Talk:X-Men Origins: Wolverine/Archive 1

message: Change the redirect to the character himself.24.128.96.114 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Weapon X (Lady Deathstrike included) have major impact on Wolverine's background, providing him his adamantium and great amount of training he is able to implement. I can't imagine not seeing Sabertooth, Silverfox and Maverick. Painbearer 11:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapon X and Lady Deathstrike 

message: great work, Erik. Looks solid. I'm hoping that between us we can work through all the comics themed films over hte next couple months to get them all into a solid, reliable format with solid citation. ThuranX 00:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: I was on IMDB a few months before x-men 3 came out. I saw omega reds name on the cast list & i did read that they were going to use a charecter in the wolverine movie that they weren't able to use in the x-men 3 movie.86.139.121.217 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDb is not a reliable source. --Jamdav86 09:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omega red 

message: Until we have a sufficient set of citations to explain the plot, all we get is a premise, as set of themes with possible plot points. ThuranX 00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premise 

message: There seems to be a bit of dispute over Ken Watanabe's role as the Silver Sumarai in this film. It is strongly rumoured and heavily hinted almost everywhere now, even the local official paper in Singapore The Straits Times mentioned it today. I personally feel it's worth noting, even if it isn't completely verifiable. Share your thoughts. Jedd the Jedi 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Singapore paper stated that it had official information, from the actor, or the production, that would be an acceptable source. However, it the paper is instead reprinting rumours already stated elsewhere, and is rehashing gossip, then no, not at all. Can you provide us an actual llink, to check the story? ThuranX 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actor says he's never been contacted about being involved.  Write this one off as pure rumor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ken Watanabe or Kennot? 

message: *
:What do y'all think? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, hence my hesitation.  Don't know if it was a slip-up or a journalist's poor assumption.  We'll sit on it for a bit, I suppose. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratner as director, it seems 

message: *
:Producer speaks on the status of Wolverine. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for use 

message: As I don't want to edit conflict in this article revival, I'll just put down some thoughts on shaping up the article:
#The lead section should be revised so it's clear to someone not familiar with X-Men what the film is about, especially in relation to the existing film trilogy.
#Is it alright for X-Men to be in the "followed by" section?  I assume these attributes are for chronology within the films' universe.
#Do we need a sentence about the composer?  I know we try to avoid citations within the infobox, but the sentence feels too added on.
#Is the rumor about Schreiber being Sabretooth completely unsubstantiated?  Not worth a mention?
Comments are welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The norm on what films follow what is for an out-of-universe perspective. Only the Star Wars really get away with the episodic sequence. And yeah, the Sabretooth thing is just CHUD. Alientraveller (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I mistook the setup for an original film and its sequel to be reflective of the in-universe continuity.  I guess I understand why Star Wars has that exception, but it seems inconsistent.  So change it back to The Last Stand?  I'm just concerned that the lack of clarity will cause some edit warring about the nature of the "followed by" and "preceded by" attributes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would've thought that it would make more sense being in chronological order, seeing as it's about Wolverine's early days and therefore having no mention of the X-Men franchise (as if it's happened). Besides, it's not like X-Men Origins: Magneto will be displayed as being preceded by this film. Actually that's made me think... should the films even be considered as sequels or predecessors? I mean, they are their kinda standalone/seemingly unrelated to the events of the X-Men films, if you follow its principle arc, and if the claims that the X-Men Origins will contain x amount more films - well, it's just confuse things down the line. -- Harish - 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever our consensus, we should, at the completion of this thread, post a link to this section over at the X-men Film Series Page, so that we can demonstrate consensus for a single method of 'precession/ succession' for the franchise. I support OOU, not IU, reporting, but am open to one which is either reflective of the diverging stories - as Magneto and Wolverine represent two plot-indepedent sequels to Last stand that we put "Preceded by: X-Men The Last Stand" for both, and worry about X-Men 4 in its' own time, or one which is a literal timeline, and we go with true OOU, and Xmen, X2, XMen TLS, XO:W, XO:M, Xmen 4 would be the order. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I think we've got an agreement to work in Out-of-Universe, I jsut want to make sure, so I can link it around at magneto and the fiml series pages. ThuranX (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cool, bub. Perhaps it's time you made a cabal of sorts for the comic regulars? It might br easier to bring a consensus and help uniform the films more esaily. Just a thought. -- Harish - 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  A cabal?  No such thing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need one. There are about 6 of us who regularly work a huge comics film overlap, and we are all usually in agreement based on our discussions, not any obligatory lockstep. Frankly, I like it that way. we all 'know' each other, and like each other's editing styles, we all talk it out, and so on. It's not a cabal, just a coincidental like-minded group. ThuranX (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that we should be comfortable enough to be critical of other editors if necessary.  Talking it out is peaceful, as we push back and forth mildly until we can figure out what's most suitable for an article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see... so it IS a cabal!! haha. Nah, honestly - I respect that. Too many rambo's on Wikipedia, so the fact that you can sort these problems out so well - it's  great thing for Wikipedia. Keep it up, guys! -- Harish - 05:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Isn't Liev Schreiber playing Sabretooth in this movie and not a young version of William Stryker. It says so on the Sabretooth and Liuev Schreiber page that it has been confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiem (talk • contribs) 
:According to unreliable sources. Alientraveller (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) This casting has not been verified by a reliable source yet.  I've removed the unverifiable information from the articles of the actor and the character.  When we find out from a verifiable source what role Schreiber really does play, we can include it.  We're not in a hurry. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: First, he is not confirmed. No one is: damn Fox is forgetting to give a press release. Secondly, why did you delete your comment? Alientraveller (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I spoke too soon. It took Variety a while, but now the whole cast has been confirmed. Alientraveller (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See, people just need to be patient. What harm did it do to wait for confirmation? None! Steve T  • C 08:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that patience is key.  Even though rumors can seem very likely (and sometimes not at all), that ambivalence is why we shouldn't include them right away.  This is casting information that was inevitable, and with the Variety article, we can say beyond a doubt that this is certain. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabretooth 

