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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

X-Men 4

The Last Stand is the last stand; there won’t be X-Men 4 so please stop posting it. The success of the last stand was a condition to make a Wolverine spin off which more likely going to happen.

Somehow, I'm not quite sure. I mean come on! There's too much open-endedness in the third film to just end it here. Jean Grey/Phoenix is dead, Professor X is dead, Cyclops is supposedly dead (only implied but not definite), Mystique lost her powers, Magneto somehow retained his despite being shot by four mutant anti-gens, Rogue went on a quest for the anti-gens herself so she could touch people without killing them, and they still haven't haven't showed any fights against giant Sentinels nor the big fight against Apocalypse as well as certain X-Men haven't yet made it into the films such as Gambit. Maybe they'll touch upon these things in any of the spin-offs, but considering the past success of the X-Men films I doubt it's going to stop in the main series of films at number three. Just a hunch since Hollywood has a long history of making it look like the third movie in a series is the last but continue to make more of them. There's production OR rumors (sometimes I don't know which) for a fifth Lethal Weapon, a fifth Alien (possibly a sixth too), a fourth Mad Max, a Spider-Man 4 and 5, yada yada yada. Some of these films, especially the Alien flicks, tried to stop at number three but somehow managed to hit numbers four or five and possibly further than that. Besides, I'll have to say that the sub-title, The Last Stand, isn't definitively the last film entry to the series. Video games have done the same thing. Look at the Tomb Raider games, the fourth title was called Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation making it look to people as if that was it. But if that was the case, then why do we have a fifth, sixth, and just recently a seventh entry to the series? The movie industry is pretty much the same in that regard. Still you may be right about the continuation of X-Men movie storylines in spin-offs, but let's not automatically write off the possibility of an X-Men 4. Vgamer101 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Professor X isn't dead. Jean, Cyclops, and Phoenix are not essential to the story. Magneto retained his powers because the effects are either only temporary or don't effect more powerful mutants. Patrick Stewart, Brett Ratner, the screenwriters, and other cast-members have said several times that there will be more sequels if this one does well at the box office. X:Men - The Last Stand is the conclusion of these storylines, but won't be the final film in the series. This question has been asked and answered time and time again to and by every member of the cast and crew.

First of all, Magneto was injected with antibodies, not antigens. An antigen is any compound that elicits an immune response. Second, if in fact it was an antibody (Ab) such as IgG, it is only temporary and the effects would not be permanent.

Are you sure that it was antibodies and not antigens? I could have sworn I heard them called antigens. I may be wrong though. I'm not an absolute genetic science nut so I wouldn't know. No matter what the antibody does to their powers it's an undeniable fact that at least a good share of them would regain their powers any way you look at it. I don't really think a lot of fans could really imagine Mystique without being able to shapeshift. Also, I have to ask how you know that Professor X isn't dead. Was there something in the film I missed or is there some parallel to the comics that I don't know about? Although Cyclops and Jean/Phoenix can be considered non-essential to the story they're still among the better known X-Men characters. Besides they'd probably come back for a possible fourth film considering the Phoenix can resurrect and we didn't actually see Cyclops die. Also, according to the X-Men 3 section of boxofficemojo.com the sales rang up at $107 million dollars opening weekend which is just $7 million less than Spider-Man 1 at it's opening weekend ($114 million). X3 apparently cost $210 million and it's already recouped a little more than half of that in it's opening weekend so we're looking at a smash hit here with another entry more than likely going to happen. Oh and sorry for analyzing of a fourth flick, it's just that I'm a little flustered by all the unanswered questions that this movie gave off. As for any of the comments by Patrick Stewart or Brett Ratner about series continuation, I didn't hear about any of that. I just never happened across those comments. Vgamer101 02:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Professor X — there's an additional scene after the credits that puts a different spin on his apparent death. I won't spoil it here on the talk page, but it's in the article summary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed the similarity between the after-credits scene and the one in the video during Professor X's lecture (in which Moira introduces the braindead man) on the ethics of things like mind transplants? Can anyone verify that it's the same guy? Orthografer 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not there will be another movie is a moot point as far as this discussion page and the entire main article are concerned. The discussion page is not for debating points of a movie and the main article should at the most state that the ending of the movie leaves open the possibility of another sequel. Nothing else pertaining to a sequel should be posted on either page at this time. --Aml830 07:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Vinnie Jones has stated in interviews that he has signed up for 4, 5 and 6 if they make it. And considering the movie company wants to make money, and that X-Men: The Last Stand opened with $107 million, I think it's more then unlikely that they will make a 4th movie. But I agree, there is no need to add it to this article, yet. Havok (T/C/c) 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I actually violated any of the rules. I'm still a relatively new poster/editor to Wikipedia.org, so if I violated any rules then I'm sorry. So my question is where, if Wikipedia has a section for it, can we continue this discussion/debate/whatever without going against the rules? Vgamer101 16:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary bloat

