Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand/Archive 3

message: I think one of the hardest part of any article is getting the subject matter expertise down, but I don't think that will be a problem in this article, judging by some of the talk comments.  Also, given the number of article edits every day, there seems is a LOT of interest in this film and this opens up the possible for some good collaboration.  Thus, I honestly think this article has the potential to increase in quality much more quickly than other articles, and gain GA or FA status.  That's my 2 cents. --P-Chan 18:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I've been following this article as well as the talk page for a few weeks. It's really strong and well written.Jaderaid 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean right now?  No way, dude.  It still has a long ways to go before it even reaches GA status.  What I meant was that there seems to be a lot of potential... in the form of dedicated people, so collaboration, error checking and balance will be easier than in other articles with less traffic.  Right now, when everyone is just coming back from seeing the film, is a good time to move forward with an article like this.  That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 00:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But with that said... this is REALLY good considering only two weeks have pasted since the film first opened.--P-Chan 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah!  That's a good point.  There is no mention of Leech in the plot summary, who plays a very important part in the film.--P-Chan 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I took him out on purpose. He's not essential to the plot of the film. All that matters is that a cure has been created. Angel, Juggernaut, and Madrox also are non-essential and could easily be replaced by other characters.--Chris Griswold 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not essential no, but I think it would add value.  Right now, I think that the plot summary could use some minor expansions.  After the massive cuts, there is now room to work with.  When you compare this summary to the summary of the other Feature Article, this one seems a little small.  That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with P-Chan.  Leech's power supplied the cure, without him we have no cure, or at least a harder time making one.  I feel mentioning he is the source of the cure is meaningful.AUburnTiger 
I have commented out a trivia comment that read "Leech's power is supposed to negate only those characteristics and abilities which are the result of the mutant gene, but when Beast approaches him in the film, his blue fur disappears. In the comics, his fur was not the product of his mutation, but rather a side effect of an experimental chemical compound he had tested on himself."  I am not sure that this is necessarily contradictory.  IIRC, Beast's fur was not part of his original mutation, but the chemical compound caused further mutations.  This was explained further as "secondary mutation", the same plot device used to give Emma Frost her diamond form.  Therefore, it is not contradictory that Leech's power could remove his fur, as it was the result of a mutation, albeit an induced one.  Can other comic book geeks chime in here? --DDG 16:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I almost removed the same passage for the same reason. Obviously I agree with your logic - the blue fur-Beast was a secondary mutation. CovenantD 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the comics, there's no evidence whatsoever that the movie Beast hasn't always been furry and blue (he did have a cameo in the second film as a human, but that could have been a holographic disguise). The movie version of Beast is more important than the comic version in this article alone. Perhaps it should be noted in the "differences from the comics" section, but that's it. EVula 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even think we need a "differences from the comics" section.  If there is, it shouldn't be a list and I would assume its main focus would be on the fact that in the comics a whole lot of characters aren't dead/depowered.  WesleyDodds 04:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting that we make the section; I was under the impression that it already exists, which it does. I don't see why it (the entire section) shouldn't be there, as it is highly relevant to the topic and isn't quite what you assumed it would be. EVula 04:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a prime candidate for eventual GA or FA status 

message: I just reorganized some of the sections in the article to make for a more logical flow.
*Most of the points from the trivia section have been moved to their respective sections in the article.  A new section called "Comparison with the comic" was created, as half of the trivia points were in that category.
*Some sections were merged together.  Reception and Box Office are typically placed in the same section on wikipedia film articles.  The Novel and Video Game sections were merged into an "Adaptations" section.  Plus, cast and casting were merged together.
*Reorganized the Project background section, so that now we talk about the "Development of the film", and then move into a section on the actual "Production" and filming of the movie.
Comments are welcomed.
--P-Chan 18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganized sections

message: The reason for my edit removing "To date however, X-Men: The Last Stand grossed over $175 million in the United States, outgrossing even The Da Vinci Code" is the policy Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly.
Saying "to date", drawing comparisons to another film in current release, and citing a figure that will quickly change is all of a temporal nature. Conversely, the notation of a box-office record being set, and the statistical drop afterward, are statements that will remain the same for the life of the article. When the film eventually leaves theaters and Variety, etc., publish the final box office gross, that, too, would be a more permanent, non-temporal bit of information to add. I've noted this at User talk:203.177.161.61 as well. -- Tenebrae 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporal edit