message: Does anyone think that link is reliable or what? It just seems kinda, well not reliable. Wiildroot (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Brian Cox was on a BBC programme, Film 2007 talking about Running With Scissors, the presenter Jonathan Ross asked him about Wolverine": definitely reliable. Alientraveller (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aint It Cool News link concerning Brian Cox 

message: we now have a first image from the movie. Here- http://xmenfilms.net/gd/wolverine1_hires.jpg
Perhaps it can be added to the main info box on the right of the page until a teaser poster is released?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 04nbod (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really infobox material, and it could have been photoshopped, so it may not be suitable to illustrate the cast section. But sticking an image in there would ruin the article's format. Alientraveller (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely photoshopped. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Even if the image was genuine, I don't think that it would be very appropriate to insert into the article without the relevant context to provide a fair use rationale.  I'm not usually a fan of non-direct advertising materials in the "poster" attribute of the film infobox, considering that production stills can come out fairly often.  We're better off sticking to promotional images that include the title or posters. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it's not photoshopped.  It came from USA Today, which also has some details that could be used. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite being official, we don't know if Fox altered it. We won't know until we see more pictures. Alientraveller (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks like Fox did a crappy job of photoshopping it, anyway. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please do not upload fake fan images with incorrect release dates. Alientraveller (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Shouldn't a X-Men Origins: Magneto page exists as well? Hooper (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note: that link isn't red because it goes to a subsection of the X-Men trilogy page, but it does not have its own page like this one. Hooper (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the difference is that Wolverine is in active production and Magneto is only in development.  Before Wolverine began filming, most of the content in the article existed at the trilogy page like the Magneto content does.  My guess is that a decision will be made following the reception of Wolverine, and if Magneto begins filming, a stand-alone article would be warranted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutant Equality 

message: Maybe I'm seeing things, but was Emma Frost in the second half of the Comic Con trailer?  Some blonde lady either iced up or turned into a diamond form Teancum (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you. Now let people who know policy wait for a source. Alientraveller (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emma Frost? 