The plot summary has a tendency to expand to ludicrous proportions. Please keep in mind this is a summary, and it's not very effective nor necessary to list every single action that happens in the move or describe scenes in detail. Compare this page's summary to the first X-Men movie's. WesleyDodds 05:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have seen this movie, I may be condensing this summary to a respectable lenth. I warn you: It may be bloody. --Chris Griswold 09:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Go for it dude. Get out the chainsaw!--P-Chan 02:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Juggernaut

I don't know how to spell it, but since his ability is based on gaining momentum even if he lost his powers meters form the wall he would have broken through it :d Wolfmankurd 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Juggernaut lost his powers near Leech, which is the momentum gaining bit. When he lost the ability to convert momentum into "unstoppableness", Juggernaut ran into the wall as a normal person, which hurt him, pretty much.

Please read the information above: This is a talk page for discussion of the article about X-Men 3. It is not for discussion about the film itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not X-Men 3 is a "good" or "bad" film; or finding out what "this and that" is.--Chris Griswold 17:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Too Cluttered

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

Cut the the Cast section, definitely. We don't need to know who played the family in the minivan. WesleyDodds 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just culled it to the president, as I recognised the actor who played him, although if someone wants to remove him I have no qualms. Help plz 00:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Goofs

I don't think this section belongs in the article at all, and should be removed. Havok (T/C/c) 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though instead of total removal, perhaps merging it with trivia would be better? I also think the trivia section should be rewritten (I'll look into it now), as it just doesn't seem as clear as it could be. Whta do you think? Help plz 15:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A Goofs section does not belong in Wikipedia. It's not encyclopedic; every movie has them, and they are of less interest to non-fans than even regular trivia. --Chris Griswold 17:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If the goofs are to stay, the one with the bee should be removed. I know there is a scene where a bee (i personally thought it was a spider) is crawling around on Jackman's jacket, but that's not a 'goof'. thats nature. 24.48.214.168 18:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

There is also a problem with the "Goof" concerning the bridge. When Magneto begins to move the bridge, the sun is on the skyline. When Mangeto has fully moved the bridge the sun is halfway down the skyline. When he locks the door of the mother in the SUV, over half of the sky has begun to turn dark. After that the scene switches then returns and the sky is completely dark. The error is in the fact it did NOT jump from daylight to nighttime. As such, I think that this entry should be removed which removes the Goofs section completely68.51.57.237 23:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Well another goof that wikipedia stated was, when Wolverine was walking toward Jean at the end, Wikipedia says instead of injecting her with the cure, he kills her. It would have been inpossible to use the cure around her, anything in the area was destroyed so therefore so would the cure.

Sequel Section

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

Well another goof that wikipedia stated was, when Wolverine was walking toward Jean at the end, Wikipedia says instead of injecting her with the cure, he kills her. It would have been inpossible to use the cure around her, anything in the area was destroyed so therefore so would the cure.

Beverley Mahood

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

It's just a rumour that it's them. It's all over the Xmen sites.. Lil Flip246 00:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jubilee

Hey guys, just saw the film and in the credits noticed that Jubilee was in the film. I cant remember seeing her can someone help me out?? Maybe we need to add her to the cast of characters in the article Soundabuser 11:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no, if we start doing that we will end up with a list like before! it was terrible! If you want, make a seperate article "Characters in X-Men: The Last Stand" and copy the table before my edit yesterday. Then just leave the main (wolverine, Magneto, Phoenix etc.) in this article. Help plz 18:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Help plz's unilateral creation of Cast of X-Men: The Last Stand despite consensus otherwise just creates overlapping information in two different places. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Cast guidance don't preclude a complete cast list. Since only one other person objects to that, Wikiepdia policy is to go with the consensus of several editors. -- Tenebrae 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

She was sitting in the classroom during one of the first scenes where Xavier is talking about the ethics of mind transplants.Jaderaid 03:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Young Jean Grey

