# Talk:X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Could someone write up some of the factual/continuity differences between the original trilogy and X-men Origins: Wolverine? For example the fact that in the original trilogy the flashbacks has a different looking lab? And the fact that Stryker, Wolverine and even Xavier says that Wolverine lost his memory and got his adamantium skeleton almost 15 years ago, while X-men Origins: Wolverine is clearly set in 1979 (the year of the three mile nuclear plant incident) and the first x-men movie is in 2000 (21 years apart). TSCTH (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources have discussed these differences, it would seem to be a mix of trivia and original research and inappropriate for inclusion. Do you have reliable references that discuss these differences? Doniago (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think it was "clearly" set in 1979 at all. Did we ever hear about one of the cooling towers collapsing in the Incident? Naahh... I assumed Stryker used the place precisely because it was (presumed to be in the film's world; I don't even know whether it is in our reality) disused or at least pretty much forgotten nowadays.CRConrad (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Just saw the last third or so of this movie after having previously seen the whole of X-Men First Class, and there's definitely an inconsistency here. In First Class, we clearly see Prof. Xavier losing the use of his legs while he still has his youthful appearance and is not bald. But in this movie, he is bald, looks older, and yet can still walk.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.187.24 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC) 

Shouldn't Creed be labeled as Sabretooth as well? Even though he is not referred to as such in the movie, that is also his name. Also, later in the description Schreiber (the actor of the character) refers to the role as "Sabretooth". PUNKMINKIS (CHAT) 02:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Standing consensus has been that unless the name is explicitly used in the film - as a name or in the credits on screen - it isn't used in the plot or cast sections.
It can show up in the development, release, or reception sections, if one of two criteria are met: 1) It's part of a direct quote and/or 2) it is supported by a reliable, verifiable source.
- J Greb (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

From the "Plot" section: "In 1979, Victor (Liev Schrieber) attempts to rape a local village woman, but is stopped after killing a senior officer."
Hey, wait, wasn't that scene set in the Vietnam war? That conflict had ended well before 1979. (Unless we're going by the Chuck Norris / Sylvester Stallone chronology...?)CRConrad (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A new editor, since last month, User:TotalTruthTeller24, is edit-warring to insist on plot bloat taking the plot way past 700 words and making major claims about different post-credit scenes running in different theaters ... to a long-stable article about a 2009 movie and which already contains that information in the "Filming" section. He is violating WP:BRD. Could other editors please comment on his claims? I've restored the article to its status quo and will politely leave a note on this editor's page. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that they're changing a long-stable article that, last time I looked, handled the subject of alternate endings well enough, I believe it's incumbent on TTT to explain their edits here and reach a consensus for them. DonIago (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The credits are ambiguous as to whether Fox helped produce or only distributed. Here they are below. Since editors here and elsewhere have been going back and forth on it, I'd like to suggest finding a formal list of the film's producers online in a trade-magazine article or review indicia.
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX Presents In Association with MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT and DUNE ENTERTAINMENT A DONNERS’ COMPANY PRODUCTION / A SEED PRODUCTION
--Tenebrae (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It has spawned its own film series separate from the X-Men film series, like how The Scorpion King relates to The Mummy. Need a little help in expanding this draft before even considering proposing a split. Be prepared! Lyra-Nymph (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The cast section inaccurately lists Wade Wilson and Weapon XI as separate characters portrayed by different actors.  It further confuses the parts in this film with Deadpool. It should have an entry for "Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson / Weapon XI." There should not be a seperate entry for "Scott Adkins as Weapon XI" since this was the stuntman. We generally don't list stunt doubles as seperate characters. Weapon XI is Wade Wilson who is portrayed by Ryan Reynolds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC) 

I remember that in my showing, they were showing an alternate post-credits sequence: the one where he is sitting in a bar in Japan and "drinking to remember". I remember back then two different post credits sequences were shown and that was always reflected in the article, until fairly recently. The blu-rays then stuck with the Weapon XI post credits scene and presented the drinking to remember scene as a deleted scene. Is this somewhere reflected in the article? Why was this changed? I think, it should be restored.91.15.90.46 (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I was contacted by Zvig47 here, specifically regarding edits by Nostalgicperson03218.
Looking at the article's recent history, I see changes to the reviews by 97.80.120.212, Doniago and Nostalgicperson03218. Variations state the film received "negative", "mixed to negative" or "negative reviews". None of these are backed by a reliable source. In all cases, it seems to be synthesis: combining material from several sources to create a statement that none of the sources independently state.
The closest thing I can find in the article is Metacritic's "indicating 'mixed or average reviews'." This statement of "mixed or average reviews", when taken from Metacritic's page, should always be given in-line attribution (as it is here). The statement is not subject to editorial review and is (by itself) not reliably sourced. It is produced by an algorithm, not an author backed by an editor and/or fact checking.
There are two possible solutions here. If no reliable source can be found directly stating the reviews were positive/negative/mixed/average/positive-to-negative-with-mixed-to-average-in-between/whatever, we should simply leave it out. If a direct statement can be found in a reliable source but it is still disputed, a direct quote with in-line attribution should be used.
Incidentally, if the IP editor is also one of the named accounts, please disclose and log in when editing. If you are found to be editing while logged out in order to evade detection (or to seem to be more than one person), you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes I don’t log in because I just forget, nothing else to it. I’ll try to remember it as a priority now. Zvig47 (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the controversy on the main page? 2605:8D80:405:C1CF:E427:84CE:636A:619C (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this controversy? If so, why not fix it? DonIago (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/the-redface-era-returns. It keeps getting moved or deleted by Ozdarka 70.79.108.180 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I see the update, but I think it is unreasonable that it is in casting while Cultural Impact gets its own section. These seems like a double standard. 70.79.108.180 (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ozdarka: Can you provide your take on this please? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
A controversy is a prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. Only a single comment about this film by a single person was cited. Regardless of any merits it may have, it doesn't warrant its own section. I actually think it may belong more in the reception section. Ozdarka (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I agree that if there's only a single source that's discussed this then to give it its own section is likely undue weight. DonIago (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)