Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand/Archive 2

message: The Last Stand is the last stand; there won’t be X-Men 4 so please stop posting it. The success of the last stand was a condition to make a Wolverine spin off which more likely going to happen.
:Somehow, I'm not quite sure.  I mean come on!  There's too much open-endedness in the third film to just end it here.  Jean Grey/Phoenix is dead, Professor X is dead, Cyclops is supposedly dead (only implied but not definite), Mystique lost her powers, Magneto somehow retained his despite being shot by four mutant anti-gens, Rogue went on a quest for the anti-gens herself so she could touch people without killing them, and they still haven't haven't showed any fights against giant Sentinels nor the big fight against Apocalypse as well as certain X-Men haven't yet made it into the films such as Gambit.  Maybe they'll touch upon these things in any of the spin-offs, but considering the past success of the X-Men films I doubt it's going to stop in the main series of films at number three.  Just a hunch since Hollywood has a long history of making it look like the third movie in a series is the last but continue to make more of them.  There's production OR rumors (sometimes I don't know which) for a fifth Lethal Weapon, a fifth Alien (possibly a sixth too), a fourth Mad Max, a Spider-Man 4 and 5, yada yada yada.  Some of these films, especially the Alien flicks, tried to stop at number three but somehow managed to hit numbers four or five and possibly further than that.  Besides, I'll have to say that the sub-title, The Last Stand, isn't definitively the last film entry to the series.  Video games have done the same thing.  Look at the Tomb Raider games, the fourth title was called Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation making it look to people as if that was it.  But if that was the case, then why do we have a fifth, sixth, and just recently a seventh entry to the series?  The movie industry is pretty much the same in that regard.  Still you may be right about the continuation of X-Men movie storylines in spin-offs, but let's not automatically write off the possibility of an X-Men 4. Vgamer101 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Professor X isn't dead. Jean, Cyclops, and Phoenix are not essential to the story. Magneto retained his powers because the effects are either only temporary or don't effect more powerful mutants. Patrick Stewart, Brett Ratner, the screenwriters, and other cast-members have said several times that there will be more sequels if this one does well at the box office. X:Men - The Last Stand is the conclusion of these storylines, but won't be the final film in the series. This question has been asked and answered time and time again to and by every member of the cast and crew.
First of all, Magneto was injected with antibodies, not antigens.  An antigen is any compound that elicits an immune response.  Second, if in fact it was an antibody (Ab) such as IgG, it is only temporary and the effects would not be permanent.
Are you sure that it was antibodies and not antigens?  I could have sworn I heard them called antigens.  I may be wrong though.  I'm not an absolute genetic science nut so I wouldn't know.  No matter what the antibody does to their powers it's an undeniable fact that at least a good share of them would regain their powers any way you look at it.  I don't really think a lot of fans could really imagine Mystique without being able to shapeshift.  Also, I have to ask how you know that Professor X isn't dead.  Was there something in the film I missed or is there some parallel to the comics that I don't know about?  Although Cyclops and Jean/Phoenix can be considered non-essential to the story they're still among the better known X-Men characters.  Besides they'd probably come back for a possible fourth film considering the Phoenix can resurrect and we didn't actually see Cyclops die. Also, according to the X-Men 3 section of boxofficemojo.com the sales rang up at $107 million dollars opening weekend which is just $7 million less than Spider-Man 1 at it's opening weekend ($114 million). X3 apparently cost $210 million and it's already recouped a little more than half of that in it's opening weekend so we're looking at a smash hit here with another entry more than likely going to happen.  Oh and sorry for analyzing of a fourth flick, it's just that I'm a little flustered by all the unanswered questions that this movie gave off.  As for any of the comments by Patrick Stewart or Brett Ratner about series continuation, I didn't hear about any of that.  I just never happened across those comments.  Vgamer101 02:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: Professor X — there's an additional scene after the credits that puts a different spin on his apparent death.  I won't spoil it here on the talk page, but it's in the article summary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone else noticed the similarity between the after-credits scene and the one in the video during Professor X's lecture (in which Moira introduces the braindead man) on the ethics of things like mind transplants?  Can anyone verify that it's the same guy? Orthografer 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Men 4 

message: The plot summary has a tendency to expand to ludicrous proportions.  Please keep in mind this is a summary, and it's not very effective nor necessary to list every single action that happens in the move or describe scenes in detail.  Compare this page's summary to the first X-Men movie's.  WesleyDodds 05:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I have seen this movie, I may be condensing this summary to a respectable lenth. I warn you: It may be bloody. --Chris Griswold 09:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it dude.  Get out the chainsaw!--P-Chan 02:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary bloat 