I changed the plot summary to reflect Jean's psychokinesis which was portrayed by the lifting of cars and lawn mower in the neighborhood around her. I didn't see her reading anyone's minds that I can remember.Newt 15:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in that same scene, Prof. X chides her reading his mind, saying it's not polite. You might want to go back to adjust the edit.--Tenebrae 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Mareino

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

Quentin Quire and Kid Omega

In the comics these people are one in the same, how ever in this movie they are different people, Kid Omega is portrayed as a porcupine like mutant (seen in several scenes in the movie), where Quentin Quire was in several scenes but then cut out (just like Jubilee) Quentin can be found in the funeral scene on the right second row by the isle, the one with the mohawk. he though, is uncredited.

"References" vs. "External links"

The reason I've changed "External links" to "References" comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.)

1)

Complete citations in a "References" section

Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work.

2)

External links/Further reading

The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Where there is a references section, editors may prefer to call the external links section "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further reading section may contain items that are not online.

So sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. — Tenebrae 13:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

uh... perhaps I'm missing something, but the current "References" section strikes me as an "External links" section, as per the two definitions you've quoted (I don't recall those sites, such as TheXverse.com and XMenfilms.net, being used as references). I'm behind the old "References" section getting renamed "Footnotes", but I'm restoring the "External links" section. EVula 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree; some of those should indeed go under External links. But the official site and info from Yahoo Movies have been used as basic article sources, and The Numbers was specifically noted, so let's put them under "References". Now see? THIS is civil collaboration, and I thank you for it EVula! -- Tenebrae 14:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree; that was far too civil. Next time I'll make sure to call you a pompous dictator for enforcing your iron will over Wikipedia, and that I'll take this to Jimbo himself. Will that work better? ;) EVula 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if anything I said offended you; I thought I was being direct and polite. And I'm sure your friend Jimbo will be very happy to see you use terms like "pompous dictator". Have a nice day. --Tenebrae 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Starring" in infobox

I'm of the opinion that Ben Foster, Daniel Cudmore, Ellen Page, Mei Melançon, and Kea Wong should not be listed in the Starring section of the infobox; however, CyclopsAngelGambit is reverting my edits. I'm posting this to gather a consensus on the state of those names. EVula 20:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally in American movies and probably worldwide, anyone listed in the opening credits is considered a main character. -- Tenebrae 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions to moving this article forward

• Cut the Plot down. It's way too big. If people want to know exactly what's in the movie, they can watch the movie itself. The themes and plot of the film should be emphasized at the heavy heavy expense of details.
• Cut down the Cast section. The point of the cast section is not to list every person in the film, as the credits fill that role. If you can't think of two sentences to talk about the person, then you may want to consider removing that person.
• Start shrinking the trivia section. Good articles shouldn't have trivia in them. Try to find a home for those points elsewhere in the article.

My 2 cents. --P-Chan 03:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion re: something to cut from plot summary. Any mutant whose name is not given in the movie, meaning the body of the movie, doesn't need to have their name in the plot summary. We do not need to know more about Arclight without asking. A thousand people might care the name of the chick who pops out of a wall but it's not part of the plot. Let people dig through the credits and old comics and other, more specific articles if they want to. If you gotta go outside the movie to find it out, it's not appropriate for a plot summary (this is something I'd like to see applied all over wikipedia but here's where I'm saying so).24.33.28.52 09:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there.--P-Chan 14:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

All-New, All-Condensed Plot Summary

I just condensed the plot summary as was requested on this talk page. 'However, I almost just half the edits I spent the past hour making because two users created edit conflicts when they decided to make edits, despite my use of the {{inuse}} tag. When a page is using the {{inuse}} tag, leave it alone. If you need to edit it badly, wait a while, and if it's still not available, go to the article's or user's talk page. Don't revert the summary unless you bring it up here. Any thoughts on the shorter plot summary? I can see where I can still make it shorter. It doesn't have all the nerd stuff it used to, but it should be readable to normal people. --Chris Griswold 12:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Much-needed, and given the circumstances here, very gutsy. Bravo Chris Griswold. -- Tenebrae 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, despite the possibility for even more cuts, we can watch those details creep back in. I may take another pass at it soon. --Chris Griswold 16:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

wtf is the inuse tag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ex Pluribus Unum (talk • contribs) 11:02, June 1, 2006 (UTC)

Following in Chris Griswold and others' steps, I've again tried to streamline the again-bloated summary. Please, all, think about the most concise way to phrase things. There's no reason to say:

"Meanwhile, Cyclops feels torment at the thought of Jean, and decides to go to Alkali Lake. When he gets there, he sees..."

when one could simply say:

"Cyclops, tormented by thoughts of Jean, returns to Alkali Lake, where he sees..."

