Jump to content

Talk:X-Men: Days of Future Past/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Confirmed Roles

Adan Canto has confirmed that he is playing Sunspot. (source: http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a494134/x-men-days-of-future-past-adan-canto-confirms-sunspot-role.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.185.194 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Fake Castings

For this movie each casting was announced on Bryan Singer himself on his Twitter account [1]. Every casting that was not announced by Singer is fake. Just like the Eric West casting reported on Apr. 24, 2013 [2]. --212.23.103.42 (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

McAvoy/Cumming

James McAvoy recently mentioned in an interview with heat radio that Alan Cumming would be returning for the film - ~4:55 timestamp. However, I can't find any other source that confirms or denies Cumming's involvement with the film. Furthermore, he also mentions Peter Dinklage as "something that might be happening", which indicates that he doesn't have the best knowledge of what is going on with the film. If anything, it could just mean that Alan Cumming has been in talks to return, which by no means indicates he will in fact return.

Should we take his statement as a confirmation that Nightcrawler will appear in the film, or wait for any further developments?
LoveWaffle (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I say wait for the official announcement from Bryan Singer or straight from the Alan Cumming's mouth.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
And it's been confirmed he won't return. - [3]
LoveWaffle (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

put Peter Dinklage as Bolivar Trask or not till actually confirmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.123.136 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Deadline article says that Bryan Singer tweeted that Fan Bingbing will portray Blink; however, it doesn't appear that he made such a tweet. One someone can find the tweet, that will be the source that she's portraying Blink, but until then, I'll include her with Dinklage, Sy, and Stewart as "unspecified".
LoveWaffle (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

He didn't tweet that she was playing Blink, he tweeted that she was in the film and then the news broke that she was playing Blink. Just a bit of a misprint on Deadline's part. This Hollywood Reporter article is a bit more clear on the matter, I'll change the source to that. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The Hollywood Reporter also cites Bryan Singer's tweeter as a source, but he never tweeted such thing. It's still unknown which character Bingbing will play. The Hollywood Reporter just passed on the information found in Deadline, which is false since Singer never tweeted anything about Blink. 201.13.50.223 (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The Hollywood Reporter article does not cite Singer's tweet as the source of the information, it breaks the information itself, and then mentions that Singer broke the news of the actress' involvement in the film with his tweet. The writer for THR, Borys Kit, actually broke the news on his own twitter before Deadline published its story, so to presume that he is "just passing on information found in Deadline" seems a bit illogical. As reliable sources the trades do their due diligence, and a misprint from one of the them (Deadline in this case) doesn't necessarily invalidate the information from all of them. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Borys Kit himself says "I have it confirmed. Unless of course, the person who told me was misinforned, which can happen with non-geeks in Hollywood." [4] which to me sounds like a non official source. He also adds "I had heard she was going to play Psylocke but I guess not." [5] Based on that conflicting information, I wouldn't call this source reliable. I'd rather wait for an official statement.201.13.50.223 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Right, and that's just him interacting with readers after the fact, providing a caveat and earlier hearsay. None of it conflicts with what was written and published. We have two separate industry trades reporting that she's playing Blink here, and although there was a misprint in the Deadline article there's no reason to disregard THR. -Fandraltastic (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the THR writer himself admits his source might be misinformed is enough to disregard the information. All we've got is an unofficial source for THR (one who might be misinformed by their own words) and a tweet that Bryan Singer never posted. All other sources are just citing Deadline and the fake tweet as a source as well. But to each their own. I'll wait for an official statement. Thanks for the attention. My regards.201.13.50.223 (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
But again "unofficial source" is just your terminology (not even really sure what that term is supposed to mean, either he has a source that would know or he doesn't). If he had any reasonable doubt he wouldn't have printed the story as fact, this is a respected trade magazine, not a blog. The tweet you're mentioning here just looks like a typical "every once in a while these things get reported wrong" caveat to a reader. He even starts it off with "I have it confirmed". The important thing here is the article, that's what he's putting out there as fact to his circulation. But I'm really not too bothered about it either way, if you guys want to remove it from the article based on some tweets so be it. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hellfire Club

Shouldn't it say somewhere how they won't be returning, even though it seems they were initially intended to? 24.65.100.96 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Rachel?

So there was advanced notice of casting Bingbong's and Booboo's but no mention of Rachel? You would think they would try to get more central characters cast before giving actor de jours a roll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.30.187 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Updating the page

hello, just thought I would let you guys know that you have Omar Sy and Booboo Stewarts Character for this Movie on there personal Profiles (Sy is Lucas Bishop and Stewart is James Proudstar), just thought I would let you know so you can update this page with that information or if for whatever reason you find that information to be incorrect (which it shouldn't be but in case it is) change there pages to take out that information. on Brian Singers Twitter he has a video showing that the Characters James Proudstar and Bishop will appear in the movie (by showing Chairs that the Actors will sit in) and I think he has announced that those are the official actors, so yeah just thought I would let you guys know so that any changes that should/need to be made are made. just trying to help out and stuff so yeah. 75.85.116.220 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

the characters Bishop and Warpath are confirmed to be in the film, yes. Sy and Stewart are actors in the film. But those characters have not been officially attributed to those actors yet. That's why it's not in this article. || Tako (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

ok. like I said just thought I would let you know because its on each persons personal page that thats who they are playing (on Sys page it says hes playing Bishop and on Stewarts Page it says hes playing Warpath as I stated previously) so you guys can go and fix that information then or whatever if it needs to be fixed. in other words there might be some kind of mix-up on one of the pages and so it requires fixing, and I thought I would let you guys know of the problem so that way it can be fixed in whichever way it needs to be. 75.85.116.220 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Adan Canto confirmed on his twitter that he is play Roberto da Costa/ Sunspot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MulhollandJr (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

just saying I'm not a mod or admin or anything on here but I just checked his Twitter account and I found no such mention of it on his twitter. so he either deleted it or something is going on here. if you saw it could you please provide a link to the tweet? 98.154.187.240 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 June 2013

