Talk:X-Men (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Trek

Removed Star Trek paragraph...just because Patrick Stewart was in Star Trek and X-Men I see no reason to place this information in X-Men "film" category.


Lensherr?

Why is he referred to in this plot summary as Lensherr and not Magneto? Evan Reyes 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Slime in the movie?

When Senator Kelly gets the beach after escaping from Magneto, a boy is playing something. What's that exactly? Is it hinting at Kelly's mutant ability? Any official source mentioned it? --Mato Rei 06:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a jelly fish that got washed up on the beach, he's picking on it by poking it with a stick, which is why his sister is getting mad at him.Rglong 07:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Jelly fish? Thanks! I didn't expect that the answer would come out in the archived page. --Mato Rei 12:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Speculation?

"Although it is stated that the radiation device used by Magneto has no effect on mutants, it is clearly the cause of Jean Grey's stronger powers in the second movie.."

Is there a DVD commentary or interview to verify this theory? Without it, this point is just speculation and should be deleted.--DMD 16:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It fractured the barriers in her mind which Xavier made to control her. Thus her ulterior personality was given more control

Yoda921 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Yoda


In the Easter Egg of the scene with Spiderman coming out, that isn't Jackman in the orangey black spiderman suit. Before the camera cuts off, you can see Jackman walking onto the stage there claping from the joke. So the paragraph in the main article should be changed, it wasn't Jackman at all.



I believe that Toad's (Ray Park) twirling of the pole when battling Storm, Jean Grey and Cyclops is a reference to his role as Darth Maul in Star Wars - Episode One. I don't have anything to support this, but the airing of this movie on FX's DVD on TV hints at it. Paul 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

With reference to the previous comment, 3:18 into this montage is the clip with the pole. 85.210.49.160 15:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Interview with Ray Park where he is asked about the reference. 85.210.49.160 15:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I just checked my DVD of the first film and it seems to be dead on for Toad and the pole spin

LadySatine 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

There's no mention or evidence anywhere that Magneto's machine affects Jean Grey. It is more obvious and likely that her powers are set loose after she uses Cerebro (the other characters repeatedly warn her that she's not ready to use it and that it is dangerous).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on X-Men (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on X-Men (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

I saw some spurious entries added to the cast list, so I deleted them. Would have been fun if Tina Fey and Tom Wilkinson had been in this film, though.

I was just trying to start over

I was going to have a definitive history on the project, then someone deleted it. Probably should have warned everyone one. Oh well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildroot (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's all well and good, but you deleted the whole thing. It's unnecessary and just shows disregard for work. The article isn't in a total state of disrepair. Little expansions here and there is ok. Alientraveller 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, if you keep deleting my info, please tell me. I supply my statements with facts, sources, etc. User: Wildroot 19.23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's called copyediting. Alientraveller 20:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's called annoying and useless. Blah.User: Wildroot 10:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section is supposed to be the plot of the film, not a step by step creatively written account of the film.

Can we please change it to outline the plot… Pinothyj (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)…

What? Alientraveller (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:X-Men (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Well done.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the Development section, it would be best if "Carolco Pictures", "Academy Award", "20th Century Fox", "Avi Arad", "Stan Lee", "Lauren Shuler Donner", "X-Men: The Animated Series", "The Usual Suspects" were linked once, per here. Same with the Casting section, "Keanu Reeves", "Edward Norton", and "Ian McKellen" are linked twice. Same section, "TRL" needs to italicized.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to Gary K. for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:X-Men (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Hello there, I am Wildroot and noticed this article went to GA status. I have brought over 15 film articles to GA status, including X2 (film). A long time ago, (late 2007), I worked on the X-Men (film) article. Most of what is on the article currently is the work of me and User:Alientraveller. This was back when I was a terrible editor, nowhere near the greatness of where I am today.

I have respect for User:Gary King, he has reviewed a lot of my own articles to get them to GA status. I'm not sure why he nominated this article. The lead section is unbearably long and doesn't contain all the information in the article. The plot section is mildly long (not that big of a problem), most of the reports in the casting section is by phony-boloney internet rumors and reports.

