Jump to content

Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"I'm Juggernaut Bitch!" Origins

I was under the impression that Juggernaut's "Don't you know who I am? I'm Juggernaut Bitch!" speech was a reference to Dave Chappelles's Rick James sketch?

Got me. You would need to track down the actual parody and view it yourself, or talk to someone that has view the parody to see if that was the actual intention, or just a coincedence. Bignole 15:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's a reference to the very famous and popular parody of the original X-Men cartoon. It's not a hard video to find. Just type in on your Google "Juggernaut Bitch". Evan 00:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Lol dude, I saw that video! I was laughing my ass off! When I saw it here in the movie I just knew where they got it from! Vgamer101 17:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3934651591022114445&q=juggernaut

Extremely humours. ;)

-G

This is not a forum 209.192.108.240 16:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You got that right! lol! all your base! --Chris Griswold 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

spoilers

Hey, I got to watch a preview screening of the movie in Sydney as a benefit for the Bone Marrow Donors institute (Hugh Jackman's mother's charity) - For verification of this screening see www.bmdi.org.au. I can give a scene by scene breakdown of the film as a spoiler, but what are the copyright implications for doing so?

Unfortunately, no one can verify if you did see the movie until it actually comes out. So, we can't actually put a scene by scene breakdown in the article till after the movie has been released officially, because then there will be enough people to verify the claims. But, once the movie has been released, you may change the "PLOT" section, by adding a bit more detail. It doesn't need to be a play by play of the entire movie, but you can certainly add information that clarifies what is going on. Bignole 03:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not doubting that you saw a private screening of the movie, just that information needs to be able to be verified when it is placed in an article on wikipedia, and it is rather hard to verify the authenticity of what you saw when it was limited access. That is why I said it would be better to make the change when the movie is finally released this Friday, because then there would be plenty of oppurtunity to verify said information. Bignole 03:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

spoilers?

where do the spoilers end? it does not sayJohnRussell 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPENED?

I worked hard for that plot. I got it straight from the JUNIOR NOVEL! I got it at WAL*MART!

Junior Novels, any novelization of a movie does not constitute that what happens in the book happens in a movie. Things are added and altered in novels from their origins, and like wise for films. Bignole 15:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
usually junior novels are truthful. Ex: Star Wars, Over the Hedge... Sure, a sex scene may be excluded but who cares?
The accuracy of the Jr. Novel is up for debate. However, I'll tell you this: the novelization for the X2 novel was changed dramatically so as not to spoil the movie. In the Jr. Novel, already parts of it are missing and disproven. The same for the novelization. It's already been said that Chris Claremont went in his own direction with the book.
So, all in all, I wouldn't put too much faith in either novelizations. Major things have been altered between novels, such as Rogue taking the cure.
However, if you really want to movies spoiled for you, go to popular forums that aren't SHH! That forum is the most up-to-date, but there's A LOT to take in, and it's very negative. Go for smaller forums that still have frequent visitors. Evan 20:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The film has now come out, and may I say, UM... I WAS RIGHT!

This is not a forum. --Chris Griswold 16:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Toad

I saw the 7-minute preview, and there was toad in it. I think that toad in the third installment was computer generated.
There wasn't a Toad in the movie. I think you're talking about the first scene, no? There was no Toad. He's been confirmed that he won't be in the movie.
Besides, if there was a Toad, why not sign on the original actor? He was contracted for two movies. And Toad wasn't a part of the cast list, whereas Phat was. Evan 20:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I know that ray park (taod) wasn't in the movie, but in the 7 minute preview you could see a computer generated character that looks just like taod, with green skin, crawling on the wall. Check it out yourself at dell.com

Preview

The X-Men: The Last Stand article said that there will be a 7-minute preview right before the series finale of That 70's Show on May 11, but on the That 70's show article, it said that the series finale is on May 18!
It was on May 11th. It was pretty sweet, but mostly stuff we've seen before. --ZachPruckowski 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anticipation

The whole thing about fans being really apprehenisive about Ratner directing is POV and is really overstated, almost aggressively and garishly so. The statement about his films having "little or no" plot development is also fairly ridiculous, considering that the majority of directors aren't responsible for writing the scripts; plot development is mostly associated with screenwriting. Someone should re-write the whole part about the "death of the franchise" and how fans are really scared and all that b/c its totally subjective and ridiculously overstated. If you dislike Ratner as a director, then that's POV. 

 **bout time

Budget

I'm a little skeptical that the budget of X3 is 200 million dollars. It was said that the budget would be north of 110 million but I think 200 million would be very unrealistic unless some kind of proof is provided. Superman is suppose to be made at a cost of 200 million and it was said that it would be the most expensive movie of 2006.

About the rumours about which characters will be included: I don't think wikipedia should print rumours except in special circumstances. X2 clearly hinted at Jean Grey's transformation into the phoenix, so mentioning that is justified, but unless we have more specific knowledge about Gambit and the Beast we shouldn't indicate them. Thue | talk 19:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually there are a lot of tidbits being revealed by Marvel/Fox execs, the director, other production crew and the actors themselves. It's good to have them culled into one place.
A lot of pages are full of speculation anyway: the new Bond film and Harry Potter novel are good examples. Just because there's rumours doesn't mean that they lack substance or credibility. --Madchester 13:54, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly fine if we write 'This Marvel/Fox exec said that A will play B ' (preferably with a link to the webpage where the rumor was first printed). It is writing 'there is a rumor that A will play B' without specifying the source of the rumor, and rumors from non-reliable sources, I am against. Thue | talk 14:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind if rumors are included, however like any other Wikipedia article cite your sources. --Sketchee 00:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia can be altered. The rumors will - naturally - be annhilated come the actual movie. 68.225.242.19 23:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

s


Removed some of the OTT fawning for the film... and fixed it for some factual errors. For example, Dougherty and Harris only worked on the script of X2. They had no participation in the first film. --Madchester 01:06, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Name vote

Since the name of the movie has yet to be announced, and IMDB is listing the movie as X-Men 3 should Wikipedia follow that, or keep the name X3?

X-Men 3

  1. Seeing as IMDB is listing it as X-Men 3, I think we should as well. Havok 20:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. There's no way this vote is going to go the way of X3, to be honest. X-Men 3 is the official title and should be the place it's located on wikipedia. --195.92.168.175 01:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

X3

X-Men: The Last Stand

Official title, so sayeth the film and credits on posters

Moved

The article has been moved from X3 (film) to X-Men 3 (movie)

Uhm... why? Joeyconnick 07:37, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Superherohype.com, Filmforce.ign.com and IMDB.com list the movie as X-Men 3, not X3. Havok 18:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh actually I meant why "(movie)" and not "(film)"? What's standard on wikipedia? Joeyconnick 22:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I used (movie) because the first X-Men film uses (movie) at the end. Havok 07:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


Umm, the official site is at [[1]]. --Madchester 15:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ashley Hartman as the White Queen

Ashley Hartman has often been added as playing Emma Frost. Unfortunately, that role has not been confirmed by the studio and has only been fan speculation. Until it is publicly released that Hartman is playing that role, Wikipedia should not list her as playing the White Queen. All that has been reported is that she has been at the movie's set. Olessi 17:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If so, then shouldn't it be removed from Ashley's Wikipage?--Dylankidwell 17:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have changed it at Ashley Hartman. Olessi 18:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, some one put her back in. If she's ni the movies than what team is she apart of because if I recall White Queen was a Villian before she was a Hero.--Dylankidwell 21:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hartman as the White Queen is still conjecture. Olessi 04:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Kip Hartman, Ashley Hartman's father confirms that Ashley Hartman DOES NOT have a role in X-Men 3 - Unfortunate. Should Hartman be removed from the X-Men 3 article completely then?

Is there a source for that? Olessi 18:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to removing Ashley Hartman from the article altogether, as there doesn't seem to be any real evidence one way or another that she is involved in the film? Olessi 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The White Queen is not mentioned in the novel. 209.192.78.125 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Rogue's Name

In the cast list, it says that Rogue's name is Marie D'Ancanto. Where is this from?--Dylankidwell 21:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is listed at Rogue_(comics)#Rogue's name. Since "Marie D'Ancanto" is never directly stated in the film (only inferred), it arguably could be removed from the list. Olessi 22:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This name was given in the first X-Men film. If I remember correctly, it's when Wolverine and her are driving in the truck up in Canada.

Dazzler and other X-Men in the movie or not?

Ok, sorry to start another discussion but what X-Men are "supposably" in the movie? Also as I look up X-Men characters i see that lots of them are "expected" to be in this film. Should we start a list of expected X-Men in the movie as well?--Dylankidwell 04:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, all of the characters currently listed in the Cast section are confirmed. Ken Leung and Ashley Hartman are listed because they have roles in the film, although their actual characters are as yet unknown. I think it would be better to keep fan conjecture (for instance assuming that Vincent Murdocco is playing Omega Red) to a minimum. Olessi 04:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I have found that Dazzler, Lady Deathstrike, Bishop, Cannonball, Scarlet Witch, Avalanche, Omega Red and, White Queen are all expected. When i click on the Actors who play them I found that it says comfirmed which made me "raise an eyebrow". I concur with what you say though.--Dylankidwell 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Being "confirmed" at IMDB is not definite, as IMDB is updated by average contributors. Olessi 17:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

that's just speculations, none of them will have a starring role in X3, but some of them might have a cameo.--Hotwiki 12:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Omahyra Mota

Cox - its arclight not stacy x..... I was the first to know this I was the first to announce this and now I want you to stop saying its stacy-x. stacy x =mauraders callisto=morlocks magneto= bring them togetherCox - its arclight not stacy x..... I was the first to know this I was the first to announce this and now I want you to stop saying its stacy-x. stacy x =mauraders callisto=morlocks magneto= bring them together


Omahyra Mota hasn't been officialy cast as Stacy X. Therefore should she really be in this article at all?