Samurai meatwad (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2013

Ryanmarshall2001 (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Adan Canto as Sunspot

This news came out earlier today talking about Adan Canto "confirming" he is portraying Sunspot in the film. However, the source cites a Tweet from Canto's Twitter account that has since been removed. I'd say to hold off on adding that the actor is portraying that character for now until a statement from a more official source is made.
LoveWaffle (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the news came out on the 27th (there's an IP message a few posts up about it). I checked and saw the tweet around then, but it's pretty inconclusive and doesn't really verify anything. It did not explicitly say he's playing Sunspot. So, yep, wait for an official (or at least, verifiable) source. || Tako (bother me) || 23:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the Cast Section

Saw that the cast section was recently split into "Past" "Future" and "Other" sections. I don't think this is necessary at the moment, especially when we don't know exactly how all these characters will play out in the film. This is evidenced by the very existence of the "Other" category, and the misplacement of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine in the "Future" section. I could see the cast being divided like this closer to when the film releases next May, but until then we need to wait until things are a bit clearer.
LoveWaffle (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

If we are gonna split the cast section, it should be "1973 characters" and "modern-day characters".--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd think something like this:
With this, it wouldn't matter the time period, but rather in which film they debuted. I think this paints a much clearer picture in terms of the characters; and then each individual character would be described if they're from a certain time period (such as Wolverine coming from the future according to a report). Also keep in mind that the Cast section is about the cast - not about the characters, it must be from a real-world perspective; things like "from the 1970s" are pretty in-universe. || Tako (bother me) || 00:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think we should separate the new characters. The articles for the other X-Men movies didn't separate the returning and new characters. The cast should be split up in terms of which time period they came from. Even if Wolverine time-travels to the 1970s, he should still be included in the modern-day period because he came from that period.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
When the majority of the cast is from two separate "series" within the same franchise - why not split it? Splitting it by the era they're from doesn't make much sense, that kind of information is fit for the plot summary, or for each character's description. Any specific reason for choosing the in-universe perspective? || Tako (bother me) || 01:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Since when X-Men: First Class became a separate series? its a misconception from people. It was a prequel to the original X-Men trilogy. Not a separate series--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with LoveWaffle. The divisions aren't necessary at the moment, at least. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Until we know more about the story then the cast section should not be split. We don't know anything about what time periods and what the story is going to be. Till we do, let's keep it merged. But it may be worth a mention about them reprising their roles as older/younger versions of the same character. -- MisterShiney ✉ 08:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Disagree with the split, as I believe the characters should be listed in order of importance, not era. Here's the link to WikiProject Film's MoS to help participants in the discussion take a decision in accordance with the guidelines. Hula Hup (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
So, what's happening with this split? Are we agreeing to get rid of it? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2013

Josh Helman has been confirmed as William Stryker, Jr. Should he not be included on the list of roles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisflistal (talk • contribs) 11:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Posters

I don't know how to upload photos, but I'll point out the official posters for the film have been released. - [6]
LoveWaffle (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Premise

What if Fox never releases a premise? All of the info I wrote in that premise is confirmed by Bryan Singer himself, I don't see why we can't put it up there on our own. Suzuku (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The premise that you wrote came from a "leaked info" report. And that premise hasn't been listed in a lot of movie websites such as Rotten Tomatoes, Yahoo Movies and IGN movies. And there would be a synopsis release from 20th Century Fox when they opened a website that features a Synopsis or About page, every X-Men movie had that.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
No, the information I wrote came from Bryan Singer. Look at the edit again, the only reason I used that leaked source is for the idea that it bounces back and forth between past and future with the future X-Men trying to find a way to get Wolverine back. Otherwise everything came straight from the horses mouth. Singer is the one who said the film takes place ten years after First Class and ten years after Last Stand. Singer is the one who said Charles is "in a dark place" while Magneto is consolidating power in the past. Singer is the one who said Kitty Pryde sends Wolverine into the past. Suzuku (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That is still not the official synopsis, those information came from different sources and interviews. Wait for an official synopsis. Every movie has one.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Frame Rate?