message: What is the legend about the Wolverine? do I put that in this article too?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stunt Airman Amaha (talk • contribs) 10:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Alientraveller (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend 

message: Is it really necessary to go into that much detail on how much Jackman worked out for his role?  Maybe just a note on the workout then link to the references.  But it seems like a waste to go into all that right there in the "Character" section. 75.72.98.95 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that's been his main objective making Wolverine, I wouldn't call it undue weight. If Jackman had mentioned he'd done lots of research into soldiers and their combat styles throughout the past 200 years and we hadn't included that, there'd be a problem. Alientraveller (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: Be aware that people have been adding leaked, possibly false, definitely unverifiable info to character articles related to this film. Particularly affected is Deadpool, but keep an eye on Chris Bradley (comics), David North (comics), Emma Frost, Kestrel (Marvel Comics), and Silver Fox as those have already been hit. Oddly enough, Sabretooth (comics) and Wolverine (comics) are as yet untouched, nor are Gambit (comics), Blob (comics), Barnell Bohusk and William Stryker and other relevant characters, but keep an eye on those all the same. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly think, at this point, that information from the leaked print is unverifiable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can verify that the information came from the leaked print, but not that the information will be in the released film; this is the problem with using an unfinished print as a source. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The differences between the information from the leaked print and the released film will be small at best. It is clearly more beneficial to include such information and edit any minor details that may be wrong after release than to simply ignore that the information exists. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose including in-universe information from the leaked workprint.  I don't think it's realistic to say that readers can verify the information by illegally downloading the workprint.  Also, we cannot say for sure at this point how much the final product will resemble the workprint (since there was pick-up shooting and there is still editing), so it would be erroneous to pass off the information as accurate.  As the film is not authentically available to the public until May, we should hold off on these details.  After then, the information is legally verifiable by any member of the public. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. --aktsu (t / c) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: "I don't think it's realistic to say that readers can verify the information by illegally downloading the workprint." Yes it is, because that is all they have to do in order to verify the information; verify does not require that the information be legally verifiable, only that it comes from reliable sources. Since reliable sources have deemed the workprint real, it itself becomes a reliable source for the information. Also, as I recall, it is only illegal to upload and share the copyrighted files, not to download and receive them, so one does not necessarily have to infringe the law to verify this information. Finally, you claim that we do not know how true to the final release the workprint is. While this is true, common sense ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_common_sense ) tells us that it is unlikely to be importantly different. Do deleted scenes in major published movies often alter the information greatly? Except for the special case of different endings, I think not. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox described the leak as a "stolen, incomplete and early version". 71.194.32.252 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That tells us nothing we did not already know. Stolen? Of course, but irrelevant. Incomplete? We already knew that; it is a unedited workprint which is missing 10 minutes of added footage. Early? It must be so by definition, being a pre-release leak. I don't see what this description changes. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: (ec) Has the workprint been published by a reliable source though? We know that a real workprint have been leaked, but can you verify that your downloaded version is the real workprint? No, for all you know it's a fake/user-made - and it is thus not appropriate to include the information from it here. ...or something along those lines anyway, you get my point. --aktsu (t / c) 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Like I said, it is not realistic to consider downloading the workprint as an appropriate method of verifiability, considering that is the only means to do so.  In addition, it is unprofessional.  WP:LINKVIO makes a case which I think applies tangentially: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."  In addition, primary sources like the film need to be "reliably published", and this is not the case with this film, which has not been distributed (cinematic word for "published", I guess) by the studio to the public.  I don't believe that floating around torrent websites qualifies as "reliably published".  Additionally, I don't believe common sense applies here... this is an uncommon incident, and we can't purport to know how the studio will treat the final cut.  Lastly, I do not see why we need to include such detail.  Real-world context is the core of all good film articles, and the film will come out to the public eventually, at which point in-universe details are useful to a large audience. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related characters articles 

message: He's in the movie in a scene.  So are younger versions of some mutants.  Including nightcrawler, storm.....and a few others.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you shouldn't add it then, if your source is piracy. Alientraveller (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

text: a source is a source dude, may it be legit or pirated. It's established and RIGHT THERE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.9.22 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor X 

message: Not sure if it's worthy of mention, but the Workprint in DVD quality has been leaked onto the internet a whole month before the film's release.
One more issue - relevant to this one - is whether the plot synopsis should be updated in the Wikipedia article. The plot is now fully known due to the leak. Would it be inappropriate for someone who has watched the leaked movie to create a plot synopsis for the main article?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.176.254 (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: April... Alientraveller (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so it wasn't an April Fools' Joke, but I still gotta wonder why people put it in the wrong place... Alientraveller (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Placement looks good!  Thanks for using Entertainment Weekly... sounds more reliable to come from them than from the bloggish SlashFilm. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Happens! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC have done a news article commenting on the peculiarity of this kind of workprint release. It reeks as if Fox have done it on purpose, as free and effective publicity.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's really really unlikely - studios like control, there is no control in this action and it would lead them open to legal action from their investors and marvel (who get a percentage). From the BBC article, it appears it was leaked from the company doing the effects. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Stop cussing and whining. Wikipedia isn't here to cater to you. It's not censored. So if you don't want to know the plot then don't read it. It's not up to wikipedia editors to make sure you don't get the ending spoiled...12.199.45.142 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The workprint does not count as a primary source that is reliably published; the authentic distribution of the film is what is acceptable.  We will flesh out the article with plot information when the film opens to the public.  No deadline here to put up such information pronto. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workprint Leaked One Month Before Release 