I'm not aware of any "official" announcements from Fox, but these links ([2], [3], contains nudity), as well as her appearance in the trailer indicate she is in the film. Olessi 05:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's Ohamyra, there's pics of her in the shooting.--Hotwiki 08:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC) You can also clearly see her in that one picture by the cas list.--Dylankidwell 19:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Although Mota is in the movie, her playing Stacy X is now being questioned. This thread at SuperHeroHype suggests that Mota is playing Arclight. As her character is thus unconfirmed, I have moved her to the other unknown roles. Olessi 19:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

ok, well if you look here at this [4] it shows cartoon picture of Stacy X (Look at the 2nd one). Then if you look at the brotherhood picture by the cast list. Look behind Magneto and you se a very simular outfit on her. Whoses Archlight anyways? I've never heared of her.--Dylankidwell 23:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Arclight was a member of the Marauders. Olessi 17:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Even Better, look here [5]. Down at the bottom there is a picture of Stacy X in her costume. (Cartoon Picture)--Dylankidwell 00:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Cox - its arclight not stacy x..... I was the first to know this I was the first to announce this and now I want you to stop saying its stacy-x. stacy x =mauraders callisto=morlocks magneto= bring them together

Whomever Omahyra Mota is playing, it's not Stacy X. From writer Simon Kinberg's Q&A thread over at Xverse:

"What's the favourite X3 rumour you've read on the internet so far?"

"Wow, so many to choose from. I was pretty amused by the latest “film review” of a movie that hasn’t even been cut together. I also followed all the crazy Stacy X rumors. At the end of the day, Stacy X isn’t even in the movie!"

Is it confirmed that Mota is playing Arclight? If it is just speculation, it should be removed from the article. --DDG 19:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok you guys win! in the new trailer it shows Omahyra using Arclight's powers.--Dil 02:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

The article says Nightcrawler and Deathstrike won't return since they only signed a two-film contract. However, they only appeared in one film yet (X2). Also, rather obviously, Deathstrike died in that film. I assume that for the same reason, Stryker is a major (?) actor who isn't returning? Same question for Toad; he may have had a two-film contract but he dies in the first film. 84.81.42.123 02:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, Alan, Ray and Tyler signed on a two-film contract but it still doesn't mean that they will be in the next X-Men movies.--Hotwiki 05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Cox - its arclight not stacy x..... I was the first to know this I was the first to announce this and now I want you to stop saying its stacy-x. stacy x =mauraders callisto=morlocks magneto= bring them together


Lady Deathstrike is a cyborg, so it is possible she COULD be back. And Toad didn't exactly die. They are mutants with enhanced strength and speed, he may have just been injured by the bolt.
deathstrike is only a cyborg in the comics. in the movie she's no different than wolverine

"Halle Berry originally stated during interviews for X-Men 2 that she would not be returning for her role as Storm in the third film because the character did have a significant presence." - This statement doesn't seem to make sense so I changed to "did not have a significant presence" Confirm please someone. WkpdTed 01:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mercedes Scelba-Shorte as M

on IMDB, it says that Mercedes is playing M. Look here [6]--Dylankidwell 09:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

IMDB is edited by average contributors, just like Wikipedia. It is not edited by movie industry executives. IMDB says that Vince Murdocco is playing Omega Red as well, which is untrue. Olessi 17:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now many characters were added to the list Psylocke, Bolivar Trask, White Queen and Sunfire. Now was this on IMDB Superhero hype or what? I'm so confused!--Dylankidwell 23:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

SuperHeroHype (SHH) recently had this thread about Mei Melancon playing Psylocke. Normally I wouldn't trust such info, but Hollywood Reporter also mentioned it. Ashley Hartman is NOT playing the White Queen. The name of Ken Leung's character has NOT been revealed yet (suggestions have been Sunfire, Silver Samurai, Kid Omega, Scrambler, Avalanche, among others). Bill Duke's character has NOT been officially revealed yet, although fans have suggested it is Bolivar Trask based on this. It is entirely possible that this information could/will change in the future, but at this point in time the roles are unknown. I posted a message for the anonymous user who added the roles asking for sources. Olessi 00:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Well, that pretty much sums it up. But i did look up pictures on the girl playing Psylocke and she sort, kinda, a little bit like Psylocke. What else is funny Mercedes' name, first letter is M and shes playing M. Hehe.--Dylankidwell 08:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC) OH! SHES NOT IN THE MOVIE? DARN! THAT STINKS! SO MUCH FOR MY JOKE!--Dylankidwell 22:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Spectre

Magneto has a new cronie named Spectre who has a ghost like mutation and is similar to Ebon in Static Shock.

He can teleport,turn into gas and has mild psychic powers and is immune to physical atacks.

Polaris is also 1 of the brotherhood and Sunfire is a new X man.

Magneto has built the savage land and is preparing for attack ,

Gambit

Director is saying that gambit will not appear as he is similar to cyclops in power and similar to logan in personality...```

I fail to see how Gambit is similar to Logan in personality. Logan takes things seriously but is more laid back than Gambit. But as for being similar to Cyclops in powers, well...no. Cyclops needs special glasses and a pair of visors to curb his uncontrollable blasts from his eyes. Gambit can much more easily control his powers. Cyclops shoots destructive blasts from his eyes as versus to Gambit who throws explosive playing cards, can turn everything he touches and charges up into a walking bomb, and if I'm not mistaken has a large metal staff that he uses for melee fighting and deflecting bullets. Plus Cyclops is more about ground-based offense that doesn't require huge amounts of movement while Gambit is a lot of about the utilization of agility and aerial acrobatics. Sure, both characters deal in destructive powers, but Cyclops is more in the ways of blasting through something or cutting it in half, depending on what it is, while Gambit will just blow it the hell up. There's a big difference, so I don't think that the director has good excuse there. Vgamer101 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mercedes

As an ANTM Superfan, I know for sure that Mercedes is NOT in the movie. She told fans on her online blog. -Lil_Flip246

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=3330474&Mytoken=B9A421C4-AB61-456D-9344DE1A85B55B44581741781

If you want the other contestants' MySpace, LiveJournals, or other blogs: http://www.fansofrealitytv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49381

Anymore questions? -Lil_Flip246

Yeah. Were does it say that shes not in the movie? I looked around and I cant see it.--Dylankidwell 00:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon

I prefer to be kept anonymous but i work on the set of x men 3. I am not supposed to tell anyone but i will.

Bill Duke is acting as either Maggot/ Jesse Aronson/Detonator although Jesse is most likely . Ashley and ken are Polaris and Sunfire.

Another African American will play the part of Spectre who is a villain with a ghost like mutation and can teleport,become intangible and is immune to physical attacks. He is copied from Ebon in Static Shock. It is not for certain if he is to appear.

The theme is a copy of ultimate x men. Remember the scene in x men 2 where mystique looks on the computer for magnetos file and next to it, if you pause and see carefully,you can see Wanda,Quicksilver,Kane,Wolfsbane,Polaris and Magma's names.

Wanda will be played by elisabeth rohm and quicksilver i'm not sure.

Magneto has built the savage land,complete with dinosaurs as defense and has his own mutant army,he wants to take over the sentinel projec. so that he has his own private army and demand that mutants be allowed their own country in antarctica.

He needs Jesse Aronson to control the sentinels.

I anonymously don't believe you.

Is that really true? Unless you give us proof from the trailers. Then we'll believe you. -Lil_Flip246. And I don't remember Dinosaurs.

I rememeber in the trailer a foresty backgroud and is the savage land?--Dylankidwell 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Magneto wants them but they will not be involved in any battle. M Will not be appearing. As you can see in the trailer,magneto has amassed a massive army. Mojo owns mojoworld as his amusement park,Longshot helps magneto takeover and renames it as savage land. Magneto recruits the morlocks from the sewers when they are being attacked. He finds jean in a coccoon and revives her. She works for him as her 2ndary mutation has driven her insane but the memory of logan is enough to cure her.

He speaks to youth who have lived in mojoworld as outcasts and says that he can save the mutant race by purging those with the non-mutant gene.These are the savage land mutates but they are south americans who fled the mainland to avoid persecution.

Among his henchmen who make cameos include:

Exodus-the huge bald head at the right in the trailer,doesnt speak but kicks cyclops ass in a fight Mesmero-Magneto's Psychic Polaris-has a tiny talking part(Ashley HArtman) Sunfire Lupus Skids Avalanche Cortez Piper Amphibius scaleface sauron

I doubt it I really think that is fake, That's not going to happen.--Hotwiki 12:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

M

M will not appear

Avi Arad says that 3 major characters will die and 1 loses his powers completely but it is not specified

http://www.efavata.com/CBM/Xmen3.htm

This site has numerous rumours read up if you are interested in the new film.

Brett ratner dated serena williams so she may have a cameo

I work on the set

  • Ricky Hoggard will play avalanche
  • Humans are working for a cure for the mutant gene but magneto,is enraged and wants War so that mutants can live in their own nation:savage land.

He believes that the cure is to purge those without a mutant gene so his kind can thrive.

  • Omega red is Magneto's right-hand man.Multiple is his main firepower.
  • Vanisher,Polaris,Exodus,Callisto,Amphibius,Skids and Mesmero are in the brotherhood
  • 3 characters die during the battle
  • Yes,the savage land will be shown
  • Magneto has a HUGE army
  • He has the morlocks
  • He wants the plans for the Sentinel Prototypes
  • Bill Dukes is acting as Jesse Aronson,1 of magneto's cronies,another spy working for the government.
  • Maggott ,Sauron and Exodus(stephen Dorff) have fight sequences but minor roles in the film.
  • BAya sumikao andkate nauta will also be acting.
  • Gambit will appear in the fourth movie.