message: I don't know how to spell it, but since his ability is based on gaining momentum even if he lost his powers meters form the wall he would have broken through it :d Wolfmankurd 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the information above: This is a talk page for discussion of the article about X-Men 3. It is not for discussion about the film itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not X-Men 3 is a "good" or "bad" film; or finding out what "this and that" is.--Chris Griswold 17:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juggernaut 

message: "A Wolverine spin-off[3] and a Magneto spin-off [4] have been announced and are in the scripting stages of production. The Magneto spin off will follow the story of a young Magneto as he befriends Charles Xavier. The Wolverine spin-off will continue the story of Wolverine's search for his past." Do we need this? As they are mentioned in the Box at the bottom. Also, should we remove the "posters" section, and just place them as images (with comments) in the article. I think the "Cast" box needs to be considerably cut down, or, have only the main actors (Wolverine, Magneto, Xavier etc.) on this page and then creating a new article "Cast of X-Men: The Last Stand", again I am not really confident in all this, so I wanted to ask everyone, however if no one else wants to do it I will. I think the "Novilization" section should just become a link in a new "See Also" section, along with the game. I also agree, we need to chop down that as well, it is a Summary after all! What do you think? Help plz 19:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut the the Cast section, definitely.  We don't need to know who played the family in the minivan.  WesleyDodds 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just culled it to the president, as I recognised the actor who played him, although if someone wants to remove him I have no qualms. Help plz 00:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also removed the posters section and placed them elsewhere in the article, imo it looks better, what do you think? Help plz 00:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Cluttered

message: I don't think this section belongs in the article at all, and should be removed. Havok (T/C/c) 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though instead of total removal, perhaps merging it with trivia would be better? I also think the trivia section should be rewritten (I'll look into it now), as it just doesn't seem as clear as it could be. Whta do you think? Help plz 15:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Goofs  section does not belong in Wikipedia. It's not encyclopedic; every movie has them, and they are of less interest to non-fans than even regular trivia. --Chris Griswold 17:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed it. Help plz 19:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, I just removed the entire section; I hadn't even seen this. Both items were fairly bogus, which I noted in my edit summary. EVula 23:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goofs 

message: I just removed the sentances describing the Magneto and Wolverine films, and replaced them with links to the appropriate pages, becasue as more information is gathered on the films, it will be added there, and not to this article. Help plz 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequel Section

message: Was she in the film? I belive she played the Stepford Cuckoo's in the background because she is a blonde and all of them are blonde? Any Thoughts?--Dil 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beverley Mahood

message: Hey guys, just saw the film and in the credits noticed that Jubilee was in the film. I cant remember seeing her can someone help me out?? Maybe we need to add her to the cast of characters in the article Soundabuser 11:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, no, if we start doing that we will end up with a list like before! it was terrible! If you want, make a seperate article "Characters in X-Men: The Last Stand" and copy the table before my edit yesterday. Then just leave the main (wolverine, Magneto, Phoenix etc.) in this article. Help plz 18:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Help plz's unilateral creation of Cast of X-Men: The Last Stand despite consensus otherwise just creates overlapping information in two different places. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Cast guidance don't preclude a complete cast list. Since only one other person objects to that, Wikiepdia policy is to go with the consensus of several editors. -- Tenebrae 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok but who was she in the film I dont actually remember seeing her?? Soundabuser 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jubilee

message: I changed the plot summary to reflect Jean's psychokinesis which was portrayed by the lifting of cars and lawn mower in the neighborhood around her.  I didn't see her reading anyone's minds that I can remember.Newt 15:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in that same scene, Prof. X chides her reading his mind, saying it's not polite. You might want to go back to adjust the edit.--Tenebrae 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Young Jean Grey

message: Regarding the edit that moved the critics from the lead:  I cited my Wikipedia guideline re: film critics above on this Talk page. Next time please check such things before making broad changes to an article: Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand#Critical_Response. Per Wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Article_body I'm rv'ing the edit. -- Tenebrae 17:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: User:Mareino

message: The reason I've changed "External links" to "References" comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.) 
1)
:Complete citations in a "References" section
:Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work.
2) 
:External links/Further reading
:The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Where there is a references section, editors may prefer to call the external links section "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further reading section may contain items that are not online.
So sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. — Tenebrae 13:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: uh... perhaps I'm missing something, but the current "References" section strikes me as an "External links" section, as per the two definitions you've quoted (I don't recall those sites, such as TheXverse.com and XMenfilms.net, being used as references). I'm behind the old "References" section getting renamed "Footnotes", but I'm restoring the "External links" section. EVula 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; some of those should indeed go under External links. But the official site and info from Yahoo Movies have been used as basic article sources, and The Numbers was specifically noted, so let's put them under "References". Now see? THIS is civil collaboration, and I thank you for it EVula! -- Tenebrae 14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; that was far too civil. Next time I'll make sure to call you a pompous dictator for enforcing your iron will over Wikipedia, and that I'll take this to Jimbo himself. Will that work better? ;) EVula 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if anything I said offended you; I thought I was being direct and polite. And I'm sure your friend Jimbo will be very happy to see you use terms like "pompous dictator". Have a nice day. --Tenebrae 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "References" vs. "External links"