message: A new user, with no content on his/her User page or Talk Page, deleted the following content from the lead. Since it was only partially restored afterward by an IP-address user who has made only one edit, this one, I'm putting the material here so that other editors can examine it to see whether or not all the info should have been restored.
I haven't read Endsong, so I don't know whether that part is accurate. Why the years of the comics were removed, I have no idea! I've gone ahead and returned the years, as well as the Joss Whedon information — he did  write the "Gifted" arc that's cited as a comics basis, so it's relevant. Likewise, for parallel structure and relevancy, I've the author of the "Dark Phoenix Saga, Chris Claremont.
Here's the full sentence as originally there before the new/single-edits users made their edits.
The film is loosely based on three X-Men comic book story arcs, the "Dark Phoenix Saga" in The Uncanny X-Men; writer Joss Whedon's six-issue "Gifted" arc in Astonishing X-Men (2004); and X-Men: Phoenix — Endsong five-issue miniseries (2005).
-- Tenebrae 06:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question re: comics basis for film

message: Its nice to have a short summary and everything, but surely at least some mention should be made of the mutant power blocking kid who was integral to the story?
::Ah!  That's a good point.  There is no mention of Leech in the plot summary, who plays a very important part in the film.--P-Chan 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took him out on purpose. He's not essential to the plot of the film. All that matters is that a cure has been created. Angel, Juggernaut, and Madrox also are non-essential and could easily be replaced by other characters.--Chris Griswold 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not essential no, but I think it would add value.  Right now, I think that the plot summary could use some minor expansions.  After the massive cuts, there is now room to work with.  When you compare this summary to the summary of the other Feature Article, this one seems a little small.  That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with P-Chan.  Leech's power supplied the cure, without him we have no cure, or at least a harder time making one.  I feel mentioning he is the source of the cure is meaningful.AUburnTiger 
I have commented out a trivia comment that read "Leech's power is supposed to negate only those characteristics and abilities which are the result of the mutant gene, but when Beast approaches him in the film, his blue fur disappears. In the comics, his fur was not the product of his mutation, but rather a side effect of an experimental chemical compound he had tested on himself."  I am not sure that this is necessarily contradictory.  IIRC, Beast's fur was not part of his original mutation, but the chemical compound caused further mutations.  This was explained further as "secondary mutation", the same plot device used to give Emma Frost her diamond form.  Therefore, it is not contradictory that Leech's power could remove his fur, as it was the result of a mutation, albeit an induced one.  Can other comic book geeks chime in here? --DDG 16:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I almost removed the same passage for the same reason. Obviously I agree with your logic - the blue fur-Beast was a secondary mutation. CovenantD 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the comics, there's no evidence whatsoever that the movie Beast hasn't always been furry and blue (he did have a cameo in the second film as a human, but that could have been a holographic disguise). The movie version of Beast is more important than the comic version in this article alone. Perhaps it should be noted in the "differences from the comics" section, but that's it. EVula 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even think we need a "differences from the comics" section.  If there is, it shouldn't be a list and I would assume its main focus would be on the fact that in the comics a whole lot of characters aren't dead/depowered.  WesleyDodds 04:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting that we make the section; I was under the impression that it already exists, which it does. I don't see why it (the entire section) shouldn't be there, as it is highly relevant to the topic and isn't quite what you assumed it would be. EVula 04:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary bloat / Beast / Leech

message: I am reposting this in hopes of getting a response this time. 
:The production history includes this paragraph
::Fox Films Entertainment Chairman Tom Rothman said The Last Stand is the end of a trilogy, but not necessarily the end of the X-Men film series: "These three movies work as a trilogy. These characters in this relationship, it's the culmination of that saga. It's the culmination and the resolution of those relationships laid out in the first two movies." In a recent interview, Brett Ratner echoed Rothman's comments: "We wanted to make sure the audiences knew that this was a trilogy. Even though they weren't made together like Lord of the Rings, this is really closure for the X-Men series. ... This is the last stand for sure." http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1524305/02142006/story.jhtml?rsspartner=rssYahooNewscrawler
:The emphasis is mine.  Reading those two quotes, don't they seem to contradict each other, instead of Ratner echoing Rothman? If Rothman is stating that it's not the end of the series and this quote is reinforcing that, then Ratner's quote seems to contradict that. Moreover, if you read the article that the quote is taken from, it contradicts the whole paragraph, stating "a spokesperson from 20th Century Fox confirmed that X3 will be the final film for the mutant team."  --Newt 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further research: I found the article from themovieblog.com that quotes Tim Rothman as "confirming" an X-Men 4, which you can see here.  While the article is entitled "Fox Confirms X-Men 4" the article just states Tim Rothman "all but confirmed" (emphasis mine) it and gives an ambiguous quote.  However, as I said before, another article from MTV.com quotes a 20th Century Fox spokesperson confirming it's the last film for the team.  I think the fourth paragraph of Development is misleading.  Am I off base here?  Can I get a response? --Newt 20:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (Post)Development contradictions