What do you think? Easy, right? Says the same thing. -- Tenebrae 22:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy-edited out some typos, added a little, subtracted a little, clarified a little. -- Newt 22:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit, I can do. Type? Not so much....  :-) Thanks for the sharp edits. -- Tenebrae 01:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

SOMEONE REVERTED THE ENTIRE THING. You're editing the same summary I edited. We're not making any headway. I'm restoring it.--Chris Griswold 01:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus! You're right! Looks like it was done by 204.128.192.3. Looks like he's a regular (in frequency) vandal. I like the length of it, though parts seem out of place (most notably recalling the beginning of the film in a sentence in the middle of the summary). -- Newt 02:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would the plot summary need to follow the sequence of the film? The opening sequence isn't even that important. The information is explained elsewhere. If I were to cut it further, that's one of the first sentences that would go. --Chris Griswold 05:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems counter-intuitive for it not, at least to me. However, it could have flowed without following the same sequence. The line just seemed too descriptive/out of place. Glad you got rid of it. Very nicely condensed/edited. --Newt 13:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yo, check out my new plot summary edit. It is off tha hook, y'all!!!!--Chris Griswold 08:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks for your hard work. Facto 08:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice one ChrisGriswold. Cutting down the plot to something readable, was what this article needed the most. And yeah, you'll have to keep diligent, as the plot will have a tendency to grow back every week, since the film is still fresh in theaters.--P-Chan 14:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, let me apologize for referring to Professor X as Captain Picard in an unsuccesful edit attempt. But the truth is there is an astonishing resemblance between Xavier and Picard. Don't you think?(Ex Pluribus Unum 19:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, not seeing it. Bignole 19:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

While you're at it, you might want to apologize for screwing around in your edits here in general. If you need to get that out of your systerm, use the sandbox or your user space. --Chris Griswold 11:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said: "i might" but i won't. In addition i consider highly important, the addition of the adverb "tearfully" in the phrase "wolverine stabs her with his claws" to emphasize his unwillingness to kill her Ex Pluribus Unum 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

tearfully is a cute adverb but it is more important to note that he actually killed her not just stabbed her. Facto 17:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

what is important is to point out that he didn't cold-bloodedly killed her. He was coerced to this deed against his will so the addition of the adverb "tearfully" would be most appropriate Ex Pluribus Unum 19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There, problem solved. It needed to be reworded anyway, because the parenthetical spot in the middle of the sentence was wrong. You wouldn't put that in parenthesis, it would be separated by commas anyway. So, the problem was with "tearfully". To Facto it was a cute adverb that was not necessary, but, to EPU it was necessary to show that it wasn't in cold-blood. Well, I reworded it to say "relunctantly stabbed her with his claw" and then added ",ending her life". Thus, it shows that he didn't want to stab her, and when he did she died. Bignole 19:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

it sounds truly poetic indeed --Ex Pluribus Unum 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)--

LOL, it's what I was going for. Bignole 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammar/Punctuation

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

WikiProject Film policy on taglines

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Tagline:

As a general rule don't include taglines in an article. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". However, if a particular tagline was a significant part of the cultural influence of the film, create a section for it and describe its effects. For example, none of the many taglines for Wes Craven's New Nightmare deserve mention. On the other hand, discussing Jaws 2 without mentioning "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..." would be a glaring omission.

--Tenebrae 15:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fan Reaction or Discrepency.section needed.

Obviously many fans are more than a little disappointed with this film due to discrepencies between the film and the comics/cartoon. Some fans have boycotted the film, others just have been outraged at some of the choices for the film. The fate of Cyclops (whether due to actor dispute, time constraints or whatever) is just about ridiculious for serious fans to swallow.

At the very least these topics should be brought up, in a cursory view in one of the two sections meantioned. Critical reaction is good, but to be honest none of them really compare it to the comics.--Kinglink 00:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To randomly mention a vague topic such as that could constitute original research. If there are numerous reviews or an actual (read: measurable) movement online that clearly reflects this attitude, then (and only then) would it warrant a mention in the article. EVula 01:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Adding a fan reaction section is mostly hearsay, given that there's no proof to the feelings fans except your own personal opinions, and what you read about others, and they hardly consistute 'many fans'.

