2 until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The incubator has moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Wolverine (film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

At what point does it become a real article? The film has been official since November 18, and it's set to start shooting in April. -- Ozzel (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are some good sources it'll get its own article. It's not even in production yet. "Official" just means the studio has made an announcement concerning their plans to make the film. Friginator (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not until it starts filming, per WP:FILM guidelines.-5- (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sequel or not a sequel?

I am under the impression that the Japan-based Wolverine movie isn't actually a "sequel" but, rather, a separate story that has nothing to do with this movie (e.g. different story, different director). In fact, development on it began around or before this movie was released. This second Wolverine movie is of course related to this 2009 Wolverine movie in that it follows the Wolverine character, but it doesn't have anything to do with the events of this movie and certainly doesn't tell the story of what happens after the events of this movie are completed. It, perhaps, has no relation at all to the timeline of this movie. Btw, this information can be found in the Wolverine (comics) article. Whichever is right (sequel or not), it needs to be made consistent across all the Wolverine articles -- including this one. ask123 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Kuekuatsheu

No mentioning about Kuekuatsheu in this article and no information at all about Kuekuatsheu in Wikipedia. Can somebody help us and write an article about this myth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.90.180 (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

When does this film take place?

Does the film take place in 1979, or 1985? I can find info supporting both, like the date of the Three Mile Island incident in the real world (assuming parity with the fictional universe of Marvel comics), and the sequel possibly taking place in 1982 like the comics it's based on, but also the anachronisms such an early date would create, the age of characters in the first X-Men film, and those films' references about how many years earlier certain events occurred. I'd like this article to be categorized by date it's set in, but just don't know which year to pick.