message: I was about to fix the caption for the cast picture in the Main Cast section, and clicked on the picture to get a better view of the image.  To my surprise, the underlying picture is different, and the caption is correct for it.  The thumbnail, though, doesn't show Ian McKellan in the upper left-hand corner, but the guy who portrays Warren Worthington III/Angel.
What's going on with the picture? --Joe Sewell 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try clearing your browser cache. The thumbnail matches for me. --Facto 02:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The double-row cast picture -- what's going on? 

message: The Production and the Comic comparison section both need to be solidified into real sections.  I think a $200 million dollar film would naturally have an interesting production history.  As well, the comic origins of the film, I think, would be highly relevent.  (Smaller details involving other parts of the article I'm sure will eventually get ironed out naturally.)  That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections needing expansion

message: I found some information that seems to contradict this production note
"All the actors (excluding Kelsey Grammer) performed some of their own stunts.[citations needed]"
The information comes from the article here http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060526/ENT01/605260318/1123/ENT
And Grammer, the Beast, displayed courage as he tried his stunts. "Most of my work was trying (to make) him look good with the stress, since he was not a physical guy. He surprised me, where he did a flip off the wall himself."
--Facto 03:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah!  You're right!  We'll have to change that to something else.--P-Chan 03:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kelsey Grammer and stunts

message: I like this part of the plot summary, about the final fight:
Following the loss of Xavier, the X-Men regroup and confront Magneto's army, which is attacking the pharmaceutical company. During the fight, Beast injects Magneto with the cure, nullifying his mutant powers. After the battle, the Phoenix emerges and begins to destroy everything around her.  Momentarily gaining control, Jean begs Wolverine to save her. Telling Jean he loves her, Wolverine reluctantly kills her with his claws.
Now, I have made some concessions to others on this paragraph, and it's nice to see that some other editors have similar ideas on what should be here. I have been having a dispute with Bignole about those past two sentences, and I love that P-Chan has restored them to the way I think they should be. Awesome, P-Chan.
But I know some people feel that there should be some changes in this section. For instance, the inclusion of Leech. Due to discussion on this page, I have been diligent about preserving the size of this summary, as some editors want to keep increasing it with minor details. Here's my thought on Leech: If you remove him from the movie, it doesn't change anything about the plot. Without him, the pharm corp still creates a cure. His existence is incidental, and in the interest of brevity, I removed non-essential elements from the plot summary.
I would ask that if anyone wants to make changes to this paragraph, that they please their case here. I am open to compromise; I hope you are as well. --Chris Griswold 07:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine that someone who hasn't seen the movie will wonder about the tactics when reading this summary. They won't have thought as much about the stockpiling situation as you might have. --Chris Griswold 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're underestimating Leech's importance to the story, and Angel as well but we'll get there in a second.  Leech's body is the source of the cure.  He's the whole reason the war starts if you think about it.  If he wasn't the source of the cure, Magneto would have just attacked the clinics giving out the cure again until all the vials were gone.  He's comparable to Helen of Troy in the Trojan war in that sense.  He didn't actually DO any of the fighting, but he was central to it starting and was the ultimate goal for both sides.  Plus, it shows what a villian Magneto has become, being willing to kill a kid to stop a cause he believes is wrong.  Angel is also important in my mind because his dad developed the cure because of him.  You don't have to say "Angel was about to get the cure when he broke the harness holding his wings and ran to the window and jumped out and flew away."  Or "Leech was kept in a white room and played a video as Beast came to visit him."  That would be overkill, but I believe each needs a little bit of mention.  Just say something like, "Leech, a mutant child, is the source of the cure." AUburnTiger 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fight section (and Leech) 