I'm a hardcore fan myself, and I loved the movie. Yes, there were somethings that I felt should've been more loyal to the comics, but as with all movies with a pre-existing basis, no one is ever wholly happy.

And, just to add, the film is doing so spectacular in the box office, it's hard that 'many fans' are boycotting the film. Obviously not enough to do any damage to the movies. Evan 17:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a hardcore fan of the X-Men comic books but have come to love them and I was a bit disappointed by a lot of the character fates in the movie. However Cyclops supposedly died, you didn't see it. The camera veered off before he was supposedly killed, so we don't know that for sure. Vgamer101 15:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The camera veered off but his face was already turning jellylike so it was obvious he was about to be blown to smithereens by Jean. The producers must have thought it was either a very disgusting scene or a very expensive one.

Well, wiki calls for a review section, but, in that review section they also say that a "money talks" sub-section should be placed. I think once we neutralize the review section we should move the box office total there, because it is obviously a contradiction to the "mixed reviews" the movie received. Bignole 17:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Followed by

Can we really put Wolverine and Magneto's spin-offs in the "followed by" section? Followed by is usually attributed to chronological order, and at least Magneto's have been stated to be a history of his childhood fighting the Nazis. Secondly, they aren't really sequels to the X-Men films, so they don't really follow them anyway. Should they not be kept in the "Possible Sequels/Spin-offs" section of the article? Bignole 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure they should be listed, since they're pretty early in development and could conceivably have details altered (like they decide they want adult Magneto) or could be scrapped entirely. WesleyDodds 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, from what I gather the two are in preproduction. But, you are right they could be scrapped altogether, but I think with X3's big weekend I doubt that will happen. But, I really don't see the actual connectedness to say "followed by" and you can't add a "spin-off" section to the info box, so i think they should just stay in the "sequel/spin-off" section of the article. Bignole 21:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Both Magneto and Wolverine are supposedly going to be Prequels. It doesn't make sense to have them in the "Followed by" section, especially if an X4 is made. For now, there should not be a followed by section. Niether future movie is going to take place after X3 as far as we've heard. AUburnTiger 06:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

True, they might not take place after this film, but were they released before it? No? That means, should they be released, they will follow this film. For instance, Phantom Menace follows Return of the Jedi. --Chris Griswold 11:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Agreed. Also, the "Preceded by" section isn't meant to list every movie, just the immediate one prior. I'll fix that, too. EVula 14:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, I didn't even notive the preceeded by, but, you're right about that as well. Thanks. Bignole 15:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I went with X2: X-Men United over X2; it isn't the official name (more of a subtitle), though. That work for everyone? EVula 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No. I am changing it to the official title. --Chris Griswold 20:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, could that have come off as more rude? You couldn't have simply said "I think it would be best to use the official title." Bignole 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to EVula's question. Use the appropriate number of colons please. --Chris Griswold 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Please don't edit my personal discussion posts, that is rude. As long as you can clearly see my post then it isn't a problem. Otherwise you'll have posts that don't start till the other side of the screen if you continually put more colons each time you repost. Anyway, I wasn't calling you rude, I said what you said came off as rather rude; it doesn't matter if it was directed at me (which I knew it wasn't) or Evula, it was still rather blunt. Anyway, no need to cause something to start up. It's over and done with. You've changed it and it is fine now. Bignole 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I returned your comment to the way it originally was (with only two colons), and I have moved my comment to where it should have gone, along the rest of the resulting thread. I hope that fixes things. --Chris Griswold 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Part about Wolverine killing Jean

Currently, the next to last paragraph in the plot summary has the sentences "Momentarily gaining control, Jean begs Wolverine to save her. Wolverine, telling Jean he loves her, stabs her with his claws, reluctantly ending her life." Bignole (talk · contribs) wants to make it one sentence, using a semicolon: "Momentarily gaining control, Jean begs Wolverine to save her; Wolverine, telling Jean he loves her, stabs her with his claws, reluctantly ending her life." Unfortunately, 1. that is not exactly how you use a semicolon. 2. combining the sentences makes one run-on sentence and reduces the emphasis on the two acts: Jean begging and Wolverine saving her from herself. Bignole recognizes that these are two separate ideas. I am interested to know why he would like to merge them into one sentence and use a semicolon to do so. Incidentally, these two sentences had originally been one in my condensed plot summary, but it may actually have been Bignole who convinced me that they work better as two. In an summary he wrote for an edit in which he replaced a period with a semicolon, he writes, "sorry that is the end of a sentence and you don't use comas to separate two sentences". --Chris Griswold 08:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is how you use a semicolon. When you have two complete thoughts, where you can separate them into two separate sentences, then you may merge them so long as you have a semicolon. Semicolons, if used properly, are used so that it is not a run on sentence. Run on sentences are sentences that are not grammatically correct and just never end. Semicolons and commas are used to make sure it isn't a run on sentence. I'm afraid you are mistaken if you think that isn't what a semicolon is used for. As per www.dictionary.com