A quick search both confirms and denies that this will be shot at 48fps. There's just too much contradictory info on-line for me to know, but if it is, it would qualify for Category:High Frame Rate films. Unless they truly have indeed decided to not shoot in HFR, I suspect it will be shot but not viewable in the format until they someday release a special 4K blu-ray edition with the option. As for the format itself, I missed my chance to catch The Hobbit in it since a midnight 3D IMAX screening took priority and the other HFR showings went poof after only a week since the format went over like a lead balloon. Too bad it wasn't available for Speed Racer since that's a film that actually could have used it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.81.158 (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Singer said that the film is filmed in 3D[2] -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Word is that the film will also be in widescreen, live-action (CGI notwithstanding), and I think in color too. My snarky comments aside, 3D and HFR don't necessarily go hand in hand - A film can be one while not being the other. I would point out that just being filmed in HFR doesn't necessarily mean being available in it. Maybe I don't understand digital cinematography, but nowadays for a digitally filmed production it should more or less mean pressing a button, though CGI rendering would obviously be more involved and there could be some on-set lighting issues. I for one don't see any reason to not film everything in HFR in the highest resolution the camera allows (4K or even 8K) and make the theatrical presentation at lower frame rate and resolution. Seemed to work fine for all The Hobbit 24fps showings. Even if X:DoFP isn't filmed in HFR, the article needs to mention the consideration of its use since there's been alot of buzz about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.215.10 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

BooBoo & BingBing

At Rated "X": A Night with Bryan Singer [2] he revealed that BooBoo and BingBing will be in the initial scene of the new film. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What "initial" scene is this... You don't provide a source for this claim. 71.188.21.128 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Trailer 1

Now after Teaser 1 last week, we have Trailer 1; apparently, it's the same as what was shown at 2013 SD ComicCon,[3] and 2013 Fantasia.[4] -- 70.49.124.77 (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: Rogue's inclusion cut from the film

Here's the Hitfix source if you want to use it, instead of leaving it un sourced. 71.188.21.128 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Singer Spoke about having her scene as bonus material on the DVD/Blu-Ray release. I think that has merits enough to be included in the article. How come that was not added? Npabebangin (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Singer said "those scenes MIGHT" be included not that its 100% official, things can still change. More importantly, we don't have an official list of bonus feature for the DVD release of the film yet.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It appears as though Singer didn't reveal all that needed to be said, he sat down with Empire Magazine to tell them that Rogue is not cut out of the film, and reiterates that some of her remaining scenes that were cut from the film might be released on the DVD version of the film. Here's the quote: "It does not mean that we won't see her in the film. Also, I hope to make the sequence available on the DVD as she was quite wonderful in it." Here's the official source. 71.188.16.34 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I already included her in the cast section again even before you posted your message.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny how movie makers do viral marketing like that...Rogue will be certainly in the movie. --178.197.236.88 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2014

CornelioGama (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Promotion

It has been widely reported by the trades and other entertainment sites that Bryan Singer has been dropping out and has dropped out in scheduled appearances (like Wondercon) during the publicity tour because of his legal issues. I think it's necessary to include it in the section for complete transparency and coverage.Jennifer Oliveros (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Emma and Riptide

If we're listing the summary right now, can we say exactly how Emma was killed and what Riptide's fate is? Why was any mention of Emma and the others removed from this summary? Am I going to have to see this next Friday to find out? 24.65.100.96 (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Spike and Ink?

Where has it been confirmed that Spike will be featured in the film? Also, the only indication of an 'ink' appearing in the film is from an October 2013 article. We still don't know who the actor is that will be portraying Ink. Additionally, Kelsey Grammer has indeed filmed a small cameo for the film. Would really like answers on Ink and Spike, as Spike has already appeared in The Last Stand. 98.110.7.195 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Bryan Singer's cameo in Paris street scene

In the Paris street chaos scene, I believe it was when Beast was escaping through the crowd after freeing himself from the bars in the fountain. Beast runs past people and the camera, right frame, lingers with a close-up on the face of a man holding a handheld camera up to one eye. I immediately recognized it as Bryan Singer. Couldn't tell if his character was a newsman or an amateur camera operator or if it was an 8mm or 16 small camera, as I was holding my attention on his face, maybe a 4-5 second cameo. I checked the credits at the end he wasn't listed, so this would be uncredited. It's not on IMDb either as I write this. No sources yet to cite. I'm not a regular editor here, so keep this in mind for a future addition. Singer has a history of doing cameos. 5Q5 (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Channing Tatum has not yet signed a deal

As Gambit and to appear in X-Men: Apocalypse. Here are the sources backing it up:

So before anyone added that Channing Tatum has signed on for the role and to appear in the upcoming film. Well flash news, its not yet a done deal. Wait for the official announcement.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Plot summary: constant reduction of information

I feel that some users have been needlessly removing key plot points and thus create a misleading/ambiguous impression of the events in the film. I'm not talking about trivial plot points, I'm talking about key parts that are being edited out by certain users. Xavier, Wolverine and Beast only arrived to search for Mystique, not to stop Magneto. Xavier was already incapacitated before he had any chance to attempt stopping Magneto, which left Wolverine and Beast to plot their own course of action against him. Also Magneto's plot of murdering the White House staff in front of a live broadcast shouldn't be omitted as it was a central part of his plan and a pivotal event in the story. Simply describing Mystique as "shooting" Magneto is insufficient as it implies that Mystique shot Magneto with no discernible outcome (is he dead? is he knocked out? did she miss?) Do realize that after shooting Magneto, Mystique knocks him out with a kick as well. In this regard I find that the use of the word "incapacitate" is more appropriate. I'm just bringing these points up because it seems that some users are constantly reducing the given information in the plot summary when most them aren't trivial and actually serve in properly explaining the events of the plot. Demented-P (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The plot summary does NOT intend to reproduce the experience of watching, nor is it meant to cover EVERY detail. It should serve as an overview of the major plot elements and events. PER WP:FILMPLOT, PLOT SUMMARIES FOR FEATURE FILMS AND TELEVISION SERIES SHOULD BE BETWEEN 400 AND 700 WORDS. See "Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary" (WP:PLOTSUM) for general guidelines.