message: After the credits, does Xavier talk to Moira telepathically? I wondered how he was able to have the same voice, but did he mindchat her? --Chris Griswold 07:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, because he sent his consciousness to a normal human body. Even if it was a mutant, who is to say that mutant body had the x-gene for telepathy. That is a gene, so he wouldn't keep it if he tranplanted his consciousness to another body. I think that was an error on there part, and also a hint for us to know that it was Xavier, by hearing his voice. Bignole 11:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was him, he in did in effect transfer his "essence" into the human host. And why are we discussing if he could talk with a mindlink or not, it's a movie with a guy who turns stuff to ice, and a girl who can walk trough walls. Is it one thing Marvel has thought me about their comics, anything is possible. Havok (T/C/c) 11:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question concerned how he could do it if his body was destroyed. He sent his mind into this comatose body, but he couldn't send his DNA into it. Since their powers derive from a mutation in the x-gene then his power of telepathy would have vanished with his brain. I think it was more for us to hear his voice and know he is still alive. Bignole 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Psylocke or Proteus?  Didn't they maintain their powers in other bodies they possessed. I think Marvel considers there's a mind body disconnect and mind related powers may still exist in absence of the body (i.e. astral projection and all).  I still think he spoke to her w/out a mindlink though. --Newt 12:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the Marvel world, and this is the film world. You can't interchange one thing for the other to support theories. Anyway, this discussion is rather mute because it isn't like it would be included in the article. To satisfy curiousity, since the films restrict the powers to a genetic abnormality/evolution then it becomes grounded in the DNA and cannot be taken with when the consciousness leaves. Also, astral projection requires a physical body to come back to. Xavier's body was completely destroyed, there is nothing to come back to, or to produce further telepathic powers (in the film universe). Bignole 15:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My explanation is no more speculation than yours, as I don't believe the films have ever explained how the X-gene works.  If you want to ground the (science fiction) films in actual science, it's going to be a while explaining what generates Arclights concussive blasts, where Madrox keeps the mass of his duplicates, how Pyro can increase the volume of fire and direct it... and so on.  I agree that it's moot. --Newt 16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure I saw the guys mouth move, but I think that using Patrick Stewart's voice was just the filmmaker's way of letting you know it was Xavier.  Other wise it'd be this: 
Guy's Voice:  Hello Moria
Moria:  Charles?
Audiecne:  She went crazy!  
It's like when Superman uses his fire-eyes thingy.  The people around him don't see it, but we do so we know it's happening and not just spontanious combustion.  AUburnTiger 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Though, I think we all had already agreed on it, and just wanted something else to talk about now that the movie is over and done with and the article is in clean up mode. Bignole 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I only brought it up because an editor added it to the plot summary. (But I was wondering, also, because a new body would not have Xavier's voice.) --Chris Griswold 04:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one way or the other it's impossible to prove.  But I stand by my original assesment.  Either way, I think it's something that shouldn't be in the summary since it's up to interruptation.   AUburnTiger 05:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telepathically? 

message: I am noticing that wikilinks are constantly being removed. Why is this? --Chris Griswold 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe another editor has removed some redundant links, per Manual of Style: Internal links. -- Tenebrae 00:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks 

message: I'll launch one now.  It should give us some fresh opinions about this article.--P-Chan 02:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you do that? Whom does the notice go out to? --Chris Griswold 06:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should explaine everything.  Wikipedia:Peer_review--P-Chan 06:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think it's time for a peer review 

message: I think the line about the ...Juggernaut, Bitch!! skit is misplaced, or the heading is incorrect for the section it's contained in.  It has nothing to do with the comics. I agree that it is notable, however. --Newt 14:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it to the casting section.--P-Chan 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Juggernaut, Bitch!!'' 