Setworker 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about Ricky Hoggard. Luckily, SHH knows all about how unreliable his information is. Olessi 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What is shh (Previous unsigned comment by Batzarro)

SHH, as I mentioned above, is SuperHeroHype, one of the external links in the article. A poster there named Ricky Hoggard (RickyH) claimed to be playing the character of Avalanche and that he had received a copy of the script. He posted various information about the movie (roles, cameos, story) that ultimately turned out to be mere lies. As such, any information deriving from Ricky Hoggard[7] is not reliable. Olessi 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that the guy worked on the set, the list seems fake--Hotwiki 06:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Almost certainly he is a fake. NYC press screening on Monday, May 22, refutes virtually all of his claims. And anyone on the set would have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement; that someone broke that, via a traceable IP address, is highly doubtful. -- Tenebrae 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Avalanche

If you see a photo of the brotherhood,on the right,you can see a tall mutant,this is Riccky Hoggard-Avalanche. Omega Red is Magneto's general.

Multiple is also in the brotherhood (Previous unsigned comment by Batzarro)

I say again, Okay...?--Dylankidwell 09:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Except for the bit where Omega Red is NOT in the movie...67.142.130.14 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Apocalypse

On the Apocalypse article, it says based on a hidden trailer, apocalypse will be in X-Men 3. Is there a hidden trailer?--Dylankidwell 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It was added by an anonymous user who did not provide a source; I will remove the reference. Supposedly a new trailer for the movie will be shown during the Super Bowl. Olessi 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I see.--Dylankidwell 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Nightcrawler

are you sure nightcrawler isn't in this movie. because if he isnt that stinks!

Alan Cumming had other projects to work on during the filming of X-Men 3, and disliked the elaborate make-up process involved with becoming Nightcrawler. Olessi 20:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The article states Nearly every actor from the previous two movies returned, the major exceptions being Alan Cumming (Nightcrawler) and Kelly Hu (Lady Deathstrike) from X2, both of whom had signed two-film contracts. Cumming wasn't in the first movie, so what is his second film? (Same for Hu)PrometheusX303 23:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Signing a two-film contract just means they have to do two films for that company. It doesn't mean the two films have to be related to one another. JQF 01:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What s for sure

Based on rumours,the trailer and Whats out,this is for sure:

  • Magneto has amassed a HUGE brotherhood
  • He frees Juggernaught from his facility(this is in the trailer).
  • Magneto has enlisted the morlocks(he has callisto).
  • He wants to purge humans from he gene pool(We are the cure)
  • According to yahoo movies Omega REd and Multiple are in the brotherhood.
  • Angel is being treated somewhere and he escpes (In the trailer).
  • MAgneto s base is the savage land.(There is so much jungle but filming location is Canada)
  • JEan's phoenix powers are unleashed(2ndary mutation)
  • Emma Frost is coming
  • Brett Ratner is dating Serena Williams so she will make a cameo
  • President and Senator Kelly(As mystique) will reappear.
  • Bill Duke acts as the President's secretary /Defence minister or something like that.He has to combat the mutant menace in a diplomatic way.(I m not sure of this).
  • There is a Black mutant in the brotherhood.He could be Jesse aronson/Detonator/Spectre(rumour?) but Maggott is most likely.
  • In the trailer it looks like 3 brotherhood members(pyro and 2 others) do a huge jump in a warzone.
  • Magneto and the X men MAY have a friendly meeting(This is in a production photo of Magneto walking with storm,logan and the Prof.)
  • There is a huge guy in the brotherhood who looks deadly(maybe Exodus)
  • There is a Sabretooth like guy on the far left(possibly Wildchild).
  • Baya Sumikao and Kate Nauta went for auditions.
  • Gambit may appear in the fourth movie.-Brett Ratner said he is considering.Hes a hard guy,

Hes got powers similar to Cyclops and Wolverine's personality.He and Rogue make a better couple anyway

Batzarro 08:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's a big group of brotherbood but half of that is unconfirmed and maybe 75% of that list are false. The actors who played Senator Kelly and the President on X2 is not coming back. I don't think spectre, Wildchild, Exodus will be in the movie even it's the 10th X-Men movie. Emma/Morlocks are still unconfirmed--Hotwiki 09:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I added 3 new pictures. Jean awaking, the funeral/memorial scene, and a new picture showing Ken Leung and Eric Dane. But there is one picture which I dont know who these people are. The Woman on the end and the little girl in the middle. Who are they?--Dil 22:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I presume the woman is Moira MacTaggart and the girl is Kitty Pryde. Olessi 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sabretooth like guy is not Wildchild, it is Juggernaut. He is played by Vinnie Jones.

Sentinels

At this site [8] from inverted stripes, it shows what could be a Sentinel. So is it ok to asume Sentinel's are in X-Men 3?--Dil 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The image is no longer there. As the movie is still months away from being released, I would not assume anything. Whenever anything new is added, I always check SHH to see how the rest of the fan community interprets information. Olessi 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well as for the sentinel image no longer there, I saved and uploaded the image.--Dil 02:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Until FOX, Ratner, or cast members start talking about Sentinels, I think it better to avoid fan conjecture and only include publicly released information. Olessi 05:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that Magneto is going for War and needs Sentinel PROTOTYPES. None may be in production or they would have announced this. Fans will go crazy if a sentinel appears.

Also,I feel magneto has enlisted the Morrlocks(He has callisto,so why not the others.

The Massive guy in the brotherhood looks like sumone important-Exodus or Avalanche There is a Black Guy.I think its Maggott. The feral guy HAS to be Wildchild,I mean who else. Serena Williams makes a cameo Batzarro 06:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of which characters people think are in the movie, they should not be listed as part of the cast until there is a way to verify the information. Do you have a source that Ashley Hartman is playing Emma Frost, when some reports say Hartman is not even appearing at all? Olessi 06:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/preview/1808490829 is yahoo movies site. Conor Widdows acts as some1 called Jones according to imDb. Is spectre real?

Yahoo has Vince Murdocco listed as Omega Red. Vince Murdocco was signed to play one of the miscellaneous mutants involved with Magneto. Because Murdocco's costume had an Omega symbol on it (like many of the other mutants with Magneto), he told his agent he was an Omega Mutant. Fans heard about this and automatically assumed it was Omega Red, when, in fact, his character in the film was cut and he is merely doing stunt work. So, Yahoo is not reliable. Jones (Connor Widdows) is one of the young students of Xavier's and probably should be added to the cast list. The only time I have heard of Spectre is on this Talk Page and no sources were provided for the information. Take from that what you will. Olessi 07:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo movies says that ashley will play Emma Frost, IMDB says that M will appear.

How do we know for sure that Bill Duke is Trask? Batzarro 07:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Jones, the character probably will be in a few scenes as he was in X2, but there is no proof he is definitely in the film. As such, he really shouldn't be added yet. Yahoo seems based on IMDB's cast list, which is quite inaccurate (Emma Frost, Omega Red, M, "Kathryn" Pryde, "Bolvier" Trask). I will find the relevant SHH thread regarding Trask. Olessi 07:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is the Trask thread at SHH. Doug Lennox, the actor who played the bartender in the first movie, was on set for X-Men 3. The cast list on his website lists Bill Duke as Trask. FYI, IMDB is based on fan submissions (not press releases), and everything there should not be taken at face value. Olessi 08:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as Ashley Hartman as Emma, lets just assume she's in the movie. She has a role. She looks sorta like her so as of now let's assume shes playing Emma. And if shes not we can change it in the future. As of this Spectre guy, leave him out completly.--Dil 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Listing Emma Frost is the exact thing we should not do. Wikipedia is striving for accuracy, and including information based on assumptions instead of proof is misleading and false. It is probable that Hartman only has a cameo as an extra in the background, if she appears in the completed film at all. There's no chance of Spectre seriously appearing in the cast list unless Marvel or Fox release relevant info. Although they are mostly spam, the IMDB message boards do have useful threads sometimes:

Olessi 23:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

All right then. Well i'm just say that because yu cant really go to a site with out Emma Frost or Ashley being mentioned. I just saying that put beside her role in italics, asumed role. But if you wanna be like that then I changed it.--Dil 00:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's just that the other sites are wrong and haven't been corrected yet. Just because they have outdated information does not mean that WP should present outdated information as well. I would rather WP freely state that it does not know who her character is instead of presenting a character which is false. Olessi 00:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


The Sentinel model is from the X2 creative team, namely Guy Dyas. I think it's in the making of X2 book. --Madchester 02:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

sentinels

If you are so sure of Teask coming,y wont sentinels come? Wikipedia should delete trasks name. there is no proof 220.247.253.229 05:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with removing Trask until (if) we hear more from Fox or Marvel. Olessi 06:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It's just those un-registered users who keep putting back Trask on the list, it's annoying.--Hotwiki 08:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I did add it once. Olessi 08:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As well as I. As well as Emma Frost.--Dil 12:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well don't do it again.--Hotwiki 13:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but, please regard that at the time I was under the impression that they were because of what was posted on the characters articles.--Dil 20:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But there's no confirmation also--Hotwiki 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation? Look at all the evadence. That is all the confirmation you need.--Dil 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

huh?--Hotwiki 10:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

new pics!!!!

Psylocke, Storm, etc...http://www.superherohype.com/news/x-mennews.php?id=3786 Lil Flip246 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Psylocke looks awsome! The Navy Storm outfit is cool but I hope it doesn't become a comon outfit worn in the movie.--Dil 02:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up, I wish Psylocke's hair was full violet--Hotwiki 07:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bishop

There is a rumour on wikipedia that Anthony Ray Parker is playing Bishop Batzarro 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Movie title and page move

Although the official novelization (and some official website mirrors) have "The Last Stand" moniker attached to it, the film should remain at X-Men 3 for the moment. The Last Stand will likely be a sub-title comme X-Men United for the previous film, which was officially titled X2. Let's try not to jump the gun, expecially when most of the references listed (SuperHeroHype, XMenFilms, IMDB.com, etc.) are still referring to the film as X-Men 3 or X3.