In addition, someone just added a tag of this article for having a plot summary that is too long and excessively detailed. Which I just removed when I edited the plot section.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Except I'm not intending "to reproduce the experience of watching", I'm actually adding key parts that are central to the plot. Magneto's plot of murdering the White House staff in front of a live broadcast is more important than him wrapping Wolverine with rebars, for example. These are, as you claim "major plot elements and events". Perhaps we should reduce the detail on some parts and add onto others. I recognize that there's also a character/word limit, but we shouldn't omit key plot points in favor of others.Demented-P (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I just edited out some of the trivial parts and removed any excessive info. I copy-pasted the plot summary on Word and it reads as having 649 words. Is that sufficient enough or does the word limit also apply to the character coding?Demented-P (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Continuity...

The article suggests this film is a sequel of First Class and X3. However, this film's continuity ignores the events of X3, so the accurate description is would be that it's a sequel to First Class and X2. If you need evidence, Professor X is alive in the future even before the future is changed. He died in X3.50.130.11.182 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How about you watch the movie X3 and Days of Future Past? Days of Future Past featured flashbacks from X3 like Wolverine killing Jean Grey. And Professor X was already alive at the post-credits scene of X3.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Alive? That's impossible. His body was completely blown apart. And I saw no scenes from X3 in Days Of Future Past. Everyone I've spoken to who's seen this film agrees not only that it ignores X3, but also that ignoring X3 is a good idea. In fact, the only explanation for Professor X being alive that doesn't involve this film ignoring X3 is some terribly contrived fanfic about Professor X's never-mentioned-in-any-of-the-films braindead identical twin brother. And, yes. I know they mentioned a braindead patient, but nowhere in the actual films did they say it was Professor X's identical twin brother, nor that he even had one. So, even if he did move his consciousness to another body, as he was talking about earlier in the film, his new body would not have been played by Patrick Stewart. Also, IIRC, Magneto also lost his power due to the cure in X3. Yes, he did wiggle the chess piece in the theatrical version of the tag, but it still barely moved. In the DVD, it didn't move at all. Certainly not enough power to put up that metal wall to block the sentinals. And it seems Wolverine would have been just as likely to be surprised that Jean was alive if the last time he saw her was the end of X2. So, I'm using Occam's razor here. Which is more likely? Some heavily contrived online fan fiction involving characters that no one ever mentions within the established continuity, with no characters talking about these events, while leaving many questions unanswered or the fact that they would exclude the events from one of the films? No, you don't need to say you concede. I already know. 50.130.11.182 (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Hotwiki is correct. If you watch all the way through The Last Stand, Xavier speaks to Moira at the end. He also appears at the end of The Wolverine, with Magneto, which takes place after The Last Stand (Jean Grey is still dead, and appears to Wolverine numerous times). So, for Days of Future Past to have ignored The Last Stand, The Wolverine would've had to ignore it as well. It didn't.
We don't report writing inconsistencies and illogicalities unless they are especially notable or mentioned in reviews. That includes Xavier's not-deadness and Magneto having his powers. Both of those things are stupid and lazy writing, but it's what they did to get the franchise how they wanted it. They cut corners, but they didn't ignore everything.
TL;DR: The Last Stand was part of the continuity at the start of Days of Future Past: by the end, nothing but First Class has occurred in the same way. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't comment on whether The Wolverine ignored X3 or not because I never saw it, nor did I ever speak to anyone about it. However, your claim is not necessarily true. Because the first two films in the main trilogy can follow the continuity of X3 or they can follow the continuity of Future Past. Sometimes continuity splits like that. There are many films which spin off into their own continuity, remaining consistent with some films in a franchise, but not others. So long as the continuity they're representing is internally consistent, there's nothing wrong with this. Therefore, whether film A shares continuity with film B, has zero bearing on whether film C shares continuity with either of them. Therefore, whether or not this film shares continuity with The Wolverine is irrelevant to my argument, and it's best you take that argument up with someone who has seen The Wolverine.50.130.11.182 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The end of The Wolverine leads directly to this film. The continuity is there. That, and Hotwiki was right: the scene of Wolverine stabbing Jean is originally from The Last Stand and featured in Days of Future Past, when Xavier reads Wolverine's mind near Cerebro. You either need to watch The Last Stand again, watch Days of Future Past again, or watch The Wolverine. Any of these three things will show you that, though it doesn't make sense, all of these films exist in the same universe. Yes, even X-Men Origins. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Corvoe. The Wolverine is the missing piece in your puzzle. It clearly sets up the continuity between X3 and First Class (although there are still consistency errors and unexplained events.) I think it is best to continue this discussion after you see The Wolverine. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
If that's so, then I'll withdraw from this discussion until such time as I've seen The Wolverine. Still, I should mention that I've spoken to some hardcore X-Men fans, and all of them agree that this film ignores X3. Hearsay, I know, but I'm just saying...50.130.11.182 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm a hardcore X-Men fan and no, it doesn't ignore X3. Also watch the credits of the film, and X-Men: The Last Stand is listed in the credits. You also didn't watch the Wolverine and that movie clearly didn't ignore X3. Bryan Singer already stated that this is a sequel to X3 and he's not ignoring any X-Men films.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Directors Cut confirmed.