message: The new format allows comments be made in an organized manner beside each of the character/roles.  There seems to be a lot of character specific trivia that may not fit well into other sections, so this format might be better.--P-Chan 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Casting format 

message: What's with the bolding of all actors and character names in the article, see X-Men:_The_Last_Stand#X-Men ? --Oscarthecat 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Oscar.  Good to see you.  Actually, it should be on all of the characters and has been fixed now.  When all the descriptions have been filled in for each character, it would help to keep everything readable.  (Right now, though it looks awkward).--P-Chan 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: Tom Rothman, head of 20th Century Fox, has made comments to the effect that there will most likely be a fourth X-Men movie. {cite web | url=http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2006/01/fox_confirms_xmen_4.html | title=Fox Confirms X-Men 4 | publisher=The Movie Blog | accessdate=2006-06-06}}
::Despite the headline at this blog, Rothman does not say what this sentence says he says. Additionally, the sentence is speculative: "comments to the effect of" is an interpretation. Pls give his actual comments, which require not interpreation. Finally, this blog is quoting from another source. It's always best to go to the original source, not some removed-from-context quote-of-a-quote. -- Tenebrae 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally.  It shouldn't be there.--P-Chan 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well.  I tried to bring this up twice before, but with no response.  I also moved the paragraph it's contained in to the Possible sequel and spin-offs section but it since appears to have been moved back on this edit and I don't know if that was a malicious revert or what, but it seems to have been unnoticed if it was. --Newt ΨΦ 20:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rothman quote

message: I argue that not only are the "Ultimate" comic books themselves adaptations of the Marvel Universe characters, the mention of those series and characters is confusing to a non-reader of comics without explanation, something that would be awkward and unnecessary within the context of this article.
The section comparing the movie to the comics, should not include other adaptations, even including those within the same medium. I also ask to remove references to the animated series within the section. --Chris Griswold 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah go for it.  (Although the Juggernaut bitch should definetly be included somewhere in this article, even in a section by itself).  But in regards to the rest of the section, I think optimally, it should really only focus on the two primary themes (Phoenix and the Cure).  The reason I'm saying this is that there are a tons of tiny differences between the film and the comic, and we had no limits, the section could get all rambly.  I'm not too familar with X-Men canon, but is the Astonishing X-Men considered part of the main X-men storyline?  (The Wiki article on this, left me with questions).  If it is part of it and if you are familar with the "Gifted" story arc, I suggest you make an extensive expansion yourself.--P-Chan 01:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at what I did. It used to be just a series of FunFacts™ but now it has chesive paragraphs. Still not sure where mention of the awkward "Juggernaut Bitch" line in the movie should go, however.--Chris Griswold 21:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind; I got it. --Chris Griswold 21:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris - I'm concerned that such a big change  ought to have some comments as to what the aim was of such widespread modifications to the article. Perhaps you could clarify here? --Oscarthecat 21:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this conversation so far should clarify the goal. The section is about camparisons to the comics, so I removed the references to other adaptations, such as the cartoon and the Ultimate comics. As for the rest, this section had originally been a list, and it still read like it, so I made the paragraphs make more sense and flow better. Finally, I had to find a place for the Juggernaut Bitch bit, so I placed it with the Juggernaut. Is there anything you would specifically like to discuss? --Chris Griswold 23:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done.  I changed a few things that read oddly to me, but overall I'm impressed. --Newt ΨΦ 03:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate comics 

message: The "Movie continuity" section, added this morning by Menthys, seems to be overly wrought on speculation currently.  Anyone want to take a stab at making this a little less OR and speculation, if possible?  Is it necessary? --Newt ΨΦ 13:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems full of OR. Take it away. CovenantD 14:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Took it upon myself to do so -- I was just about to post to you both asking you to keep an eye out. --Tenebrae 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie continuity 

message: I was bothered how Kitty's powers were handled when she phased the Juggernaut into the floor of Worthington Labs. Wouldn't he instantly die once she released him as his body would have been molecularly fused with the floor? (Kitty used her powers this way a few times in the comics)  
Also in the movie it's stated that the Juggernaut is unstoppable only if he has momentum. When Kitty phases him into the floor, he's completely immobile. How would he have been able to break free? --Navstar 14:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Poor writing. --Chris Griswold 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained by the writers over at the X-Verse forums, Juggernaut is able to push the molecules of the floor away from his body. And in terms of him being unstoppable, I think that was just his own strength, which he must have. He's strong immobile, but unstoppable in motion. Evan 03:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If memory serves.  Juggernaut was given his powers by the Ruby of Cyttrak (sp?).  The magic allowed to become immortal, basically.  So in regards to the floor squeezing him to death.  The easiest answer would have to be "It's magic." --Mr Vain 15:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kitty / Juggernaut Problem 