message: I'm of the opinion that Ben Foster, Daniel Cudmore, Ellen Page, Mei Melançon, and Kea Wong should not be listed in the Starring section of the infobox; however, CyclopsAngelGambit is reverting my edits. I'm posting this to gather a consensus on the state of those names. EVula 20:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally in American movies and probably worldwide, anyone listed in the opening credits is considered a main character. -- Tenebrae 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Starring" in infobox 

message: * Cut the Plot down.  It's way too big.  If people want to know exactly what's in the movie, they can watch the movie itself.  The themes and plot of the film should be emphasized at the heavy heavy expense of details.
* Cut down the Cast section.  The point of the cast section is not to list every person in the film, as the credits fill that role.  If you can't think of two sentences to talk about the person, then you may want to consider removing that person.
* Start shrinking the trivia section.  Good articles shouldn't have trivia in them.  Try to find a home for those points elsewhere in the article.
My 2 cents. --P-Chan 03:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you there.--P-Chan 14:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions to moving this article forward 

message: User:82.153.17.59 seems to believe that there is an excessive amount of commas and that they slow the flow of the article. My argument is that excessive "and"s slow the flow, and rearranging the order of a sentence and adding more words just to remove commas is what is slowing the article. In my opinion, commas are used to speed the article up, because they limit the amount of words you need, otherwise you have "and this and this and this and this". Other editor's thoughts? Bignole 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar/Punctuation

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Tagline:
:As a general rule don't include taglines in an article. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". However, if a particular tagline was a significant part of the cultural influence of the film, create a section for it and describe its effects. For example, none of the many taglines for Wes Craven's New Nightmare deserve mention. On the other hand, discussing Jaws 2 without mentioning "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..." would be a glaring omission.
--Tenebrae 15:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Film policy on taglines

message: Can we really put Wolverine and Magneto's spin-offs in the "followed by" section? Followed by is usually attributed to chronological order, and at least Magneto's have been stated to be a history of his childhood fighting the Nazis. Secondly, they aren't really sequels to the X-Men films, so they don't really follow them anyway. Should they not be kept in the "Possible Sequels/Spin-offs" section of the article? Bignole 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even sure they should be listed, since they're pretty early in development and could conceivably have details altered (like they decide they want adult Magneto) or could be scrapped entirely.  WesleyDodds 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from what I gather the two are in preproduction. But, you are right they could be scrapped altogether, but I think with X3's big weekend I doubt that will happen. But, I really don't see the actual connectedness to say "followed by" and you can't add a "spin-off" section to the info box, so i think they should just stay in the "sequel/spin-off" section of the article. Bignole 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Magneto and Wolverine are supposedly going to be Prequels.  It doesn't make sense to have them in the "Followed by" section, especially if an X4 is made.  For now, there should not be a followed by section.  Niether future movie is going to take place after X3 as far as we've heard.  AUburnTiger 06:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, they might not take place after this film, but were they released before it? No? That means, should they be released, they will follow this film. For instance, Phantom Menace follows Return of the Jedi. --Chris Griswold 11:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have a prequel than the prequel should not follow a sequel, even if it is released afterward. Followed by is usually meant to indicate the sequel to that particular movie. 1. Neither are sequels to this movie, because in most discussion of what they are going to be about it is usually character backstory from well before the first Xmen movie. 2. They aren't even related except in the fact that they contain the character from the movies. Since they aren't sequels or prequels to these films they really don't belong in the infobox. Bignole 14:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Also, the "Preceded by" section isn't meant to list every movie, just the immediate one prior. I'll fix that, too. EVula 14:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, I didn't even notive the preceeded by, but, you're right about that as well. Thanks. Bignole 15:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went with X2: X-Men United over X2; it isn't the official name (more of a subtitle), though. That work for everyone? EVula 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I am changing it to the official title. --Chris Griswold 20:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, could that have come off as more rude? You couldn't have simply said "I think it would be best to use the official title." Bignole 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was replying to EVula's question. Use the appropriate number of colons please. --Chris Griswold 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good for me, I always considered it the former anyway. Bignole 15:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't edit my personal discussion posts, that is rude. As long as you can clearly see my post then it isn't a problem. Otherwise you'll have posts that don't start till the other side of the screen if you continually put more colons each time you repost. Anyway, I wasn't calling you rude, I said what you said came off as rather rude; it doesn't matter if it was directed at me (which I knew it wasn't) or Evula, it was still rather blunt. Anyway, no need to cause something to start up. It's over and done with. You've changed it and it is fine now. Bignole 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. I returned your comment to the way it originally was (with only two colons), and I have moved my comment to where it should have gone, along the rest of the resulting thread. I hope that fixes things. --Chris Griswold 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Followed by 