Here's the source. 71.188.21.34 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Plot clean up..

Can someone who has some sort of knowledge as to how these plots need to be written, come in and re-write the entire plot so that it's, cohesive? Who ever took it upon themselves to write it did a horrible job of doing so.71.188.21.34 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The plot section should be under 700 words and it shouldn't be very detailed unlike the film's script.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This will be my third time cleaning this plot section up, but I guess this time's the charm. I'll give it another go later today. People love adding more detail than is necessary to this article. Corvoe (speak to me) 11:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Scratch that, the excellent Baffle gab1978 from the Guild of Copy Editors has it covered. We're in good hands. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Bloating in the cast section

There is too much content in this section from before the film was released, it needs to be trimmed. Much of it is just information about the character's part in the story that was revealed before hand, that should be covered in the plot section. Why would we need to state here why Wolverine can travel through time, if that is too informational for the plot, it should not be mentioned at all. The reader can watch the film if they want to the find out. Also little notes like "She will lead the X-Men in the toughest challenge they have ever faced." from a primary source is not appropriate. Not only is it in the incorrect tense, it is also factually incorrect if you watch the film as she is only in about five minutes of it. I am sure there is a lot of other stuff that could be trimmed, but I have not even gone through it all yet. These are pretty basic changes that should have been regularly made, however there seems to be an editor with an ownership issue with the article, which is always unfortunate. STATic message me! 03:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Five minutes? Do you even have a back-up source for Storm/Halle Berry's screentime? You are using your OWN assumption here.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Ten minutes maybe? I am not sure if it was even five. Either way it is irrelevant. So I would like some other editor's opinions, since your stubborn one won't seem to change. Again see WP:OWN, since you must not know what it means. STATic message me! 03:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen that but thank you. And I'm not stubborn just neutral just like what the Wikipedia suggested just to be.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You sure are not editing in a neutral fashion. I see zero point in a poorly written sentence, that is in the wrong tense, and that is backed by a primary source just sitting there. But I am guessing you are the one that wrote it. STATic message me! 03:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
And you could just argue that the plot section is written in the wrong tense. Yeah you made it clear you saw the film, but should everything be written in past tense now that the film is released? Educate me.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I also checked the Wikipedia articles for The Wolverine (film) and X-Men: First Class, some of the information written in the cast section are in present tense. And those articles passed the good article criteria.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Some things should be in past-tense with others in present-tense, "She will lead the X-Men in the toughest challenge they have ever faced", is future tense, something that is not appropriate in film/album articles after the subject has been released, expect for when talking about future events. The biggest issue is really that it is backed by a primary source and is not very proper tone for an encyclopedia article. STATic message me! 05:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with STATicVapor, I can't see the point of reiterating plot points in the cast list, and I definitely don't agree with including "She will lead the X-Men..." at it sounds like an official synopsis. It's puffery, it's not encyclopedic. While we're on the topic, why does Toad get his own subsection? He's in one brief scene, and he doesn't even talk. Ink and Spike, from the same scene and with the same amount of dialogue, are both listed below in the paragraph, I don't see why Toad shouldn't be. Corvoe (be heard) 16:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