message: What happened to her?? She just disappeared from the cast list!!!!!!! Lil Flip246 02:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omahyra Mota 

message: Everyone is talking about an X-Men 4 even though they have stated this movie The Last Stand is the last of a trilogy, what I think is this is an end of a trilogy the fight between the X-Men and Brotherhood in the next two movies I think it will be about the comming of Apocolypse and the union of the Brotherhood and the X-men. Thats why this movie is called the last stand- between the Brotherhood and the X-Men. just had to get that off my chest because everyone is talking about X4 and 5 like the same old and seems everyone forgot about Apocalypse. Apocalypse also made a minor appearance in an ending to X2: Wolverine's Revenge..hint hint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.130.150 (talk • contribs) 08:06 June 29, 2006
i think that was more about x-men legends 2 (which was about some quasi-age of apocalypse) as he kept cropping up being generally sinister at the end of x-men video games and going "i'm gonna get you etc" like some retarded scooby doo villain. still, legends 2 kicked arse. 87.112.193.156 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a messageboard 

message: when Logan is in the garden at Xaviers memorial and has a funky Phoenix moment, he falls to his knees. In the swirling leaves and debris a Bee lands on his left (our right) shoulder and crawls into a fold in his jacket. 
213.249.159.244 11:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you should discriminate against non-humanoid students.--Chris Griswold 13:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some pointless trivia i spotted 

message: This is probably a good example of material that would cause the article to lose focus.  In my opinion, the more stuff like this there is in a film article, the less valuable the article looks.  What would happen if the Star Wars article were to dedicat a quarter of it's space to errors and continuity issues?  It would look weak.  In order to keep the above changes, the author has to show or explain the encylopedic value of Jean's eyes, etc.  That's my 2 cents.  --P-Chan 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is probably a good example

message: In thinking about the whole issue of accessibility and "fan material" and encylopedic material... I really think it would be usefull to have a ROTS style Cast section, where a sentence or two would be used to explain who the character is.  I know it might be silly to explain the characters to fans of the comic, etc, but I'm willing to bet that a sentence or two would help a lot of people with this article.  Besides, who the characters are in the film, and the comic are very different in some cases.  I'll do a few of them and hope someone will join me.  --P-Chan 05:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done what I can, which is most of them, but the film doesn't really develop a number of the characters listed here, which makes it pretty clear how minor they are. --Chris Griswold 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast Section 

message: :Aaron Stanford as Pyro / John Allerdyce: Former Xavier Institute student Pyro can control fire and has recently learned to naturally create it. He holds a grudge against his former friend Bobby Drake.
I've just watched the film, and I saw some type of gadget at Pyro's wrist. This is visible at the last scene where he starts a fire (against iceman). I think this gadget generates a small fire that Pyro can, then, manipulate and amplify. Could someone please confirm that, and make the change? --CrazyTerabyte 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.--Chris Griswold 05:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyro can't create fire. 

message: There doesn't seem to be a source for it.  It's a quote in itself.--P-Chan 01:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 10 is kind of strange 

message: This article has been put for for a GA nomination.  Who ever makes the decision as to whether or not this articles passes, please examine the article closely and leave comments as to why you made the decision you did.  This article far from FA-level of quality, but I believe it has already reached a GA level.--P-Chan 04:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination 

message: Well referenced, broad, well-written. Congrats. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Good work, everyone. --Chris Griswold 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: What about all of the critics from the Fandome ? Gambit is one of the favorite x-men amongst fans and rouge should be a mature, sexy and determinent gal, for fast example. 89.1.249.53 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fandom Critics 

message: As Tawkerbot4 rightly notes in his revert, please do not make budget changes wtihout  citations. Wikipedia requires that information be verifiable. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Budget

message: I know this shouldn't be a bit-by-bit summary, but could someone add the scene where Xavier talks about the comatose man to the students, to give some context to the last scene where he transfers his mind to the comatose's body? --DrBat 00:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think showing the comatose man previous to the ending scene is trivial, at least as far as the plot is concerned.  --Newt ΨΦ 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending summary 

message: Jean Grey has been moved and is now listed under Brotherhood characters. Is it consensus that this remain so? --Chris Griswold 08:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jean Grey's allegiance 