Even the source provided at [9] only states that FOX is mulling over the title, but they haven't finalized its usage and whether its part of the film's official name or if it's just a promotional tag. --Madchester 02:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should remain X-Men 3--Hotwiki 11:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be moved again until we know the final, official title. When the article is moved, please fix any double redirects. - LeonWhite 09:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone turn it back to X-Men 3, because I think "X-Men: The Last Stand " is just a sub-title and X-Men 3 is really the main title of the movie.--Hotwiki 14:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You think it is? Wait until the film is released, then you'll know if it is. In the meantime, no pointless moves please. - LeonWhite 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

all x-men 3 characters

Trask

Brett Ratner looks more like Trask than Bill Duke. Does anyone agree with me? Pojojo 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So, was Bill Duke Bolivar Trask or not? Dr Archeville 18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

He is not named Bolivar Trask in the official screen credits, and isn't called "Bolivar" in dialog. He's an Administration official, and not a private scientist involved with Sentinels (which are only glimpsed at in a Danger Room simulator in any event). --Tenebrae 18:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

White Queen In The Film

i really want white queen to be cast in the movie, she's such a great character and i think that Britney Spears or Scarlett Johansonn would be perfect for the role

That idea is upsettingly stupid, and completely irrelevant.

Britney Spears would not be a good choice for her. Ashley Hartman is a much better White Queen. She has the "look" to be Emma.--Dil 00:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ok, this is not a forum--Hotwiki 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

you are not the first to suggest britney. Brett ratner once said that too many fans pester him to cast her a ema.

It was under the britney spears trivia section but has been deleted.

s

NEW TRAILER!

OMG! THAT BLOWED MY MIND! So, it seems that Ken Leung, is play an Spyke like charater?--Dil 02:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

this is not a forum--hottie 14:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need all those links? The Official site has the teaser trailer as well as the official trailer available, with HD Trailers soon to follow. Bignole 16:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, no--hottie 15:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Is that an agreement that the majority should be removed. There are links inside the page, there are a list is links on the external links section. The official movie site should suffice. Bignole 17:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the official site have the two trailers, no need to put links just to watch the trailer--hottie 15:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Quill...and White Queen?

I understand why they might bring White Queen into the story line, she would be a potential defense agianst Jean Grey, but why Quill, thay would mean, they would be introducing characters from Academy X. I dont even see why he would fit into the story plot. Plus he is going to be fighting in the war...he's one of Xaviers Students, just like Archie and Leech! What do you think?

This is not a discussion forum about the film. Please use the external links listed at the end of the article to discuss the storyline and characters of the film. Olessi 18:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that White Queen will fit into the movie... very dissapointed that she did not make the cut for the movie :(

X-Jet

There is a remaking of the X-Jet! And a picture as been released!. www.ign.com check it yourself

>x<ino 18:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

YouTube Clip

I think the short film clip released on the YouTube site should be mentioned under the "Trailers..." section. Unfortunately, it seems to have pretty weak dialogue and action. Maybe it's a deleted scene. 209.66.200.45 21:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)TPHS

Inside joke from the crew?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hK33lODnbiE

Intentional or not? --KingZog 00:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You can see where it was dubbed.

Since I'm being asked for a source as to why I put this in the article- http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7881 --HellCat86 21:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A forum site is not a valid source. The guy mentions the line (under tinted text) but that doesn't validate his claim. He doesn't mention anything that hasn't been released in previews, and more than that the rest of it is just his opinion. Everyone already knew Cyclops dies, and most of the mutants have simple cameos. Also, even the clip that is circling around doesn't include "Bitch!". The inclusion of that is fairly unlikely, considering it is PG-13 and there will be lots of kids in attendence. Granted, bitch is commonly used in PG-13 rated movies, but, doesn't seem to be an accepted word among most comic book movies, mainly because there is an increasing trend to bring younger kids to see the comic movies. Bignole 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I can accept your reasons for saying it shouldn't be included but I think you're being a bit harsh towards my source. I doubt he was desperate enough to pretend he'd seen the film for attention. As for the placing of the scene, I think it's fair to say that the two sources of information (the YouTube clip and the forum post) flow well enough to rationalise they're both the same scene. --HellCat86 22:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not being harsh toward your source, forums are just not accepted source material. As for the scene, as I said...I have seen the scene, and even though it sounds dubbed, he still doesn't say "Bitch!". That was either cut, or people have been inserting it in their mind because they always remember it that way. The point is there isn't a valid source that confirms that line, and it's place on trivia will have to wait for a valid source or the movie itself. Bignole 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Internet forums and messageboards can be viable sources of information, as long as they meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For example, many musical artists or television presenters make posts to official messageboards. Mythbusters' hosts are known to post on the show's official messageboards to discuss elements from recent episodes.
A lot of the sources for this movie article (i.e., SuperHeroHype or X-MenFilms.Net) contain information that was originally shared by posters to their messageboards. In turn, the website admins create a new article, with credit given to the respective posters.
If the information does turn out to be incorrect, then it can be removed ASAP anyway.--Madchester 02:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
First, Wikipedia doesn't post information that, if it turns out to be incorrect, can be removed later. The point is to only post information that can be verified accurately. Second, you are refering to official forums. Mythbusters using their own forums to discuss their episodes is one thing, but someone posting on his personal forum that he saw the movie and says this is what happened is a completely different situation. He has no credit as a viable source; he didn't contribute to the movie, he is merely stating that he saw it, which is up from grabs anyway because you can't verify that he actually did see the movie. Just because speculation becomes true does not change the fact that it is still speculation until proven, and wiki doesn't post speculation. Bignole 04:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia:Verifiability allows for information to be placed in an article, as long as it can be verified from reliable sources. The policy states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If information turns out to be false and unverifiable, then it can be changed. Note that 60% of the material from sources like SuperHeroHype and X-Men Films.net are from messageboard posters. You can't say that messageboard posting are unreliable, when in fact they have supplied most of the information to these websites, which in turn have been referenced by Wikipedia's X3 article. Also the future films template of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films allows for "information of a speculative nature", as expressed above.
Personally, I have no problem with the Juggernaut comments, as long as a 2nd source (critic and/or fan review, messageboard posting, interview, etc.) confirms such details. For example, much of the information for The Amazing Race articles come directly from fan forums, ranging from eye-witness sightings by posters, to andectdotal details from past racers. --Madchester 06:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You just repeated what I said, that it has to be VERIFIED. Forums are not varifiable sources. Anyone can post on a forum and places like SHH usually wait to establish some credibility to their information before posting it. If they don't, they usually post a disclaimer stating that it's simply rumor. The statement has not been varified by anyone of importance, just some lone stranger on a forum site that claims to have seen the movie. Who's only evidence is supplying information that was already known. I've seen the clip, and Jugg never says "BITCH", it was cut, and the dialogue he does say sounds rather dubbed...though that could just be bad audio quality. Secondly, I highly doubt they are going to allow him to call a young girl "BITCH" when there will be children younger than 13 at the movie. Bignole 11:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Remember, this is the same series where Wolverine called Cyclops a "dick" and gave his a one-claw-salute.
I have already contacted HellCat86 and if he/she can find multiple sources referring to this scene, then he/she is free to include it in the article. As an administrator, I'm rather flexible with Wikipedia's policies and I've found that messageboards are a good source of information from past experience. I would suggest being more lenient towards new users; there's no harm in including this piece of information and if it ends up being incorrect, they can simply learn from their mistakes. --Madchester 16:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But that was two adults talking, not an adult calling a kid a bitch. The reaction is a bit different when a child witnesses an adult calling them a bitch and when they witness two adults arguing. Bignole 16:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No print encyclopedia would ever use messageboards and web-forums as a valid information source. They are rife with gossip, rumor, speculation and opinion that color any apparent fact presented. (This isn't to say they might not include links to valid news sources.)
I don't think any of believes that Wikipedia should not hold itself to the same standard as any other encyclopedia. -- Tenebrae 16:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
And no print encyclopedia would include articles for things sites like YTMND.com or popular blogs like Engadget. And as I mentioned previously, sites like SuperHeroHype post many articles based on the inside scoops of some of their messageboard posters, whether it's in the form of a script leak or set photos. Given the scope of Wikipedia's coverage, as long as information comes from a verifiable source, then it can be included. I have written worked on many articles comme The Amazing Race including sources from many fan messageboards. While they may appear to be unverifiable, there are many past racers who post on them, revealing many useful pieces of information not available on the official site. In other words, do some research on the verifiability of the posters to a messageboard, and from there you can decide whether such details are acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Madchester 23:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This said, having seen the film at a press screening last night, Juggernaut does say, "I'm the Juggernaut, you bitch!", and Kitty does call him (in apparent reference to the shape of his helmet), a dickhead. However, for verifiability's sake, it's probably best to wait until the movie officially opens and public audiences can verify this for themselves. -- Tenebrae 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree to that, because what you see at preview screenings, press screenings and other such special events is not always what you see in the official premieres. These special screenings are reserved for selective guests, and what they show you is not always what is shown in the local theaters. Not saying the whole will be different, just that special screenings sometimes exhibit special edits. Bignole 16:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Early print and media reviews of the film (i.e., JoBlo, referenced at RottenTomatoes.com) have already indicated this line being in the film, supporting the reviews of many forum and messageboard users worldwide. I have restored those details to the trivia section. And again I recommend showing more leniency towards new users, especially those who are making valid contributions to the Wikipedia project. As I said before, if details turn out to be incorrect, they can be removed ASAP. The goal of information in Wikipedia is to be be verifiable first and foremost. I have posted an apology to HellCat86 for the poor-faith deletion by some of the editors of this page. Cheers. --Madchester 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, it cannot be verified until the official release, because special screenings have been known to have versions with edits that were not in the version that was released to the public. With the premiere just 3 days away, you can wait to make sure that it is incorporated into the public version, also. I'm not trying to deny the clip, just the needless reverts if it isn't in the public version. YouTube.com carried a version that had the "bitch" part edited out. I'm merely saying wait the 3 days to find out for sure, instead of created needless edits. Reels won't arrive till a day or so before the Friday premiere, and if it's digital it can be edited again quite quickly. With the negative reaction toward that line (as stated by your own source) they may very well remove it from that reason. Bignole 23:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler

..He does say it, consider yourselves pwned

Dr. R.K.Z

Reviews

Ok, I think we need to set a cut-off limit for the reviews, so that we don't get 20 examples and links to reviews for the film. Just a suggestion. Bignole 11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. -- Tenebrae 18:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems that we have more negative reviews for this movie posted, but if you go to movies.com you will see that there are quite a bit of positive reviews, and overall it scored high. I think we need to be a little more objective in this critic response section. Bignole 01:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I dunno — they seem lukewarm to positive to me; the 2.5-out-of-4 stars USA Today gave it means better than average, for instance. It'll all balance out, if it hasn't already. BTW, I seconded your note on User talk:Dr. R.K.Z's page. His "nyah nyah" behavior is uncalled for among civilized editors. -- Tenebrae 01:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the section seems to be spun in a more negative way, to me. There are more positive reviews out there, and it seems the section isn't representing those fairly. Bignole 04:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Easily rectified. Most of the U.S. reviews should be out today. Just surf through the big papers -- Chicago Sun-Times (Ebert), LA Times, Wash Post, NY Newsday/Times/Daily News (avoid the Post -- it's owned by the same company that owns 20th Cent., Fox), etc. -- Tenebrae 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

PG-13

Can the short paragraph about the film being given a PG-13 rating be taken off, or alternatively, ratings for the movie in other countries be put on. Wikipedia is a global colaboration and by only having information relevant to the American industry on there, the article becomes more narrow. Benjaminstewart05 15:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are different versions of wikipedia for most countries. The pages are not translated into a new language, they are written by different people. If you go the German page for X3 you probably won't find all of the same information, or, atleast not in the same order. But, I think a section for the rating is a bit much. If it can be done I think it should be part of the Infobox. Bignole 17:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have different versions per country, but per language, thus the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and South Africa will all default to en.wikipedia.org (no doubt I'm missing a few countries out here, but those are the obvious ones to me). sheridan 01:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The point wasn't that there are different versions for each country, or each language, but that the versions are just photocopies of each other in another language, but written by someone else entirely. Bignole 04:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking sheridan meant that whoever translates the article would substitute his own country's rating.
Couldn't find any mention one way or another at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films re: ratings. My two cents is that the rating itself is just an infobox item, but the reason for the rating speaks to the tone of the film and is important for that reason. Whether that belongs in the intro or elsewhere — at the end of the plot summary, perhaps — is another issue. -- Tenebrae 05:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That is what I originally said. The original argument was about the rating being taken off or puting the other countries ratings in. It is in the infobox, but, it is not showing up when it is saved. Bignole 11:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be more relevant in the UK if the movie was from the UK. If it was a UK movie I think the appropriateness would be to have the rating system that is established there by the one that designates what the movie is on Wiki. But, seeing as the movie is an American movie, it would seem appropriate to establish that it was rated PG-13 by the MPAA in America. Bignole 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I was just saying that that part of the article becomes a bit narrow, and that I am in the UK, and in the UK, a different system is used, and so the rating on there is not relevant.Benjaminstewart05 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
If you look at articles like The Da Vinci Code (film), they have an entire section with all the different ratings given by different organizations. That's probably the recommended format. --DDG 15:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That may be so for that film, but that doesn't seem to be a repeated theme for most film pages. That is actually the first time I have seen a section devoted to the different ratings in different countries. I still feel that the rating that should be noted should be from where the film is originating. If the film came from Austria then I think we would need to use their system to distinguish what rating is received. But, if you want to track down every rating it received in all different cultures...I have no objection. Bignole 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, IMDB only had US, British, and Finnish ratings, but I created a section for it that can be added as we get more information. I can't seem to find searchable sites for other ratings systems like the MPAA has... --DDG 17:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Having looked at The Da Vinci Code (film), I think that the best course of action would be to do the same, have the different ratings of the films in different countries, it is interesting and shows not only the legal ramifications of a certain film but also its acceptance in certain cultures, which I think is probably relevant to any film page. However I don't think it should be too long. Only as long as The Da Vinci Code (film)'s version. I think that ratings are an important part of a film and so should be included on film articles... some might disagree... but oh well. Benjaminstewart05 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Accent

Prof. X, an American in the comics, has an New England patrician accent in the film -- not British. See New York Newsday article at [10], which specifically notes X's American accent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) Oops. Sorry. I always sign; just was rushing out. -- Tenebrae 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's great... but it still doesn't matter to the article. If you want to mention the differing accents elsewhere in the article, fine, but there's no reason to randomly mention it in the section about the actors who have joined the franchise in this film. I'm reverting your edit. EVula 18:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I've done the same thing about signing posts. Don't sweat it. :) EVula 18:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a prob — you made a good point and I left your edit as you had it. Cheers! -- Tenebrae 01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but in this film Patrick Stewart has exactly the same accent he usually has - cultured English with a hint of American from too much time filming Star Trek. He certainly doesn't sound American. -- Necrothesp 00:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix

All right, in X3, the Phoenix is not a powerful cosmic force, but rather a secret personality hidden in Jean's mind. Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Moira MacTaggert

What scene does she appear in beside the two mentioned in the plot? Could I ask User:DropDeadGorgias to verify before making the change. "Several" appears to be inexact and misleading. Thanks. --Tenebrae 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • She appeared 3 times by my count. Once in the classroom video feed, once at Charles' funeral, and in the post-credits scene. It currently stands at: "Dr. Moira MacTaggart, who appears in the film...", which should satisfy all parties involved. However, I'm a little confused why you re-added "reportedly", when she is listed in the cast list later in the article as Olivia Williams. If you want to be wishy-washy here (which is fine for Wikipedia:Verifiability reasons), she should be removed from the lower table, as well. --DDG 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Beast continuity problem

How exactly is there a conflict? Here's the bit as it originally was.

  • Filmmakers considered utilizing the Beast character since the first X-Men movie, but reportedly due to budget constraints he ultimately was not used. However, in X2 someone identified as Hank McCoy does appear on a television screen in a cameo role. Unfortunately, this creates a continuity problem, as it is extablished in X3 that Beast studied with Prof. Xavier and was a former member of the X-Men.

I can't think of any reason why their would be a conflict. Any ideas? JQF 03:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyclops?

Does anyone else think Cyclops is really dead considering they never showed his death scene. Empty2005 03:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

They probably left it open in case of a sequel, but for now I'd just assume he's dead. JQF 05:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough Empty2005 05:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

True, it was strongly hinted at, but not shown, so don't think the characters' death is definite. Marvel has done this same thing at least once before. Ever watch the Blade movies. You see the old man that is the assistant to Wesley Snipes' character close to death at the end of the first Blade to whom Blade gave a gun so he could kill himself? Before the gun could go off the camera veered away and it was found out in the second movie that the old man failed in killing himself and reappeared as a result. I don't think the situation here with hinting at Cyclops' death in X3 is any different. Besides, he's a major frickin' part of the X-Men team and plays a very significant role. There is no real X-Men without Cyclops. It's like having a Justice League without SuperMan or BatMan, it doesn't work! Vgamer101 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I find it very difficult to believe that they would kill Scott Summers--he's the rightful successor to Professor X as it is! I doubt Cyclops is dead. They never really specify what happened to him. My guess is that he'll come back in the next movie with greater control over his eye powers (since whatever Phoenix did to him may be permanent). 71.245.168.120 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Magneto's depowering

I was under the impression that, in the last pre-credits scene, where Magneto points at the chess piece, the piece does move forward slightly. I could be wrong, but I swear I saw it move. If someone knows it didn't move they can change the summary. Everyone I asked when I left the theatre said "Yes, idiot, the piece moved at the end."