These are the materials that StaticVapor just deleted:
  • Magneto was at odds with Professor X and the X-Men for decades, but with the impending mutant annihilation, they put aside their animosities to form new alliances.[5] Singer described McKellen's role as "a fixture in the future war, facing an enemy so monstrous that it forces former foes to band together."[6]
  • Lawrence said Mystique is separated from Lensherr and Xavier and her mission is to assassinate somebody. She added, "we’ve seen her [Mystique] in the future and what she becomes and this is kind of a turning point for her."[7]
  • With the mutant race on the verge of extinction, Wolverine's healing factor makes him the only X-Man capable of withstanding the rigors of time travel. He must survive long enough to complete his mission: to go back in time to prevent a chain of events that brings the end of mutantkind.[8] Director Bryan Singer said Wolverine's consciousness is sent into his younger self and Jackman gets to play both parts because Wolverine is ageless.[9] Writer Simon Kinberg explained the reasons Wolverine is the time traveler; he said, "We made the decision for a lot of reasons ... he's the protagonist of the franchise, and probably the most beloved character to a mass audience."[10]
  • Xavier watched as the mutant race was slowly hunted down, but the time has come to lead his X-Men in their greatest battle—both in the present and the past.[11]
  • Grammer told Singer he wanted to appear in the film, knowing that Beast appears in the future setting.[12]
All these materials can be included according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film
Actors and their roles can be presented and discussed in different forms in film articles depending on three key elements: 1) the prominence of the cast in the film, 2) the amount of real-world context for each cast member or the cast as a whole, and 3) the structure of the article.
A film's cast may vary in size and in importance. A film may have an ensemble cast, or it may only have a handful of actors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. If there are many cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose.
The real-world context about actors and their roles may vary by film. Real-world context may be about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast for the role, and what preparations were necessary for filming. Development of a film article means a basic cast list may evolve into a bulleted list with several sentences devoted to each person. In other cases, a list may be maintained and be accompanied by prose that discusses only a handful of cast members.
The structure of the article may also influence form. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section. Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable articles. (Tables are also recommended to display different casts, such as a Japanese-language voice cast and an English-language voice cast in a Japanese animated film.)
If roles are described outside of the plot summary, keep such descriptions concise.
Citing your reason for removing them as puffery is baseless. The information given to Grammer's appearance in the film is very important most especially it gives insight to his inclusion in this film. And once again film articles always pass the good article status with comments from the director and cast members regarding their role in the film. Also character descriptions are not written in the plot thats why they are written in the cast section.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding STATicVapor's removals here, I can understand his justification for the removals, but I found another spot for one of the removals. When it comes to Cast sections, I prefer that there is some casting information in the sections beyond the standard "[So and so portrays so and so]" material, unless there is a Casting section to put the more in-depth material in; by that, I mean that I prefer something similar to the Cast section of the WP:Good article The Dark Knight (film). But I agree that we shouldn't include needless bloat. Flyer22 (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
How is Kelsey Grammer calling up Bryan Singer to be in the film because he saw the script a needless information? Also Wolverine not aging so Hugh Jackman gets to play both Wolverine isn't mentioned anywhere. And speaking of "puffery information" that Corvoe brought up. Why are we still keeping the non-notable WWE promotional appearance from Hugh Jackman that got a mixed reaction from fans and online users?--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hotwiki (SuperHotWiki), regarding the "Director Bryan Singer said Wolverine's consciousness is sent into his younger self and Jackman gets to play both parts because Wolverine is ageless." part that STATicVapor removed, the Writing section states, "According to Kinberg, as they were writing the script, they though it sensible that Wolverine was traveling between time periods, because of his ageless look and ability to heal rapidly." Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hotwiki: Can you please focus on the content we're discussing and not on me? The only part I was referring to as puffery was the Storm part, because that's all I thought the argument was initially about. That was my bad, I should've checked the history more thoroughly. However, I have to wholeheartedly agree with Flyer22, that some of the information should be removed and other parts could easily be relocated. Yes, it's good to have a detailed cast section, but when you already have a casting section, that can get redundant very quickly (which I think is what happened here). Corvoe (be heard) 10:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If we are removing "puffery information" then I guess I could mention the puffery information that you posted that I tried to remove but still posted in the article. This is a collaborative effort anyway. I asked the person who reviewed The Wolverine article for the good article review and he agreed me that what you posted is not needed. So what are you gonna do about this?--SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, please stop focusing on me. As to the puffery I added...actually yes, I want you to mention that. I don't remember adding any puffery, but I'm curious to see what you're referring to. I've barely contributed actual information to this article, I've just done a lot of gnoming and clean-up (especially by trimming the plot down a few times). The only thing I found you discussing with Darkwarriorblake (The Wolverine reviewer) was about the WWE Raw promotion here, to which I say: I had absolutely nothing to do with the addition, maintenance, or reduction of that content. Most of all, why are you acting this way? We've had good work experiences in the past, and I think you're a great editor. I just disagree with you on this issue. There's no reason to get ugly. Corvoe (be heard) 12:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a great editor. Thank you! --SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hotwiki: That felt facetious, but I'll give you benefit of the doubt. Now please, tell me where I added puffery. I want to know so I can avoid it in the future. Sock (The Editor Formerly Known as Corvoe) (be heard) 10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Because we don't have to write TV appearances for the promotion for the film because if thats thecase, I would be listing Halle Berry's promotion part for this film by going to Ellen/Queen Latifah/Jay Leno. You said it got a negative response but that came from online users and fans. You deleted the words "from fans and twitter users" but the sentence is still there. Also how is that notable? I visit X-Men film fansites/boards and there was nothing controversial about it. News site didn't even make a big deal about it. If its about a promotion in a convention or marketing partner, I don't mind since those are listed in the manual of style.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Rogue Cut Run Time revealed.

Empire posted an article (as well as Digital Spy detailing the films run time, then Bryan Singer tweeted out a correction for it. Should be added the page. Npamusic (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the release date for the cut is July 13th, 2015 according to this sourcee. Also, Kinberg has also stated that Rogue's scene(s) will amount to 11 minutes and 11 seconds of film. Npamusic (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Question on time travel

Does anyone know where Kitty Pryde got the power of "mental time-travel"? She didn't have it in X3 and the WP article on the "Days of Future Past" comic books is rather vague. Did anyone connected with the film try to explain this movie's take on time travel (beside the notion that only the mind goes back, which has been discussed in many sci-fi stories)? I searched Google and didn't find anything on point relating to this film. If it can be found, it should be worked into this article. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sequel to "Last Stand"?

How can this movie be a sequel to "X-Men: The Last Stand"? In that movie, Professor Xavier died; and while it suggested his consciousness still somehow existed, there is still no explanation (or one that I missed) of how he can be alive in this movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.232.183 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There was an after-credits scene which suggested he transplanted his mind into his comatose brother's body. In any case, this one plot hole doesn't mean it's not a sequel.Kurzon (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Another plot hole, Eric lost his power in X3. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
And yet Magneto moved a chess piece during the scene before the credits which is an obvious sign that the cure was not permanent.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, this movie resets a lot of what happened in the original trilogy via time travel, or at least resets a lot of what happened in X-Men: The Last Stand, for instance Jean Grey and Scott Summers are both alive at the end of Days of Future Past and it seems the mutant cure that happened in X3 never happened in this new timeline.