message: :Image:Phoenixjean.jpg or :Image:Cap1410bw3hm.jpg
Which do you think is better? I prefer the second one, for having a closeup of Jean's face (I uploaded neither, btw). --DrBat 18:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Dark Phoenix 

message: It absolutely needs to be pointed out that:
*The patient in question is not just "comatose." He was born without any higher mental functions whatsoever.
*Early in the movie, Professor Xavier discusses in his classroom whether it would be ethically acceptable to occupy that particular patient's body. His doing so does not come as a total surprise, nor as Deus ex machina. He had been thinking about it.
*He does not "call out." He says very calmly: "Hello, Moira." Das Baz 16:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His return is such a minor point that I don't believe it needs to take up as much space as some of the more important plot elements. That he returns is alright to have in (although I know at least one editor has said above that it's not even that important), but to explain it in detail reveals that the whole thing was kind of tacked on. It certainly felt that way when I watched the classroom scene in the theater. --Chris Griswold 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tacked on or part of the plot from the start, it's a minor point in the overall plot. --Newt ΨΦ 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were a major plot point, it would not have been left as an easter egg for those who sat through the credits. --Newt ΨΦ 17:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was left as an easter egg so the fans wouldn't lynch the director.  It's so much against canon it isn't even funny.  I do not believe it was 'tacked on' either because there was a serious mention earlier in the movie.  Saying that Xavier was planning taking over the patient's body is pure speculation.  Xavier (to my knowledge) cannot foretell the future, so it is unlikely that he foresaw his demise.  So that leaves another conjecture as to why Xavier would be planning this -- that would be so he could walk again.  If this patient was born without any higher brain function, then chances are the muscles would be so atrophied he couldn't walk in that body either.  My opinion is that Xavier saw he was in a losing battle and just escaped into the convenient body.  I may have drifted away from my topic, but I don't think that Xavier had any intention of going into the body while he was discussing it in class.  The 'tacked on' ending is an apology to the fans who had to suffer through this inexcusably bad plot.  --Mr Vain 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Professor Xavier's Reincarnation

message: It absolutely needs to be pointed out that there are both major similarities and one crucial difference between the story of the X-Men in the movies and in the comics. In both of them (August 2006):
*Most mutants have lost their powers and have ceased to be mutants.
*Magneto is among those who have lost their powers.
*Professor Xavier is missing.
The big difference is that all three of these are blamed on Wanda the Scarlet Witch in the comics, whereas in the movies the first two are due to the Cure, and the third one to the Phoenix. Das Baz 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it "absolutely necessary" to include this information?  We can't really just take it at your word. --Newt ΨΦ 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though on a different note.  Those similarities are vague and I'm sure that if we catalogued every time a superhero loses his power in a comic book, the list will be immense.  Yes, the Scarlet Witch's story arc was important, but she isn't even mentioned in this movie.  And I feel that the similarities found are a bit forced.  Sorry. --Mr Vain 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comic Book and Movie Continuity

message: Regarding this edit, we're not talking about what the drug actually does (as much as a fictional drug can do much of anything, but still...). We're talking about what Magneto was saying would happen, which was part and parcel with his fear mongering (hence, not necessarily tied to reality). As such, the "exterminate the mutant race" bit is perfectly valid in that section (and that section only). I'm restoring the extermination line. EVula 18:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Extermination" means that it will kill mutants, but it does not. I have chaged it to reflect both our interests. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent compromise. Thanks. EVula 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The drug thing 

message: I strongly disagree with editor Griswold's initiative to undo my changes. The reason i have added the Alcatraz mention is that this island was the scene of the crucial battle, a plot element which should be mentioned. Furthermore, there is a picture depicting Jean Grey unleashing "her power at Alcatraz Island", and this comment should be supported by the summary. Therefore, until someone can provide me a serious argument Alcatraz location SHOULD NOT BE mentioned i will keep it there. Kamikaze 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to plot summary bloat, we have tried to keep the summary as concise as possible and thus have eliminated details less important to the plot. That the last battle takes place on Alacatraz Island is inconsequential; the location was changed several times before the actual shooting because of this, and the fact that it is Alcatraz does not affect anything in the plot whatsoever - it could have taken place anywhere. You'll notice there are many other details missing from the summary, many of which are much more prominently featured in the film than the location of the battle. To mention Alcatraz in a plot summary as condensed as this gives it undue attention because it is a minor element of the film. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please calm down; it was only about 16 minutes from your first talk page comment to your third. Not everyone is circling this article, waiting for changes. You may have to wait a while. I, on the other hand, have no life, and I did respond as soon as I saw your first comment; due to an edit conflict it didn't get posted until a few minutes agon. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Additionally, no one needs to explain their edits on the talk page until they are questioned. Yours were, so you came here. You questioned mine, so I did as well. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Understood. Hey, in the future, if you ever need anything, let me know. Just use the red phone. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you may be looking for is this. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I went through a day or two during which I linked to that excessiveley when I started editing. I finally realized that while it's cute, there are much better and less antagonistic/rude ways to get the point across. Kamikaze will have to learn that now. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcatraz Island 