sem·i·co·lon ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sm-kln)

n. A mark of punctuation ( ) used to connect independent clauses and indicating a closer relationship between the clauses than a period does.

That is exactly what that sentence is. It is two independent clauses that have a close relationship, because they are both talking about the same event, which is Wolverine killing Jean. Also, you cannot "relunctantly end her life" after you have stabbed her with your claws. He "relunctantly stabs her with his claws" and that would cause the end of her life. When you change the order of words you change the meaning and emphasis behind them and that structure would have been incorrect. The sentence is meant to emphasize his relunctance to stab her in general, not end her life, and a "stab wound" won't "relunctantly end her life" it would straight up end her life. Now, a "relunctant stab wound" would also end her life, but now we are aware that it was an unfortunate event that had to occur, not an unfortunate event that occured. See the difference in meanings. User:Bignole|Bignole]] 13:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, use the semicolon, but change the placement of "reluctantly." Wolverine is more reluctant to end her than to stab her. I don't undertsand why the emphasis should be on stabbing. It just sounds unnecessarily awkward, partially since it is already inferred previously in the plot summary that Wolverine likes her a little bit. It's not about the stabbing reluctantly ending her life; "reluctantly ending her life" still modifies "Wolverine." Look at it another way: "Reluctantly ending her life, Wolverine stabs her with his claws." He is far less reticent to kill her than to stab her. --Chris Griswold 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would he be relunctant in killing her and not stabbing her? Unless he's going for a flesh wound when he stabs something he means to kill it. He isn't carrying butter knives. And since when does he "like her a little bit", he full on loves Jean and would gladly sacrafice his life to save her...hence his "I'll die for you" line when she is peeling away his flesh. Once he stabs her, she doesn't relunctantly die, she just dies. It isn't like after the stabbing she has a choice to die or live, that's it. The choice lies in the stabbing, which is why it is a relunctant stabbing, not a relunctant dying. When he chooses to stab her he has already made the choice to kill her, the relunctance lies in the part of actually going through with it. You can't be relunctant about the outcome, you are relunctant about the deed. Bignole 18:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Playstation Reference Not Trivia

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

Neutrality

Sorry, If this sounds stupid, but what is disputed on this page? Help plz 00:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin doesn't like comics, that is disputed. BTW this article is one of the finest articles in Wikipedia history if you don't like it, you better shut its doors instead of putting meannig less tags.

I removed the tag, which was inserted because the editor didn't feel criticism of the plot was addressed. In fact, the reviews are cited as mixed, and the film is neither overwhelmingly praised or criticized in the article. I didn't like the movie either, but we need to proceed with discretion when tagging articles.

I've also trimmed the Cast down again. Editors need to reivew the WIki guidelines, particularly those that maintain Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WesleyDodds 02:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am really happy whenever I see your edits. I'm glad you are editing Wikipedia. Your work does not go unnoticed. --Chris Griswold 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your work also. To help clarify the cast-list issue, this comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Cast,

Cast
The cast list in the body of the article should be longer than the list in the infobox, and, depending on the number of minor characters in the film, can be furnished with a dozen or more credits.

So there's no actual stated policy limiting the cast list. While acknowledging Wiki is most certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information, I'd venture to say that a complete cast list (as opposed to complete credits of hundreds of crew-members down to the set accountant) is both pertinent and relevant, and ought to be included.