Rogue Cut plot changes

After viewing the film, here are the Rogue Cut plot changes:

  • In the future: After Logan stabs Kitty, Bobby talks to Xavier and Magneto about Kitty's situation and suggests freeing Rogue who is held captured and experimented on in the only place Xavier can't telepathically see, Cerebro's room in the mansion. Bobby tells Kitty's he's going to get help and kisses her and the three fly to the mansion to free Rogue.
  • In the past: After Xavier's finishes talking to Raven through Cerebro he does not look back again and see her flight ticket for Washington D.C., instead he says "she could be going anywhere". Later, Hank hears noises at the door and opens it to find Raven standing there. He wants to wake Xavier but she convinces him to wait. He takes care of her bullet injury, they talk and make out.
  • In the future: Magneto and Bobby enter the mansion through the guidance of Xavier. This scene is edited alongside Magneto's breaking in the building to retrieve his helmet. They free Rogue with Bobby touching her face, giving her energy. They walk out but 3 Sentinels attack them. Bobby stays back to buy Magneto and Rogue some time to flee, and uses his abilities, creating ice walls and freezing them, but dies by their fire blasts. Magneto blocks their escape by creating door with metal objects, which releases gas and with the fire blasts, causes the mansion to explode. One Sentinel manages to reach the plane and jump on it, but Xavier manages to blow him off with flying maneuvers, but in the process, part of the Sentinel's hand gets stuck on the plane which has a tracking device in it.
  • In the past: Raven, disguised as Xavier, enters Cerebro and breaks it.
  • In the future: Magneto, Xavier and Rogue enter the room with Kitty and Logan and tell Kitty that Bobby is dead. Kitty starts to crying and Rogue touches, absorbs her power and quickly takes over powering Logan. She says hello to Logan.
  • In the past: Logan he feels her and wakes up. Hank enters his room and tells him he screwed up and that Raven was there. They go to Cerebro and see the damage she did and understand they can't track her now.
  • In the future: During the fight with the Sentinels, Kitty pulls Magneto through the door he blocked with debris.
  • Mid-credits scene. In the past: Bolivar Trask is locked in the prison cell Magneto was locked in the beginning of the film.

Hopes some of this can be added to the article to reflect the Rogue Cut edition. --Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we don't add alternate scenes that exist in separate cuts. Maybe, and this is a big maybe, if enough coverage comes of The Rogue Cut, it could have a separate article. However, I don't see that happening. The plot summary of an alternate version of the film is unfortunately just too space-consuming. Sock (tock talk) 13:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I doubt a separate article is warranted, but maybe do something like the Music and Home Media sub sections did, and add a sub-section to the Plot section, or go a different direction and add a sub-section for the film with the plot differences, music and home media sections all under it. I'm sure I wasn't the only one wondering what the difference in the plot was. --Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
We would need sources to add differences in the plot, and I think we would also need sources to comment on their opinion of the new cut, before that becomes relevant. Simply listing the changes would be padding. Sock (tock talk) 15:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, good idea. --Gonnym (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Also a sequel to The Wolverine

In the post credit scene in The Wolverine (2013) Logan is approached by Charles Xavier and Magneto at the airport and it foreshadows Days of Future Past, considering this movie combines characters from First Class which did not have Logan except in a short cameo, and characters from the original Trilogy, and that Logan is one of the main protagonists in Days of Future Past, this movie is a sequel to The Last Stand, First Class, and The Wolverine. Edballen (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Eddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edballen (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and nope. Plus no one from the crew called this film a sequel to The Wolverine. Are you also saying that Iron Man 3 is a sequel to Marvel's The Avengers? Just no.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What happens to Logan at the end

From the penultimate paragraph of the plot summary: "In 1973, Mystique, impersonating Stryker, takes custody of Logan." That's not what I got at all. At this point, Logan doesn't have his adamantium skeleton and Stryker takes him, supposedly to go north to his facility that was so important in the early flicks. Do I need to watch it again? Dmforcier (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Watched it again and saw the yellow eyes. But the question remains. Logan does not have his adamantium skeleton at this point - note the BONE claws throughout. Presumably Mytique would have given logan some information about what happened to him. So when post-'73 Stryker tries to get Logan into his facility he will be dealing with a fore-warned Wolverine. But I suppose we aren't expected to think. Yet another example of this film ignoring canonical history. Dmforcier (talk)
We don't know what happened after Mystique found Logan. Entire decades of history have been changed. Since don't see his claws in the present day, we don't know if he ever encountered Stryker. There aren't answers in the film, but you're free to think about it all you like. Some of your questions may be answered in the future, but until then this is all we know. Reach Out to the Truth 18:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Setting of the film

Not sure who changed removed my category, but the film is indeed set in 2023. Multiple times in the movie it refers to 1973 as "fifty years ago," so it's definitely set in that year. The reason given for reverting my edit was because that year wasn't shown in the article.

Well yeah, I know that already that's why I put it there, because it was missing. What's contestable about this?