message: I'm not sure if anyone wants to put something in about the contest for the premiere, kinda like the one held for The Simpson's Movie.  I think it's fairly notable.  ONEder Boy 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contest 

message: Since it is protected, can J Greb or some other Admin correct this - "Jackman underwent a high intensity weight training regimen to bulk up for his role."  ☭   
мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 22:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Format updates - J Greb (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - What i meant was a correction of the misspelling of the word "regiment" - the bolding was so you could easily see the mistake. "regimen" is atually the right word (not a mistake), and is now bolded for no reason. "Who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him ?" ☭   
мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 10:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Highlight "regimen"

message: * There appears to be some dissent regarding the content of the finished film versus the workprint. Official stance is, it doesn't have the reshoots. However those who have seen the final cut are reporting that the final movie only adds finished effects and audio work. The leaked-cut and final running times are identical also. Worth keeping an eye on as formal reviews commenting on the subject should start coming in before the release date. Sockatume (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of workprint

message: Exclusive Hugh Jackman interview  Seems like this has a lot of info on the film --155.178.6.10 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, I request an administrator implement this interview with the director: X-Men Origins: Wolverine Will Have Multiple Secret Endings! Alientraveller (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the editors looking at these sources, do you have a specick stament that you feel should be added to the text? Or is it "just add the links"? - J Greb (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to the theatrical run that "each print of the film will have a different post credits scene", citing the source of course. Alientraveller (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And added - J Greb (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: Shouldnt the descriptions of the characters be edited, most describe the comic book characters while others are just completely off. -- Paulley (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  power discriptions 

message: I'd do this myself but the article is locked - see http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/04/24/x-men-origins-wolverine-will-have-multiple-secret-endings/ --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Headlines... That aside, Got a specific sentence you'd like and place to see it? Or just tacked onto the Theatrical run section? - J Greb (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just really that the theatrical release will have multiple versions (although from the source it's unclear). something like em..er..The studio plans to release multiple versions of the film, each with a different after-credit sequence. in the theatrical run section. I'm sure someone can think of a decent wording... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  ah and you did - good stuff, thanks. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info to add 

message: Honestly I think the plot of the movie SHOULD be in the article, because wikipedia should be a source for information that does'nt have morals, for example, there probably is a page on masterbation which could teach someone how to Jerk off, but you guys wont allow a plot summary for a leaked film? This is ridiculus.(Wookiemaster (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For your query the page does exist at Masturbation and the process is under techniques ; However, please keep in mind that this article is about X-Men Origins, and just because something is on another page doesnt mean it has to be on this page. 69.157.70.176 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no plot until the movie is released; for reasons already enumerated and discussed, in ample measure, above. ThuranX (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Err, I dunno about morals (I think those things get in the way of getting things done) but I agree we should have the plot up. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk)`  —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes. Plot should be up. Wikipedia has no policy against spoilers.  Much as I hate the griefers who put spoilers everywhere (and don't think the lack of a spoiler policy is an excuse to intentionally front load spoilers everywhere) the Work print is a valid source, enough for plot summary. A proper summary would provide an opportunity to move a lot of the cast information into context and slim down the other sections.  Also previews have been shown in the UK tonight, the point will be moot soon if it isn't already.  -- Horkana (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's out in Australia now, so I assume adding a plot would be acceptable now?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dertop (talk • contribs) 11:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should'nt the plot be here? 