I intend to start from scratch on this article (sort of) and use it as my next project to GA status. I created a subpage months ago (User:Wildroot/X-Men). There's so much other info out there that still needs to be put in this article.

I'll give this a couple of days, see what other wikipedians think. And then it will be decided to drop this article from GA status.

Feel free to state your position on delisting this article from GA status by *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia:Good article criteria.
  • Support For obvious reasons above. —Wildroot (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the delisting. I was surprised to see this listed as a Good Article, and I think that it is not up to par. What strikes me as particularly amiss is actual production information (especially costume design and visual effects), the themes of prejudice and discrimination as mentioned in the lead section without citation, and its role as one of the forerunners of the superhero film genre. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Likewise, and the article doesn't use the X-Men 1.5 DVD information at all either. Alientraveller (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it has been a couple of days like I promised and the consensus is 3-0. This article will probably be back up to GA status anyway within a couple of weeks. I have already started working on it.—Wildroot (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Although it is likely this will return to GA status soon, in the future, GA reassessments should take place at the main page for that purpose. I don't disagree with the consensus, but for future references, please refer to the main page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations for use

  • Chris Petrikin (1999-09-16). "Fox shuffles X-Men and Anna". Variety.
  • Michael Fleming (1999-10-07). "NL scores Demme's Blow". Variety.
  • Chris Petrikin (1999-10-11). "Aussie Jackman jumps into Singer's X-Men pic". Variety.
  • Vanessa Torres (1999-10-18). "Swain signs to top Tart for Interlight". Variety.
  • Marc Graser (1999-12-08). "Seven f/x houses will share X-Men duties". Variety.
  • Scott Holleran (2006-06-02). "Close-Up: X-Men's James Marsden". Box Office Mojo.
  • ""X" Marks the Sprocket" (PDF). Alter Ego. TwoMorrows Publishing. May 2006. pp. 9–16.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:X-Men (film)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Cast
  • Unreferenced. I know plot can be unreferenced. Is this the same with cast sections?

Yes it is same with cast sections. Wildroot (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Development
  • "Meanwhile, Avi Arad got the animated X-Men TV series produced by Fox Kids." The verb to get is a poor English verb, partly because it has so many meanings. Is there an alternative word or an alternative way of wording this sentence.

I'm sorry I don't get what you are trying to say Wildroot (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, it has been passed. Wildroot (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Design and effects
  • "She couldn't drink wine, use skin creams, or fly the day before, or her body chemistry would change just enough to cause all 110 prosthetics to fall off." This looks like a quote. Should it be?

It is not a quote Wildroot (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  • ""I had almost no contact with the rest of the cast; it was like I was making a different movie from everyone else. It was hell."" This is a quote yet isn't attributed to anyone. Who said it?

I thought the reader would obviously recognize it to be Romijn but I'll change it. Wildroot (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Music
  • "Michael Kamen was eventually hired." Could do with a reference.

You don't need a reference for that because it's listed in the closing credits. That would be like needing a reference for Bryan Singer. Wildroot (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
  • "with the consensus that the story "story [is] faithful to the comic books and, while the movie may be too Wolverine-centered, it packs a freaky punch that is sure to excite the average summer moviegoer"." Need to delete one use of story. I'll leave it up to you because I'm not sure if it should be the one in quotes or not.

Done Wildroot (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A really good article. Well done. However, I'll leave it on hold, pending the points above. Peanut4 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Passes all the criteria. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rouge Hurting Wolverine

How did Rouge hurt Wolverine? Shouldn't his healing have replaced whatever she took out? Also, why did his wounds reopen? Emperor001 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

animation

i want to see how they use the technology to create seen of all mutants —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.105.95 (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Kitty Pryde cameo

I am surprised there isn't a mention of Sumela Kay as Kitty Pryde. Is it hard to find a source for it? Jhenderson 777 20:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Addition of false information

An IP hopper from Brazil has been adding unsourced additions of staff credits and cast members using the following IP addresses: 201.19.80.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 201.19.117.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 201.19.117.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 201.19.200.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 201.19.100.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). A couple of examples can be clearly seen (here, and the most recent one is here). Should we leave the false information out of the article? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X-Men_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1111052955"