Nope. You saw that chess piece move! No wussy mutant anti-gen shots are going to strip Magneto of his powers. I mean, come on. He's supposed to be, if I'm not mistaken, a class 5 mutant (or whatever the movie said) and he completely lifted that suspension bridge right off of its' supports for gods' sake! I don't think that a mutant strong enough to do that can be sustained by the simple anti-gens. The more powerful mutants would probably be more immune to them. Vgamer101 17:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, Magneto is not a Class 5 Mutant (whatever that is - I can't remember it from the comics), As they explicitly state in the film that Phoenix is the only Class 5 in the world, and as we know (from that church meeting with all the mutants) that Magneto is above a class 3, he must be Class 4. Assuming the classes are integer based. Help plz 17:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Did they say Phoenix was the only Class 5 in the world? I thought they just said she was a Class 5, and more powerful than Magneto... which wouldn't necessarily mean Magneto's a Class 4, he could be a Class 5.1 and Phoenix is a Class 5.4.... Dr Archeville 23:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it moved. My thoughts: the cure wasn't quite as "permanent" as the scientists thought. If there is a fourth film, it'll probably deal with several mutants powering back up; Rogue, for one, will all of a sudden start draining again, and we'll see Mystique follow someone other than Magneto (considering the fact that he left her for dead); maybe she'll become a mole for the X-Men (since Xavier is most definitely coming back). EVula 17:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The mutant cure is an antigen, not a serum. It's referred to as an "antibody", which means that all it does is target the DNA/protein signatures in the body's cells. I find it very difficult to believe that every single cell can be stripped of the X-gene. My guess is that the antigen isn't going to work at all, and that every mutant is going to repower. BTW, I don't recall there ever being a mutant classification in the comics, so my thinking is they created it for this movie in order to find an alternate explanation for Phoenix's existence (I guess they thought an alien entity would be a bit on the eerie side). The system is much like a hurricane classification (Category 5 being the strongest and rarest). 71.245.168.120 19:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the correction on the classification of Magneto. That part kind of escaped me. My bad! I thought that they said Class 4, but I wasn't entirely sure. As for the mutant cure thing, I know that's it's a anti-gen and . I was just using the word "immunity" in regards to the level of strength of their mutant genes possibly having an effect on how strongly the anti-gens immediately affect them. I mean, did you see how quickly and strongly Mystique reacted to the anti-gen, of which she was only shot with one? This is as versus to Magnetos' reaction to it which was not as strong (the chess piece scene) and he was nailed with four of those suckers! I may be wrong about this because because of what bodily reactions of theirs the movies shown. Mystique could have very well gained back here powers by the end of the movie, but it just didn't show it. You know, a sort of an off the camera event happening. But I agree here that this isn't to say that they lost their powers permanently. That's a given. Keyword in the movie, was that it "suppresses", or hides, the mutant gene and doesn't eradicate it completely so the re-powering thing is entirely possible. Vgamer101 22:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Especially if more powerful Mutants possess more of the "Mutant antibody" than weaker Mutants (the same way more powerful Jedi possess more Midichlorians than weaker Jedi). Untouched "Mutant antibody" may well replicate in time and restore the Mutant to full power... or not, and thus Magneto's left as a Class 1 paperclip-pusher. Dr Archeville 23:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that it's a bit of a gamble whether or not the mutants regain their powers? I guess that makes sense. Vgamer101 00:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Dr Archeville: IIRC she said something like "I just detected a Class 5, Its the only one I've felt" or something, I will watch the film again on Tuesday (Cheap days) and will report back, I am currently arguing against the the trivia section in the Magneto article, as I don't believe he is class 5. I will report back on my findings, and will record that quote and pass it on as proof. I am prepared to be wrong, but IIRC, even if Phoenix is not the only Class 5 that does not imply that Magneto is, although, given his power (In the comics) he most likely is! Help plz 14:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibility for a fourth film?

"Gambit may appear in the fourth movie [...]" Well shit, this goes without saying now doesn't it? Not only have many X-fans complained about the lack of film appearance of the character Gambit, but a fourth movie would help tie all the loose ends of the third. I mean you have the deaths of both Professor X and Cyclops at the hands of Jean-Grey/Phoenix, the death of Jean-Grey/Phoenix herself at the hands of Wolverine who loved her, Mystique losing her powers, Magneto somehow retaining his, as well as the introduction or re-introduction of characters dead, missing, or just not appearing in the past three. There are way too many questions that need to be answered for it to end at a third film. As for what the fourth movie could be about. Well, look at what they have now - The first film dealt with the plotline of Magneto trying to capture Rogue to put in his mutation machine so he could turn the world's leaders, who were at a UN meeting, into mutants themselves in order to make the world more like mutant-kind and be sensitive towards mutant needs. Acceptance through means of force. The second film had Professor X captured by Stryker and manipulated by his son into locating other mutants through Cerebro so Stryker could launch a full-blown genocidal assault on all mutants to finish them off, which caused the X-Men and the Mutant Brotherhood to team up. The third film dealt with the mutants trying to stop the mutant anti-gen from being used to change them to a standard of what normal people think they should. So let's look at this, we got a mutation machine, anti-mutant genocide by military style force, and an attempt to de-power all the mutants so they don't pose any kind of threat. They touched upon a lot of different things. But they haven't yet come upon anti-mutant efforts with the use of the giant Sentinel robots nor have they done the inevitable movie adaptation of all the world's mutants fighting against Apocalypse. There is no doubt in my mind that both of those would make into the next films. Vgamer101 18:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone introduce the forthcooming next episode section in this article?

Fox films has officially announced that X Men Film will have the 4th series http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/49/4449/summary.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduemoni (talk • contribs)

An unreliable source. Go to X-Men film series for a proper lowdown. Alientraveller 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


Cameo cast

I've tried changing it once already but my changes seem to have been deleted since yesterday.

Basically the character listed as Anole on the page is in the main credits as Lizard Man, played by stuntman Lloyd Adams.

Also on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376994/fullcredits the following cameos are listed:

  • David Colin Smith ... Omega Mutie - listed here as Wraith
  • Julian Richings ... Mutant Theatre Organiser - looks similar to pre-Horseman Caliban
  • Zoltan Buday ... Mutant Cure - the Rhino-like mutant from the deleted scene.
  • Mark Helfrich ... Ash Man - the charcoal skined mutant from the camp scene and the animatic
  • Bryce Hodgson ... Artie - Worth a mention due to his role in X2
  • Connor Widdows ... Jones - The TV blinking kid from X2
  • Luke Pohl ... Flea - returning cameo from X2
  • Ryan King ... X-Student - listed here as Hellion
  • Olivia Williams ... Dr. Moira MacTaggart
  • Alexandra Zhang ... Student - the student who writes telepathically in class, maybe based on Sketch

It just seems to me that if the listing for Quill is kept as Kid Omega based on the credits then these entries should be the same or omitted. ---Garhdo

Re: Bishop, Gambit, etc. as cameo characters: Unless we can provide an actor's name (either credited or through some cite, like a magazine or newspaper article) or a screengrab, there's no confirmation that someone whom you think might be Bishop, say, really is Bishop. Basically, that means just adhering to Wikipedia's prime rule: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". --Tenebrae 06:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What was the name of the deleted seen with the rhino mutant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.49.45 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Quill

The creators have stated very clearly, the commentary track being at least one source, that the character with spines is Quill and was named incorrectly in the credits. It is a fact and whoever wrote "do not change or be charged with vandalism" or whatever is simply incorrect (maybe the fact that people keep changing it should be a clue.)

More proof from http://www.thexverse.com/community/showpost.php?p=38406&postcount=89/, which is also featured on both the Quill and Kid Omega articles:

"According to scriptwriter Zak Penn, the character played by Leung was not named as Kid Omega in the original script. In a Q&A on fansite thexverse.com, he said: 'This was a screwup, pure and simple, albeit one that is never mentioned anywhere in the movie but the credits.'"

Also, common sense.

My edit lists both names and explains the mixup. Changing it to Kid Omega is misleading, and also stupid, considering the second someone follows that link to the Kid Omega page they'll be told he's actually Quill (and then they'll probably just go and change it again). Rglong 07:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The official credits cannot be ignored. They're a primary source. If we start ignoring primary sources because we believe we have a better idea or that they're incorrect, where do we stop? As well, the fact that fans keep changing it doesn't make it correct.
I've written what I believe is a compromise solution that respects the primary source while acknowledging fans' complaints. --Tenebrae 02:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Credits are flawed in other places however: Psylocke is apparently also misnamed (according to scriptwriter Zak Penn she was never named as such in the script) and Moira is absent due to her name being left out of the press notes. Surely the 'primary' source in this case should be the Scriptwriter and Director, in the same manner that artistic/lettering mistakes occuring in the comics are overriden in the canon by the writers. --Garhdo

I may not like it any more than you do, but the screen credits are the screen credits. They are what they are and we can't change them; all other general-audience sources will use them, and Wikipedia will look fannish and less than credible. The best thing we can do is to give the official credits, and then add any additional comments (with citations) -- which is pretty much what we have for Quill now, though I would like to get a citation there. I've heard plenty of people say that the screenwriter said such-and-so here or there, but I haven't seen any definite footnotes. --Tenebrae 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Being accurate is more important than looking accurate. -Toptomcat 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And we are accurately quoting the screen credits. --Tenebrae 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Are we even sure that is Zak Penn's post? Is the X-Verse official? Alientraveller 08:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Now the article incorrectly states that it's just comic fans "taking exception" to the naming of the character, rather than the credits being incorrect, which is what the writer has said. I'm changing it again to make it more neutral. I will keep Kid Omega as the first name mentioned to appease the letter-of-the-law crowd, however I still want to point out how ridiculous it is to accept information as true simply because of its source, with its accuracy being regarded as secondary. That is a logical fallacy.Rglong 00:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to respectfully disagree. The article gives the credits; whether you or I feel they are accurate is simply beside the point because we're reporting what the movie credits themselves actually say. And for consistency with comics continuity, an explanatory note is attached.
The 1970s Hulk TV series called the character "David Banner." Comics fans would say, "No, that credit is wrong". But it's still what the credit reads, and that's the observable, concrete reality that we report -- with an explanatory note about the discrepancy with the comic, if we wish.
I'm sure you can see the importance of reporting the plain-vanilla fact. When we start to do otherwise -- whether it's us here or a newspaper reporter changing a document's statement because he thinks it's wrong for whatever reason -- things crumble. --Tenebrae 01:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're acting like I'm making this shit up or something. The writer of the movie has admitted this error in an interview.Rglong 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Now the article is incorrect again, because again you are just claiming that "fans" made this up out of their heads.Rglong 01:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now it's neutral. It's totally missing information, but at least it doesn't blame "fans" for the problem. Which is all I wanted really - fine if you want to dismiss the Zak Penn interview, but don't make extra B.S. up about how it's just the "fans" who think this is wrong (FYI I don't even read the comics).Rglong 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.