message: I've seen a lot of talk about whether or not the plot should be included, with a lot of people citing that it shouldn't because the only way to know it is due to piracy. However, the film has just been legally released in New Zealand (just got back from seeing it), so there is definitely a way to know the plot now. I would add it myself, but unfortunately I don't have a great memory for detail and so wouldn't be able to do it justice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.87.163 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot can be added now 

message: I edited a section of Dog Logan which seems to say Sabertooth in Origins and Dog Logan are one in the same person. I reworded it to only say there are similarities. If anyone knows much about this topic, I invite you to edit X-Men Origins: Wolverine or Dog Logan or discuss it here. Habanero-tan (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dog Logan's article can say that the movie picks up the character's origins a bit, but I've removed (I think here) a reference that flat-out said Creed was also called Dog Logan, which never happened. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The young version of Victor in the movie is named Dog in the credits.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog Logan 

message: How did the admantium bullets take away his memory?  In the comics, he was once shot several times in the head with them and all it did was knock him to the ground and maybe stun him for a second, but his memory was intact.  Emperor001 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for discussing ways to improve the article.VatoFirme (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussing differences from source comics could be an improvement.  Answers could be mentioned in either this article or a related one.  Emperor001 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As editors of an encylopedia, we're obligated to state the facts, not draw the differences between versions of story.  If an reliable third party source reports on the differences, then we can add that differences have been noted, but we cannot be the starting place for that kind of commentary. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 22:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullets 

message: All things being equal, the "cameos" among Styker's caged mutants need some sort of reliable, verifiable source to cite.
Yes, there are 4 that look like they could be:
*Toad,
*Iceman,
*Quicksilver, and
*Banshee.
As well as one that that could be argued into being Nightcrawler. But of all of those are uncredited - nothing identifiable in the credits like "hazy mutant", "blurry mutant", "gagged mutant", "freezing mutant", let alone by the names of the comic book characters. Of the lot, Toad is the only one that can be pointed to as a visual reference to the earlier movies, so I've left that point even though there should be some sort of confirmation. I've pulled the Quicksilver and Banshee ones though since they rank as drawn conclusions - an editor familiar with the comics assuming that these have got to be those characters.
- J Greb (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was Storm.  She is in the credits as Young Ororo.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Storm's cameo apparently came in Africa and I've seen rumor that her scene was cut.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And there was no "Young Ororo" in the credits... so... - J Greb (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: That's the "blurry mutant" mentioned above. Within the film the character never spoke, was never spoken to, or talked about. There also was no entry for the character in the closing credits. And without a reliable, verifiable secondary source to cite it has no business in any article here. Fansites and forums are not reliable and an editor's personal opinion is original research. - J Greb (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cameos and assumptions 

message: Budget is $130m according to Chris Aronson, 20th Century Fox executive (Senior Vice-President of Domestic Distribution) in this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090504/film_nm/us_boxoffice;_ylt=AlUNk.h3iWCSmVR37h_MA_BxFb8C). 
Seems to be more reliable than Box Office Mojo's figure of $150m, but that's my own opinion. Any thoughts?  Armuk (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BUDGET = Incorrect? 

message: Will.I.Am, character was holding an M41A Pulse Rifle when he teleported next to the Nigerian leader towards the beginning of the movie. That's a strange but obvious homage to "Aliens." I don't know if we want to add a trivia section to the article, but this is possibly worthy of note here. If there were other easter eggs like this, it might be good to include a section in the article. Anyway, should we mention the pulse rifle? Transentient (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  M41A Pulse Rifle and other possible easter eggs 

message: After seeing the reverting of a non-free image, I sent out a request for an image of Lynn Collins and uploaded it today. The same author has allowed us to use the two images that I just added to the article. Other available images that I uploaded that can be used (they are currently used on their respective actors' pages) are: :File:HughJackmanApr09.jpg, :File:RyanReynoldsApr09.jpg, :File:TaylorKitschApr09.jpg, and :File:LynnCollinsApr09.jpg. Feel free to add/rearrange the images in the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free images 

message: The article says that the score uses themes from Batman Begins, Crimson Tide and 300, meaning it's a staple of all Media Ventures composers. I agree, but are there any sources?--Surten (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, Tyler Bates was never a member of Remote Control Productions, which is no longer called Media Ventures. —Atheologic (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know Bates isn't a Remote Control Productions but his style is rather similar. It was just a generalization. Thanks.--Surten (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a somewhat true generalization, although Bates used some thrashing guitar work in 300.  I wonder how Zimmer's Gladiator score might have sounded with some brief moments of hard-hitting metal (badass?).  Anyway, unsourced content has been removed from the Score section, awaiting cited review information. —Atheologic (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

text: See #Track listing. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with content on the score? 