Noah Tall (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on X-Men: Days of Future Past. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Toad's real name

I noticed that Toad doesn't have his real name listed next to his Mutant codename like all the other characters have their real name listed next to their codename such as "Alex Summers / Havok" but Toad doesn't have "Mortimer Toynbee / Toad", I tried to add it but someone reverted due to it being "not stated in film", however Toynbee is noticeable on Toad's shirt when Mystique saves Toad, Havok, Ink, and a Mutant named Daniels, which means Toad has his real name Mortimer Toynbee so I readded it but the same person who reverted my first edit said that I should take this subject into the Talk Page. Horrorcomicnerd (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a little too speculative. It's not said aloud in the film and it's not in the official credits. Also, just because the shirt says Toynbee doesn't mean the first name is Mortimer: Bruce Banner became David Banner, after all, in the TV show The Incredible Hulk. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Updated info on Wolverine and Rogue Cut

Since Wolverine is referred to as "Jimmy" once in the Rogue Cut version, I think it's appropriate to supply his original name (James Howlett) in the character list. Also, I clarified that his claws and skeleton are bone in 1973 and adamantium in the future.

I also detailed the plot differences in Rogue Cut from the theatrical version, and clarified that Apocalypse happens in a different weave of history than the pre-Days films.RobertGustafson (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

WP film articles are about the theatrical release. We do not put names in the cast list that were not used in the theatrical version, as that misleads the reader to assume that name was used. Furthermore, being referred to as "Jimmy" once doesn't even justify putting it in for the Rogue Cut version. "Jimmy" is different from James Howlett. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on X-Men: Days of Future Past. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:X-Men: Days of Future Past/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RobBertholf (talk · contribs) 10:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi! This is my first GA review, so I hope I do well. I just wanna help with the process!

1. Is there anything you could include about Logan and Erik, like maybe a quote about either character's personality? They feel a bit naked compared to others.

    • Added bits on both.

2. Also, this is a nitpick, but I feel that Henry should rank above Storm since he's a major part of the main plot of the film, whereas Ororo is limited to the future segments.

3. Most sentences put commas and periods after the quotation marks, but some put them inside.

    • Went to check, there was a halfway split between ." and ".. But put all periods outside the quotes, just in case.

4. Could more info be added to the section about Apocalypse?

Honestly, none of these are enough to say "nah" to. Once I check the citations I'll be happy to pass it! @Rob talk 10:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Comment from editor not involved in this assessment. If this is your first assessment you may find one of the templates in Step 3 on this link to be useful in guiding your assessment checklist for this article here [9]. Cheers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

@Igordebraga: So hi, I was trying to check the references, but I saw that the External links tool in the GA toolbox is down. Is there an alternative? @Rob talk 09:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. I fixed a couple citations, but I noticed at least one (TCM) had user contributions. Can you ensure that any sources used are not using potential user contributions? Also, I did the linkcheck, and found that a number of links are dead. Can you replace them and/or get an archive for them if possible? And can you make sure that none of the other any non-trivial link problems listed there? Once I confirm that we got it all done, I'd be happy to approve. It was enjoyable to read and it was well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobBertholf (talk • contribs) 23:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed TCM, fixed the Cinemascore dead link. Any more refs you object? igordebraga ≠ 18:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope! Everything seems a-okay now. Congratulations! @Rob talk 03:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
It appears reviewer @RobBertholf: passed the nomination without actually changing the talk page tag, so doing that now. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Could anyone report the editor who has been listing Hugh Jackman name's below James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence? His edited has been reverted by four different editors including me, and he is still doing it. I already told him to follow the official cast billing.SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I cited this film, with verifiable citation (specifically the British Film Institute), that it's an American-British co-production yet someone revised this and removed that information unnecessarily. Why? I think removing such content is disruptive if it's informative of a film and elaborates on things people otherwise wouldn't know about. User:Internet Informant (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Confusing passage

Without my having to dig out the movie and watch this scene, perhaps someone could explain this confusing passage in this article's plot? What does this mean: "barricades the White House with the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In the film, Magneto used his magnetic powers to lift the stadium and I guess he used it to barricade the white house. 2601:601:9080:5C30:9164:6982:56D4:F455 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in X-Men: Days of Future Past

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of X-Men: Days of Future Past's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Empire":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.movieweb.com/news/peter-dinklage-revealed-as-bolivar-trask-in-x-men-days-of-future-past-set-photos
  2. ^ a b 'Rated "X": A Night with Bryan Singer', date: 2013 August 5
  3. ^ 2013 San Diego Comic Con; X-Men: Days of Future Past panel
  4. ^ 2013 Fantasia Festival; X-Rated: An Evening with Bryan Singer
  5. ^ "Sir Ian McKellen as Magneto". Retrieved February 21, 2014.
  6. ^ "Magneto - X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer Breakdown". Retrieved November 2, 2013.
  7. ^ Anthony XMF (November 16, 2013). "Mystique's on a mission during X-Men: Days of Future Past". Retrieved December 14, 2013.
  8. ^ "Hugh Jackman as Wolverine". Retrieved February 21, 2014.
  9. ^ Leston, Ryan (July 21, 2013). "Confirmed: Wolverine to time-travel in 'Days of Future Past'". Yahoo! Movies UK & Ireland. Retrieved August 4, 2013.
  10. ^ XMF, Anthony (December 3, 2013). "Kinberg: How First Class 2 became Days of Future Past". Retrieved December 27, 2013.
  11. ^ "Sir Patrick Stewart as Professor X". Retrieved February 21, 2014.
  12. ^ Stedman, Alex (June 22, 2014). "Kelsey Grammer Wants to Return to Future X-Men Films". Retrieved June 24, 2014.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X-Men:_Days_of_Future_Past/Archive_1&oldid=1200954395"