message: "Senior actors Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen had their faces completely "de-aged" by co
:I don't see why that would matter.  Magneto had went through the Holocaust in the cannon of the comic books and the movies - shown in the first one and his tattoo in the third movie.  We know these men are old.  If the CGI effect was done, I would think it unnecessary. Besides, I don't think is this true.  All one has to do is see the final scene in the movie where the camera gives a close up of Magneto.  The bags under his eyes are ...well, huge. --Mr Vain 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for misunderstanding what was said.  As to the keyframing, I have no idea what it is so i can't weigh in on that subject. --Mr Vain 16:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CGI

message: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and a CD track listing is just not very enyclopedic, particularly in an article not about the album, but about the film upon which the album is based. Other sites are much more suited to such content. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD track listing 

message: When you put the DVD (widescreen) in your drive and check your volume listing, the disc is labeled 'STANFORD_BRIDGE'.  Does anyone know where this name comes from?  --69.140.217.90 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD name 

message: The article has this line Has porcupine-like spikes over his entire body which he can retract, or not.
I think it should read which he can extend or retract at will. or something similar.  Retracted seems to be his normal mode, at least in the movie, so retract or not sounds odd. 
Any other thoughts? Prometheus-X303- 05:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kid Omega (Quill) 

message: Tenebrae recently changed the "External links" section to be "References".  Why? I don't think the article is actually using the MySpace profile or IMDB website as references; the actual references are in the Footnotes section, meaning that the section is more accurate if named "External links". The cited guideline (ironically, WP:CITE) doesn't actually shed any light on this (unless I'm missing something). Just my two cents. EVula 18:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References / External links 

message: The character has been verified by the movie's creators on the DVD commentary as being Quill, and the credits are incorrect in labeling him Kid Omega.Rglong 10:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is, however, still credited as playing Kid Omega. You may notice that the the DVD says the commentary is not an official statement. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quill, not Kid Omega

message: The budget is given as $210 million at BoxOffice Mojo, which an editor added to the intro section with footnote. I've adjusted the budget figure in the infobox to match. For reference, I'm placing here the original cite for the earlier, $168 million budget figure:
cite news | last = Thompson| first = Anne| title = X-Men vs Superman| pages = 3| language = English| publisher = Reuters| date = 2006-08-18| url = http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2006-08-18T045739Z_01_N17336544_RTRUKOC_0_US-THOMPSON.xml| accessdate = 2006-10-06}}
--Tenebrae 18:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Budget

message: A recent edit removed the trivia section, see here. Ideally, the more interesting and relevant points ought to get integrated into the main body of the article, if anyone has time to try this. --Oscarthecat 17:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the trivia section as it is now--all of it was debatable: whether or not Kitty really seemed new was interpretation, Jean's quick death might be subject to any weakness from being in a coma for a few months or anything else, and so on... 163.153.64.30 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: The "comparison with other depictons" reeks stornly of original resaerch - advancing a viewpoint by stating the differences between the comics and the film.  For instnace, Wolverine's killing Jean Grey bears some similarity to his killing love interest Mariko Yashida is advancing an original comparison.  Please cite some sources on who besides WP believes this.  It's also written in much of an in-universe perspective (WP:WAF), which should be rewritten.  The "Novelization" could also be cut down a bit, too. Please resolve these issues or I will be nominating this article for Wikipedia:Good article review within two weeks.  Hbdragon88 07:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article review 

message: Why is Matt Singer listed as Colossus' Actor? IMDB and the DVD list Daniel Cudmore
Leistentreter 16:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colussus'  Actor?