message: I've posted a great deal of relevant information pertaining to the score, notably the Burlingame recording review.  I would really appreciate a valid explanation as to why including a Wiki-infobox and track listing is not a fair addition as one can find the applications of these objects in many other film articles for their soundtracks. —Atheologic (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Track listing. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: The character is listed in the film's credits as Dog (Young Victor) and should be listed as such in the article.  It keeps getting changed by IP users.  Keep an eye out. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it Dog (Young Creed) rather?  Habanero-tan (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been brought up that the IMDB credits may not be accurate... or "more than accurate". Those having seen the film have mentioned that bits have been added to the IMDB listings. This is one that is pointed to as problematic. - J Greb (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the film (both the workprint AND the theatrical) and I am pretty sure I saw in the credits at the theater where it said Dog (Young Victor) and I know for a fact it is listed that way in the workprint.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael-James Olsen's Character 

message: There is one problem with Stryker: Most sites refer to Stryker as a Colonel, but that's probably not his rank (he was only Colonel Stryker in X2). Some refer to him as General, but in a trailer  (it's in large) he refers to himself as a major.
But his rank might change over the years (maybe years, then how did Blob become normal to obese). So could someone give me a good reason or a good answwer to what is his rank? 
Jal11497 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major or Gen. or Col. William Stryker 

message: I requested Semi-Protection for this page due to the extreme amount of edits being done to this page.  Most of the info is not true (the rumored 3rd secret ending) and is being done by non-registered users.  Until the attention dies down, I think the page should be protected.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know, adding a protection template to a page is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected. This does not actually confer protection to the article. To get a page protected you have to make a request for it. Aktsu made the request and it was declined. Keep reverting and discussing for now. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Protection policy for more information on what situations protection may be used for. - kollision (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Semi-Protection 

message: There was a rumor spreading, before the movie was even released, that involves an ending where Weapon XI is a clone of the real Dealpool. It should be treated as a hoax and reverted, as nobody has come forward to say they actually saw this version once the movie came out. The rumor can be found here. The rumor has been reverted many times at Deadpool_(comics)#Film as well. Habanero-tan (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't that be that the rumour should not be included until it is confirmed as a 100% Hoax/Fact? I know someone who claims to have seen the Clone Ending, and while I believe them, one person doesn't exactly count as proof of existance. If it is a Hoax, it seems to have become such a widespread belief that it warrants some form of mention.
Lozeko (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clone Ending Hoax 

message: People, how on earth can we say Dust, Toad etc. are in the film when it hasn't even been confiremed by ANY source (and besides none of the characters look remotely close to Dust and Toad IMO)! Banshee however should be noted as it has been confirmed by Hood (I think it was him) who said banshee would make a cameo! Stop making assumptions about certain elements and focus on what is in the film rather than the comics as this is an adaption. And also check your grammar! Tekkenzone (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I agree with that... but the Banshee point would need a verifiable, reliable source included when it's added. - J Greb (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Assumptions and Overall Assumptions 

message: Well, there is no Stan Lee Cameo in the movie.  I think this is notable.  I just can't find any reliable sources to back this up.  I can find numerous non-reliable sources.  Anybody have something we could use?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stan Lee didn't invent Wolverine. While other marvel mutant characters were used, I suspect Marvel is saving Lee's cameos for their own studio stuff.--68.223.160.47 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: actually it is more he promotes the charcters that he is known for creating and with only one of the X-men, it would have been very likely that he wouldn't have done it anyway.--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Stan Lee 

message: Should there be a mention of the fact that the film somewhat contradicts X2, where it is established that Wolverines Adamantium bonding takes place at Alkali lake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.144.20 (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there an image or snippet of dialogue that suggested otherwise in Wolverine?  Regardless, you will have better luck pointing out the differences between the films and the comic books.  Take William Stryker for example: in the comic books he's a religious nut out to kill mutants in the name of God, but in the films he's an army colonel with the petty motivation of revenge.  The filmmakers probably thought that making a man of the cloth the bad guy would be pushing it too far with American movie audiences.  Whatever.  Of course, you also have the tons of conflicting facts and stories between the films and the comic books pertaining to Wolverine alone.  So, good luck. —Atheologic (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

text: There is no such contradiction.  Both movies establish that the adamantium bonding takes place at Alkali Lake. Medleystudios72 (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