How much "primacy" does a DVD commentary have? Because the creators, including the director, also aknowledge the credits are incorrect on the commentary. FYI.Rglong 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Direct quotes from primary sources are extremely important. How much knowledge or input they had must be considered. In any event, given that the transcript is not online, I would insert the verbatim quote from the person, possibly in a footnote, citing the disc and the time-stamp, which is easily viewable on any DVD player's readout. This would allow other editors to view the exact words, and assess the speaker for knowledge and credibility. Really, this is what any journalist or author or would do, and certainly print encyclopedias and textbooks adhere to the same level of vetting, so we should as well. --Tenebrae 16:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL Yeah I'm sure all the wikipedia articles about comic book movies are held to that standard. Ha ha! Not that you're wrong, I just think it's funny, seeing as how the corporate media doesn't come close to meeting those standards with really important issues, let alone movie trivia. But since I'm an art grad and pretty much sit around painting all day, I'll pop in the DVD in the background and try to listen for it. I'm fairly certain the director, Bret Ratner, is the one who says it. Doesn't get more primary than that, or at least I hope the director's importance would outweigh whatever obscure person is in charge of writing up the credits.Rglong 00:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

DVD Commentary: director Brett Ratner, writers Zak Penn and Simon Hinberg

DVD Scene 5, The Rally:

Magneto goes to the community action meeting and charges up the crowd. Immediately afterward he and Pyro are confronted by Callisto and Quill. Exactly when Callisto says "If you're so proud of being a mutant, where's your mark", Brett Ratner on the commentary track says:

RATNER: "This is Ken Leung who's been in a bunch of my movies who, you know, he said 'Brett I got nothing to do.' I said 'don't worry we'll create a character for you,' and Mark came up with the idea of this character - is it Spike?"

PENN or HINBERG (hard to tell their voices apart): "Yeah that's my favorite line" (referring to what's happening on screen, not to Ratner).

PoH (the other writer answering Ratner): "No it's Quill".

R: "Quill, I'm sorry, it's Quill. And Mark came up with this idea to have quills coming out of his face like a porcupine."

My Playstation doesn't have an exact time marker, and neither does the program I use to play DVDs on my computer. But anyone who owns the DVD should be able to go straight to scene 5 and find this in two and a half seconds.

And for the love of christ on a cracker, if the movie's own director and his two head writers don't trump the random technician or whoever that's in charge of entering the little names into the credits scroll, then there is no reason or justice in the universe.Rglong 01:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The quoted text doesn't support the assertions that there were errors made. An alternate interpretation could be 'they refer to him as Spike, thought of him as Spike, but named and credited as Quill due to conflicts in licensing, as Spike was introduced for the cartoon and not a pre-existing character. As such, he might be licensed through the production company for the cartoon, and not directly through Marvel.' Further, that they use Kid Omega may also be some indication of further lawsuits/legal bars to the use of Quill. ThuranX 01:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No, he doesn't seriously suggest it was ever "Spike", he misspeaks when he says Spike and is quickly corrected by his HEAD WRITERS. Then he quickly apologizes, and it's obvious he remembers exactly what it is the second they correct him. Why don't you listen to the commentary first and then make a judgment. And it's obviously an error because Zak Penn said it was an error, I don't care that he said it on a forum, he said it and he's the co-writer of the freaking movie! If people are this willing to obsess over the letter of the law in an article about a sci-fi movie, and be willfully blind to very obvious and readily available evidence, then imagine what other problems wikipedia has with articles that are actually about important issues!!Rglong 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Or, y'know, no WP:OR on interpretations of his statements, and so on. Stop promoting 'your version' as the 'right version'. ThuranX 02:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off. You have both writers and the director saying it, and Zak Penn explicitly admitting it was an error in the credits roll. For one thing I think you're just upset at me over a debate that occurred on a different article, which is a separate issue, but let me break this Quill issue down for you:

EVIDENCE THAT IT IS CALLED QUILL: Director and both head writers call him Quill in DVD commentary. In fact, the writer goes out of his way to correct Ratner when he accidentally calls him Spike, and Ratner goes out of his way to apologize and correct himself.

EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS AN ERROR IN THE CREDITS: Zak Penn explicitly says this in an interview on an internet forum. Some people don't want to include this because it's a forum, but you can't just ignore it. Perhaps the forum isn't permissable as a primary source and therefore the fact that it was clearly an error has to be left out according to wikipedia rules, but...

STOP ACCUSING ME AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN THE ZAK PENN INTERVIEW OR LISTENED TO RATNER AND HIS WRITERS ON THE COMMENTARY OF MAKING THIS UP. We didn't. You have the evidence you just don't want to include it, for whatever reason. But constantly accusing us of pulling this out of thin air is what makes contributors like me very, very annoyed, and not want to be in this community anymore. And it's not civil. So stop it.Rglong 02:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, cool down. This is a character name, in a movie, on an internet website. Getting pissed does no one any good. This is just Wikipedia. Take it seriously, but not so seriously you blow a gasket doing so. It's really simple. You simply do not have a citation for the above. In fact, what you are doing above fits quite well with WP:SYNTH. read up on it, and see how closely it matches. Calling for citation in the face of OR or SYNTH is what we do when we take this project seriously. I keep asking you to find one. Surely if it's that well known, you can find one of those three, Penn, Hinberg, or Ratner, saying this where we can make a citation. ThuranX 02:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm, well I would love to cool down, but something about being called a liar and a vandal when I'm trying to improve the accuracy of the article really yanks my chain.Rglong 02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning of the meme?

I'm pretty sure the "Juggernaut bitch" scene was added after the creators saw the meme online. Should it be mentioned here? .Absolution. 20:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not without citation. ThuranX 01:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Brett Ratner mentioned it on the DVD commentary, if that helps. Paul730 09:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can give us a citation for that, it would help, but even so I'm not sure it's a particularly notable matter. It's what, one line in the film? It doesn't have the level of formality that happened with Transformers, so I'm not sure it's particularly worth it. but I'm open to counter-arguments. ThuranX 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's all that notable either, I wouldn't include it. But I'm sure it's mentioned on the commentary, if anyone does think it's relevant. Paul730 00:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What the heck does this sentence mean?

"Senior actors Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen had their faces completely "de-aged" by complex keyframing, in which no CGI elements were used."

I think I've asked this before but nobody had the answer: what does it mean that "no CGI elements were used"? They were deaged using CGI, weren't they?Rglong 02:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no answer, I'm taking that out because I don't think it makes sense. They use CGI to pull of the effect.Rglong 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
What I believe they meant is no 3D computer modeling was used. Computers were used to "paint" the actors faces, cell by cell, to make them look younger (kinda like the technique used to stylize 300). Whether this is classified as CGI or not is up for debate. Padillah (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cast list

Can we get rid of this cast list please? It seems to attract unsourced speculation of fans assuming that, because that mutant can teleport, he must be Vanisher, etc. Also, what encyclopedic purpose does it serve? We're not IMDb, we don't need to have a list of credits. Any real casting information (like Alan Cumming leaving because of costume issues) can be included without the list, especially a list of extras who bear some similarity to a character from the comics. Paul730 00:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree to a point. Listing central characters like Hugh Jackman and Famke Janson is not a bad idea and does add to the article. But to list people that are not in the movie because they were in a cut scene that is on the DVD is over the top. We are not trying to replace IMDB which has much more comprehensive cast listings than we have any right to. Padillah (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh

You know, I hate this article. I give up. Make it say whatever you want.

I just want to leave it by expressing how utterly insane I think it is to take one tiny little word from the credits, which the head writer has said was most likely a mistake, pure and simple; which contradicts everything else ever spoken of by the director and both his writers; which goes against common sense - to take that one little error and place it above all else simply because of where it came from.

I think this is pretty much a loophole in the rules of wikipedia that is detrimental to its accuracy. I sincerely hope articles about more important issues aren't suffering from this.

That's all. Let's never speak of it again, ever. Do not ever ask me about it again, please, for the love of all things good and decent in the universe.

Have a nice day.Rglong 04:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, as this round-robin discussion has said repeatedly for months, the simple fact is that we're reporting what the credits say -- not commenting on or editorializing about them.
We're reporting the cast list, same as IMDb and every professional reference source. Is every professional reference source wrong?
And in fact, we even do note that a similar character in the comics has a different name: One sentence that states a simple, content-neutral fact. ("[H]is character resembles the comic books' character Quill; however, the official cast credits read 'Kid Omega'.) We're not speculating on why; we're just stating the simple, incontrovertible fact.
Finally, let's please note that, leaving aside Rglong's unsettling hyperbole ("for the love lf all things good and decent in the universe") and self-righteous solipsism, his insulting us fellow Wiki editors by calling us "nazis" [sic] for adhering to guidelines that are in place for a good reason has resulted in a 31-hour block.
This movie came out almost a year-and-a-half ago. This is just a simple cast list. After all this time time, can't we please just leave it as the simple factual reporting and one additional factual sentence that notes one minor difference with the source material? That's plenty encyclopedic. --Tenebrae 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm not supposed to restart discussions, but c'mon: it was a mistake. It was a primary source, but still A MISTAKE. Penn said it himself. He's a more "primary" source than the credits list with mistakes on it. Can't we just put there, <!--The name is Quill, the "Kid Omega" in the credits was revealed to be a mistake-->? → C Teng [talk] 13:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, every professional reference source is wrong because they haven't read Zak Penn's post. → C Teng [talk] 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
They haven't watched the DVD commentary, either. I'm with Rglong on this; QUILL is the canon name. The writers confirmed it. Zak Penn confirmed it. THE DIRECTOR confirmed it. Why do you insist to keep the "professional sources" as references, even though they have been revealed to be wrong? Fine, if we can't fix it, then I'll just expand a little on his section. C Teng [talk] 13:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Finally, I'd like to point out WP:IAR. C Teng [talk] 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree. I've gotten sucked into these kind of ridiculous arguments in these discussions before, and its amazes me every time how some people think the Wikipedia guidelines are hard rules that MUST be followed, to the word, regardless of whether doing so reduces the accuracy of the article. I'm not a comics guy, so I have no personal knowledge of what character this really is, but it would seem to me that this matter has been clarified ad nauseam by the people who made the movie, and the "official credit" is nothing but a clerical error. I don't believe its in the spirit of Wikipedia to show false information, sourced or not. I think a fair compromise would be for it to read "Ken Leung as Quill (erroneously credited as Kid Omega): Has porcupine-like spines he can extend or retract at will. While the official cast credits read "Kid Omega", the writers on the DVD commentary give no doubt that it is, in fact, Quill." I have read on here that the commentary is not a good source because it is considered a forum, which Wikipedia forbids. I don't think its a stretch to say the policy is referring to forums as in messsage boards and discussion pages like this. To disallow a fact because of the medium in which the most reliable source possible stated it is just asinine.Aoystreck (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The more significant point is that the master video from which the DVDs were struck could have had the "Kid Omega" credit changed to "Quill" at virtually no cost whatsoever -- and the filmmakers and the studio, no matter what else was said, chose NOT to do that. That clearly indicates that when given the opportunity to change the character's name in the official aftermarket credits, they chose NOT to.
If the filmmakers and the studio chose to call him Kid Omega not only in the primary release, but in the secondary release as well, then who are we to say different. That would be WP:OR on our part, and certainly POV since some editors want Kid Omega, others want Quill ... that's a difference of opinion, and opinion is disallowed in the face of the objective facts. The objective fact in the case of film characters' names is what appears in black-and-white in the script and in the onscreen credits. Who are we to say that the people who own these characters are can call them whatever they want are wrong?
Remember "David" Banner in the old Hulk live-action TV show? That was the producers' choice. We can't say, "Bill Bixby as Bruce Banner, erroneously credited by the producers as David Banner." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Omegas