In this case, for instance, the pertinent Stan Lee and Chris Claremont — two credited cameos that are certainly of note and of interest both to fans and comics/pop-culture historians — have been deleted. I believe we must be careful not to "throw out the baby with the bath water". -- Tenebrae 10:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The criticism paragraphs are horribly biased against Director Brett Ratner calling his direction "lacklaster" and also implying that Bryan Singer would have done better "that potent X-factor is considerably diminished in Singer's absence." These sound more like criticisms of Ratner than of the movie and should be removed from the article. Facto 21:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, as it was one of my original arguments against the review section. It seems that there are more negative reviews there, than positive, when it was overall favorably received. Ebert and Roeper both gave it two thumbs up, why isn't there more of their critique in that section, they are probably the two most famous critics. Bignole 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Ebert and Roeper both gave this movie two thumbs up. I can't imagine they'd like it that much. --Chris Griswold 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The reviewers aren't biased against Ratner. Variety and the Hollywood Reproter? They're trade journals interested in what sells as well as aesthetics, and they are professionals. To accuse of bias anyone who disagrees with one's colored, fannish opinion is transparent.Facto really ought to to take back that irresponsible accusation, --Tenebrae 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So find and add some of the positive reviews. If you feel it's biased, correct it. CovenantD 00:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with a section needing positive reviews. My point is that there shouldn't be such a large section anyway. The entire section should be able to be summed up in a short paragraph, which paraphrases the majority of the views of the film. We don't need all these examples of reviews, especially heavily biased ones, that is why we have an external links section. Bignole 00:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a paragraph like this in the opening anyway. It makes little sense and does not correspond to most wikipedia articles about movies. The paragraph needs to be moved to a relevant section and the overwhelming negative reviews are somewhat absurd to note since, according to rotten tomatoes, it has more positive reviews than negative.[1] Note the featured article V for Vendetta (film), which has a small paragraph under reception of the film regarding various critics. Thus, the paragraph needs to be moved from the opening to a relevant section. Tombseye 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

More positive reviews than negative... you're putting a spin to it, but your spin doesn't work by any length or stretch of the imagination. If a flim can't muster at least, I believe, a 60%, it gets a rotten rating. X3 got a rotten rating, and that's all there is to it. Plus, use some common sense -- if a film can't muster a bigger majority of praise from the critics and is THAT mixed, that means that there is considerable controversy over the quality of the film. Something like A Few Good Men has a 90%, showing that it mustered a huge majority. Getting something, such as 32 positive and 30 negative reviews or anything to that effect, is edging out and shows that the movie is ostentatiously mixed in opinions. Nice try on the spin, but the film has a rotten no matter how you look at it. Since it has positive reviews to balance it out, it's fine. But let's not pretend that the overwhelming negative reviews that it has, which is in stark contrast to X3's predecessor, X2, shouldn't be looked at in great detail. Frightwolf 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Rotten rating??? More negatives than postive?? You are making this opinion off of one site, and since you keep saying "rotten" I assume it is from Rottentomatoes. Bignole 19:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw this on RfC and it seems ok now - maybe remove the Singer bit from the last quote to make it more neutral with regards to Bratner, but otherwise fine. A bit longwinded and a lot of quotes, maybe more summary text (had good and bad reviews, rotten tomatoes blah blah). Lundse 02:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Bignole 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As the Request for Mediation was rejected and delisted Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#X-Men:_The_Last_Stand, I've replaced the direct quotations with analyses of the film critics reviews according to the following guideline and policy: "Reception: Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics" -from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Reception "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote" -from WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Facto 05:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

CC of post to User:Facto

Re: Mediation

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

Straw poll for Critical Response section

Allright, time for a straw poll on the critical response section Facto 04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. If you don't see a choice you like, add your own.