text: hey guys, in the comics didn't he goes nuts and killed the professor who was head of the Adamantium bonding? of course there is alos the thing with Yuriko in X2, like where he didn't really seem recognize her at all.--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: This sentence does not make sense "Wolverine was released to mixed reviews; critics praised Hugh Jackman's performance, but considered the film and its screenplay a little disappointment." please change  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.188.202 (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You change it. Habanero-tan (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makes no sense 

message: This film was released in New Zealand on 29 April (I just saw it at the cinema), not the 30th, as the article states. This should be updated. Roche-Kerr (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The release date for Australia is also wrong. It should be 29th as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dertop (talk • contribs) 11:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does it matter where it is released first? 217.123.65.22 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Don't know their reason, but almost all of the filming was done in Australia & New Zealand, and the star is Australian.  Elf | Talk 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: The show averaged a "37% rating--or 15% when filtered for their "Top Critics"--with 218 reviews (80 "fresh", 138 "rotten")", yet only one positive review statement was placed, while several negatively-charged remarks were made.  As it's a rather popular article right now I just don't want to rush in and add all sorts of positive reviews and cause a stir, but the section seems awfully biased. --Teancum (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a mix of in-between reviews and negative reviews.  Perhaps cherry-pick the positive reviews from Metacritic to balance it out? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added two fairly favorable review comments.  As the movie received below 50% aggregate scores at both RottenTomatoes and Metacritic, I'd say I'm satisfied now.  If nobody else has an issue we can remove the POV tag. --Teancum (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuetrality of reviews 

message: The version of the film I saw includes a short clip after the credits (hardly secret).  Logan knocks back a shot and (in Japanese presumably, but according to the subtitles) asks for "Another".  He is asked if he is American and replies he is Canadian he thinks. Asked if he is drinking to forget, he replies no, he is drinking to remember.  if others make note here of the end clip they saw they could then be added to the article in some sensible way. -- Horkana (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on the after credits ending includes a cited article which mentions an appearance by Deadpool in the ending seen by that reviewer.  Also that article seems to be source of the misnomer "secret ending".  -- Horkana (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Now, are these endings after all the credits, or are they during the credits? Because I didn't stay to the very end, but the version I saw had the ending currently mentioned in the article's plot summary, with Stryker being taken in. Is that on all versions, and then there's an extra scene after the credits, or is that the scene that's different? - Chris McFeely (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's an extra scene after the credits, at the very very end. This video review mentions both endings but after the workprint leak Fox seems to be forcing all unauthorised clips off the web so I haven't seen the second ending myself yet. http://www.yourgeeknews.com/wolverine-review -- Horkana (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Just previewed a print. No Deadpool scene, but the Wolverine scene was there. WhoIsWillo (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The workprint supposedly has several minutes of missing footage.  Not a reliable source. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 18:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I work at a movie theater. I saw a release print. WhoIsWillo (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text:  I've seen both - they were identical. However, I'm in the UK and it appears we are getting just the  Japan ending, which is in the workprint and the US is getting both the Japan/Deadpool ending. Hopeful a RS will turn up that confirms this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Question on the "Stryker ending": is it original research to point out the obvious fallacy of Stryker walking off until his feet bleed and such, to the point where someone has to go looking for him, when he starts off this little walk on a FUCKING ISLAND?  What, did he flag down a passing ferry and walk laps around the deck while it took him ashore? -- Pennyforth (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Three mile island has a bridge going to/from it. You can see it during the movie as the camera pans out and the emergency crews are using it to access the island. Aml830 (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also possible that he was walking around ON the island.  She didn't say he had to walk in a straight line.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Endings 

message: "A fourth ending shows Stryker walking down a road, when he gets stopped by some armed forces telling him he's being taken into custody for killing the general." This is also mentioned, in more words and slightly different context, in the opening paragraph of "Post credits scenes". Not having seen the movie, myself, I'm now confused whether (1) the mentioned scene occurs always, followed by more credits, then one of the three others mentioned, (2) the scene occurs always, followed by more credits, then any of the four scenes, with the one I quoted being somehow distinct from the one in the opening paragraph, (3) or the introductory paragraph is extraneous.
Anyone? -pinkgothic (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This scene happens during the credits (less than a minute in) and is in every version of the movie.  It is not a hidden scene.  The hidden scenes are after ALL of the credits roll.  Everyone gets up and leaves after the Stryker scene thinking its the hidden scene and they end up missing the REAL ones.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there are only 2 different hidden/post credit scenes.  The one with Logan at the bar and the one with Weapon XI.  The third one that supposedly shows Ryan Reynolds walking up does not exist, or at least there is absolutely NO evidence of its existence anywhere other than the rumor mill.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The version I saw had the Stryker scene before the credits. --DocumentN (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing that out. I removed it per Talk:X-Men_Origins:_Wolverine#Clone_Ending_Hoax. People keep adding it in, it's the #1 reverted thing in this article. Habanero-tan (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Post credits scenes 