It says that Callisto is the leader of them. Now, are Callisto, Psylocke, Quill / Kid Omega, and Arclight the only ones? But it says it's an "underground network that stretches across the nation." What does that mean? C Teng [talk] 17:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all non-notable and irrelevant to the article. In point of fact it's irrelevant to the movie as well, which reinforces the fact that it's irrelevant to the article. Padillah (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well... I posted it a year ago. —C Teng(talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Omegas/Muties

According to the X-Men: The Last Stand website, Callisto's group is called the "Omega Muties" (see References section). Where did "Omegas" come from, here? —C Teng(talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Citations for use

  • Neil Drumming (2006-05-19). "Master of the Mutants". Entertainment Weekly.
  • Christian Moerk (2006-05-21). "Phoenix's Unresolved Daddy Thing, and Other X-Men Issues". The New York Times.

Resources to use. Wildroot (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Designer of the rolling prison

In the novelization it says "Magneto cocked an eyebrow at the inventiveness of the design, reminded of a piece of information gleaned by Mystique some while back, that there was a mutant inventor working for DARPA, the Defense Department's Advanced Research and Planning Agency, known only by the code name Forge. If this was Forge's work, that made him-or her-a force to be reckoned with, on a par with Xavier himself." (page 117 and 118) Should there be a link from Forge's page to here or vice versa or should it be completly ignored seeing as how it is not stated in the movie and only the book about the designer? TacfuJecan (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not stated in the movie, so it's not really relevant in an article about the movie.
And this is off-topic but my God what a bad piece of writing. "Force to be reckoned with"? Really? Quentin Tarantino rightly made fun of that hackneyed phrase in Pulp Fiction nearly 20 years ago. "Gleaned by Mystique some while back"? Jesus, that's bad writing. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Total agreement with everything you just said, Tenebrae, both about it not being relevant and that it was horribly written. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sequel

The section about the sequel needs to be rewritten, but Hotwiki keeps reverting me. I tried his talk page and he ignored my message. Enigmamsg 19:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I only reverted you once, the thing is when you rewrote the section, you didn't mention that X-Men: Days of Future Past was also a sequel to X-Men: The Last Stand.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you reverted me twice. [11] [12] Restoring the old version without clarifying the meaning. Enigmamsg 04:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR issue — Cast Listings

Since May, Burningblue52, here and in other X-Men movie articles, has continually inserted claims of names that do not appear in or are mentioned in a specific film. One such edit in May was reverted by Gothicfilm. Now, today, with reverts of the status quo:

he has demonstrated a willingness to edit war and is at 3RR. He also hasn't discussed his edit here after the first revert, as per WP:BRD.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Response

In response, to the editors' issues with me seeking to improve the listings on the Wikipedia website: I suggest that editors seek to remain consistent, uniform, and complete in their character listings. For instance:

On X-Men Origins: Wolverine film page, Wolverine/Hugh Jackman is listed as "James Howlett/Logan/Wolverine", and on every other page he is listed simply as "Logan/Wolverine". The inconsistencies of such listings is A) confussing to the general public (i.e.: the casual viewer who is trying to understand the already confusing X-Men film timelines), B) annoying to the fanbase (i.e.: myself among others), and C) unprofessional!! How is it that a site that millions of viewers read for basic information, can be so inconsistent.

Editors have stated that I am a problem and issue for trying to 'correct' and resolve these inconsistencies, even though us general users have no way of knowing EVERY coding/editing rule as they apparently do. I was merely seeking to improve the site, by allowing further insight.

For an actor to play a superhero-based character, it should be known that that character has a civilian name, as well as their code-name/alias. I don't understand the issue, but I would like to find out how it is that the editors of this site disagree with my suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningblue52 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Logan is only ever called James Howlett in that one movie. To say that he is called that in other movies is inaccurate and untrue. The Hulk was named David Banner in the old TV series. Should we keep calling him David Banner now? No, because the current movies don't call him David Banner. And the current movies don't called Wolverine James Howlett -- they call him Logan. Should we call the Hulk "David Bruce Banner" or "Bruce David Banner" or "Bruce a.k.a. David Banner" or "David 'Bruce' Banner"? No. We can only call a character what that particular movie calls him or her. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The TV show from the 80s is not in the same continuity as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That's why Mark Ruffalo isn't playing 'David Bruce Banner' as you said (could have done without the sarcasm there). Calling the character David Banner was the TV show direction. Never has the Marvel Cinematic Universe called him that. However, in the X-Men film series (which is all supposed to be one coherent story, with the same characters) - for a character to be called many different things doesn't take away from that fact that he is the same exact character. In the next film if Hugh Jackman is only called 'Wolverine' -- will the cast listing then only list him as 'Wolverine' or will it list his birth name too? I think this issue is like a hilarious joke. To have inconsistencies within the same storyline, continuity and series is very unprofessional. I work for a business that is professionalism in it's finest and being a perfectionist myself, I guess I will have to just come to a realization that Wikipedia is not.

If you really work for a business "that is professionalism in it's finest," you would have spelled "its" correctly, and used the phrase "at [not "in"] its finest." Also, you would have used proper punctuation to say, " '80s." Or more accurately, " '70s-'80s." You also would have the read the words on every page that say, "Sign your posts on talk pages: [with four tildes]."
Most Wikipedia editors would say that we should not assume, and that we should not make claims about a movie saying something that, in fact, it does not.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Tenebrae. The cast listings and character names should match the films' credits. If different films give the name differently, that is an issue Burningblue52 has with the way the film was done. Not with WP. It is more useful for readers interested in the issue to see how the names were used differently in certain films, if that is the case, rather than to try to "correct" them so they're all the same. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
For a multitude of reasons, that has long been the consensus of the film project. Though literally matching the cast to the film credits is not explicitly stated in the guidelines for cast listings, time and again it has been beneficial to agree that it is the best course of action in the interest of article stability and edit war prevention. It's come up at films with twist endings regarding character identity, films where sources differ on the spelling of a surname that is never actually shown in the film itself, and franchises with discrepancies for whatever reason (character changes name, adaptation from a different medium, sloppy writing, terrible dubbing, whatever). I have seen articles with more fleshed out cast sections come to a consensus to include notations of such minor differences but it's not always appropriate. Millahnna (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's very nice to see how differences are handled within the 'talk section' at such a 'PROFESSIONAL' level....tenebrae, replying with sarcasm never comes across the correct way. I don't spend my days altering things on this site - so I may not know the coding protocols that you pointed out; my point is this: uniform, concise, consistency goes a long way. And because of our differing opinions and your 'prestigious' position you see it fit to belittle others. I did not seek to cause an issue. I was only trying to help out the website because it is a frustrating site and that is why people make fun of getting information from Wikipedia. No need to make a mockery of others online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningblue52 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. I responded perfectly civilly in my first response at 21:55, 16 July 2015. You were snarky in return, boasting of your great professionalism and perfectionism in a post with poor grammar and spelling. And technically speaking, I wasn't being sarcastic, which involves saying the opposite of what you mean. ("Yeah, that was a great catch, Bill Buckner.") All I did was point out facts about your post. --Tenebrae (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on X-Men: The Last Stand. 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) 21:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on X-Men: The Last Stand. 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) 03:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on X-Men: The Last Stand. 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) 14:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Plot Error?

At the very end of the plot it says that Magneto or Eric looks at Raven to see her eye turn yellow but that isn't anywhere at the end of the movie, not even in the deleted scenes. I don't want to change it in case I'm wrong so can anyone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson3207 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

No you’re not wrong. I literally came in here looking for this exact explanation. What gives?

--98.24.118.24 (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

{u|TheRealScotia03}} added the claim in September without comment. It was removed shortly. They added it again on December 3. Now two more editors are disputing it. I'm removing it again.
The editor in question also seems to have a need to include "naked and alone" here (and "provocative contortion" and "sex icon" elsewhere). I had already removed that. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmen False information release date

Hello people!

So the movie X-Men Last Stand was released on Japan September 09, 2006 according to IMDB Yazan Alhajyousef (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, but this isn't a Japanese movie. Please read WP:FILMYEAR, which states to "List films by their earliest release date, whether it be at a film festival, a world premiere, a public release, or the release in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." You didn't leave out that it was produced in the United States in your edits, so why change it to a later date? Furthermore, What makes you think this is a Japanese movie?Crboyer (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand/Archive_1&oldid=1222203975"