message: Still can't see why this wouldn't be considered trivia? If you watch the movie, it does in fact have the "PS3" on the back of Iceman's seat in the jet, BUT you never see the other seats (although we can assume they are listed differently numerically). Not to mention, the fact that the next scene directly afterwards the jet sequence shows the two kids playing on a Playstation console directly could be a link. If this doesn't belong in the trivia section, then where does it? If anything...remove the "subliminal advertising" tag and then denote the rest being trivia which it really is. --Arkham316 14:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playstation Reference Not Trivia 

message: ====Re: Mediation====
We've both had some time off, which is healthy, and what with the Mediator asking us to work out our differences, I'm extending a hand. I propose we find a compromise solution that  we each may not find perfect but which we both feel is accurate and reasonable. I hope and believe we can do this, and I look forward to putting our differences and hyperbolic language aside and working together. Please contact me. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 21:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CC of post to User:Facto

message: We've both had some time off, which is healthy, and what with the Mediator asking us to work out our differences, I'm extending a hand. I propose we find a compromise solution that  we each may not find perfect but which we both feel is accurate and reasonable. I hope and believe we can do this, and I look forward to putting our differences and hyperbolic language aside and working together. Please contact me. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 21:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Mediation

message: This is one reversion User:Facto of a disputed section awaiting mediation: 
:Revision as of 19:54, 2 June 2006
I'm returning it to Critical reception to its disputed state pending conclusion of mediation. --Tenebrae 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1R

message: This is the first discussion on Wikipedia I have seen in which more than one person is being relentlessly uncivil. We have things like Wikipedia:Wikiquette for a reason: it is apparent from this page, for instance, that some people just do not want to work together and get along. Assume good faith and trust that we all want to work toward a good, unbiased article; cease the snide remarks and sarcasm, neither of which help us toward our goal; state clearly and concisely what it is you think we should do and why; and don't be a dick. Otherwise, no administrator will look kindly on the way you have handled yourselves so far. --Chris Griswold 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really hope this wasn't prompted by my comments above; I thought what I said was pretty obviously facetious, but if anyone took it at face value, I'd be more than happy to retract it... EVula 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EVula was kind enough to leave a note on my talk page saying this also, so I absolutely take him or her at his or her word that he or she was being facetious. (Boy, do we need a gender-neutral pronoun!) His or her clarifying took fortitude, and that's something we all can appreciate. -- Tenebrae 15:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "He", for the record. EVula 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See: Sie and hir. And no, I hadn't even noticed EVula's comments. BECAUSE THEY DON'T MATTER!!! Now. who's being facetious? --Chris Griswold 16:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The awful tone of this discussion 

message: Ouch ouch ouch headache... I just read through the whole bit on the Critical review... and all I have to say is... wow that's a lot of reading. :)  We should probably solve this quickly, and then archive all this stuff, as it is soaking up valuable Talk Time in this article.  Anyways, based on Wiki policy and examples, I think the answer here is pretty clear: in that the suggestion to remove all critical reviews from the article is just plain wrong.
#It would violate a key Feature Article priniciple:  2(b) "comprehensive", which means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details.
#Also, every single FA film article has a critical reception section in one form or another.  To delete that section, would simply go against every example in the past.  
#Removing this section would also raise questions about the neutrality of the article:  FA 2c)  
Instead, I think you should have a mix of reviews.  Let's look at just the big picture:
*Rotten Tomatoes= 54% positive
*Meta Critic= 58 "Mixed or average reviews"
It's obviously mixed.  No other way of looking at it.  So at the very least, there should be either be 2P:2N reviews... or maybe 3P:2N reviews.
When choosing the reviews, make sure you cover all the bases and that the combination of reviews matches the type of film you are reviewing.  For example, the reviews for V for Vendetta (film) have a political component and a comic authenticity component because that was the kind of film it was.  On the other hand, the reviews for Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, had to contend with the expectations of Star Wars fans and the expectations of earlier films.  X-Men 3 may or maynot be different.  For example, it may or may not, have a politcal component that people comment on, or a comic book authenticity component in the criticism, or this film might just be another popcorn film.  (I have no clue, as I haven't read through the reviews in any great detail).
And in any case, don't expect what you put down now to stay when the Feature Article review comes around.  Afterall, it's only 2 weeks after the release of the film!  Things will change, so take it easy everyone!  That's my 2 cents. --P-Chan 02:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You took time and did a lot of research that shows great care for the film and the article. I know I'm far from alone in saying thank you. -- Tenebrae 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Review: Let's find a solution FAST