message: *Wolverine Gets Indestructible in X-Men Origins at VFXWorld. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual effects 

message: I've noticed that two sites that've been cited as sources have different worldwide totals for the film. Box Office Mojo puts it at $313 million while The Numbers puts it at $323 million. I don't edit these sorts of articles too often and I was wondering if there's a consensus regarding the reliability of the two? I've seen BOM sourced a lot in movie articles but this is the first I can recall seeing The Numbers. Is one more reliable than the other?Odin's Beard (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The project favours BOM. The Numbers is used rarely. As studios tend to inflate rather than deflate figures I would always err on the side of the lower figure and source as such. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Office 

message: In the "Cast" part of the article is such a sentence: "Victor hates him because he loved and needed his brother, but is too proud to admit he needs him back." From my point of view, this sentence is highly ambiguous as "he" is used to refer to both Victor and James. Could someone please fix this? Wyvernoid (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The he is clearly Victor, while the him is Wolverine. Who hates whom, he hates him. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's "he"? 

message: This article is part of the X-men films good topic. However for the topic to remain at good status, this article needs to be improved to GA status by July 30. I would recommend copyediting the article, updating access dates, ensuring the article meets the GA criteria, and nominating it at WP:GAN. With sometimes a month-long backlog there it's a good idea to nominate early. If any assistance is needed in preparing the article, let me know and I'll help out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good topic retention 

message: There was a mention of the secret endings before it got edited, but those got deleted, so what exactly are they again? I've read in certain places (comments on reviews) that there were three, but I've only heard two in great detail. Fruckert (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After the credits, I saw a scene where Wolverine was drinking in a bar.  Is this what you mean?Drakesketchit (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, one of those...apparently different locations got different endings, here in the US we got that one. Anyone remember the other ones? Fruckert (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  The Secret ending I saw was XI  surviving in the rubble in the DVD I just rented. Its not mentioned in this article but in the Weapon Plus Article. --Doom Child (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Endings 

message: Movie takes place in the late 1970s, as the vehicles shown do not look any newer than that period, and it takes place 6 years after the Vietnam War. Do you concur? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 10:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As no date is stated on screen for the bulk of the film after the opening titles then to pick a time period and state the film is set in that period would be your opinion, and it certainly doesn't belong as a chunk of text slapped at the end of the summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time period of the movie 

message: I've noticed there's a chunk of information on Tim Pocock there that's irrelevant his role in this film.  There's even a bit about how the actor decided to "play the character" differently than James Marsden.  Nothing against the guy, but honestly his role was barely more significant than that of the extras following him out.  His role in the film deserves at most a short sentence.  Given the significance of the character to the series, perhaps a long sentence (two would be stretching it).  Somehow, he has a longer description in terms of number of characters and word count than Hugh Jackman.  Even if there is no strict Wikipedia rule about the length of a description like this, WP:ROC still has something to say about the random excessive information there.  FantajiFan (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming Tim Pocock's Section 

message: Came here looking for a small item of information and ended up reading the whole thing. Congratulations to the contributors of this article, it's quite impressive. I almost want to actually watch the thing now...  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article 

message: The film is preceded by X3 only by release date, not by chronological order. This should be mentioned in the article. --Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 14:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not written in-universe, so in real life it is preceded by X3. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preceded by?! 

message: The attempted execution of the brothers in Vietnam seems to be a rather glaring anomaly to me. Surely everybody knows that such sentences were neither pronounced nor carried out on G.I.s, no matter their crimes? 82.4.188.111 (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And people can't shoot metal claws out of their hands, and survive a firing squad. And that is not the correct use of anomaly. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

text: also, it wouldn't be that unlikely that the G.I.'s simply set up a firing squad themselves. "fragging" gained quite a lot of notoriety during the Vietnam War. DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam firing squad