• Delete entirely
  • Facto 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (#1 choice)
  • Seriously no need for it. I would rather we have "review" links at the bottom with "External links". Havok (T/C/c) 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it needs to be deleted entirely. We are attempting to include POV about a movie, when we constantly go about the rest of the article removing POV. This seems a bit hypocritical. It shouldn't matter that a person is paid for their opinion about a movie, because nothing has qualified them to be a critic other than the fact that they can write and enjoy movies, and that isn't even always the case. I vote to remove it entirely because it does nothing more than promote hypocracy and bias, because unless there is 100% agreement about the movie you can never fully acknowledge everyone's opinion and you can never be accurate with it. Bignole 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly with above users. This section should be deleted entirely, with links to critical reviews placed at the bottom.Smeelgova 05:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Include two reviews (1 positive/1 negative)
  • Facto 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (#3 choice)
• Include four reviews (2 positive/2 negative)
  • Facto 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) No more than four reviews should be included (#2 choice)
  • Tombseye 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 4 to 5 reviews are okay.
  • --P-Chan 02:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC) At least 4 to 5 reviews should be included. (Mixed and divserse of coure).
• Include six reviews (2+ positive/2+ negative)
• Include eight+ reviews (2+ positive/2+ negative)
• Leave it alone, it's fine the way it is
  • CovenantD 05:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Not that I'm going to give this straw poll much weight anyway, after we've had an admin look in and give it a pass.
  • Tenebrae 13:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Rotten Tomatoes for the metrics; Ebert/Roeper for middlebrow populism, NY Times for urban intellectual, Variety & Hollywood Reporter for trade, a British perspective, and a reviewer who's been in comics. Not sure what LA Times represents, but what the hey.
  • Manwithbrisk 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC) its fine the way it is, there was a range of views, that in my opinion were pretty much dead on with the feelings regaurding the movie from peopel in my area, it was an ok movie, but did not live up to the other two, i find nothing wrong with that
  • Newt 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC) it's fine. I think it draws together the overall critical feel for the movie. As for this "introducing POV" needlessly into an article, the WP:FILM template actually calls for critical response and specifically states to look at Rottentomatoes.com or Metacritic for guidance.

Discussion of straw poll

• • Discussion resulting from the survey goes here.

The last 2 reviews don't really add anything, as the first 5 reviews range from wholehearted support to mild support to dislike. The first 5 reviews seem to convey the right mix of opinion from the critics and is better off in its own section rather than in the opening. Also, I've seen films rated lower on rotten tomatoes one month, suddenly rise after some time (or fall) so the section may have to be changed anyway at some point. Also, adding a detailed analysis of the box office to one section along with the critical response seems to be the norm for featured articles on movies (as evidenced by Star Wars Episode III and V for Vendetta (film)). Tombseye 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The first of last two reviews gives a non-American perspesctive consistent with Wikipedia requiring a worldview. Replace it with a London Times or Guardian quote if an e-zine is too small. (For the record, I didn't insert it, but I recognize Wiki's global perspective). The second is from the only film reviewer in the mainstream press who actually has been a comics professional; that's a persepctive available nowhere else. -- Tenebrae 12:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why there should be an even number of neg. and pos. when the film received an overwhelming amount of positive reviews COMPARED to the negative reviews. It seems that if we try and show and equal number from both sides, without at least acknowledging the fact that it received more positive than negative, then we are saying that it was mixed reviewed which was split down the middle; that to me is not accurate. I know we need to be neutral, but you can't wave off accuracy for neutrality. Bignole 15:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you believe the film received "overwhelmingly" positive reviews, I respectfully point out that this is simply not so, as evidenced by Rotten Tomatoes and elsewhere. I think your enthusiasm for the film is coloring your assessment of the facts. -- Tenebrae 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what I actually wrote. I said "COMPARED to the negative reviews". I even capitalized COMPARED so that it would stand out when you read it. I wasn't saying it received an overwhelming amount of pos. reviews, just compared to the negative reviews. Go to movies.go.com and it lists the reviews. It lists them by other critics (Times, Fox, Roeper), by their personal critics, and by fan critics. A mixed reviewed movie would be around grade of "C", because that represents the middle. The most positive, the higher the overall grade. Again, I point out, I said compared to the negative reviews. My beef is that this movie did receive negative reviews, just not on as equal a status is this "poll" is trying to establish. Bignole 15:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I read your previous comment accurately. Saying "compared [or COMPARED] to the negative reviews" is a meaningless statement since by definition "positive" inherently is compared with "negative". And if, as you now point out, you're including fan-written reviews, well, by definition a "fan" is not an unbiased reviewer. -- Tenebrae 16:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's pay attention for real this time. When you say "compared to" and the subject matter consists of two things that are already a comparison, then you are referring to the number. When I say the pos. compared to the neg., I'm not refering to how much nicer a review is, I am referring to the number of positives compared to the number of negatives. I apologize if the simple "compared to" escaped you. If I was refering to the extremity of each side I would have simply said "the movie had more extreme positives than it did negatives." Secondly, I mentioned the "fan based" because I was informing you of what they offer, not implying that we need a "fan critique" area. I'll remember next time that if I am to explain something that I should leave out certain details. Bignole 17:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, and please refrain from sarcasm. And if you're saying you plan on leaving out pertinent details because they undermine your argument, I'm afraid that's intellectually dishonest. -- Tenebrae 16:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologizes for not signing, I just forgot to put it there. I am always sarcastic, if you don't like it, then well, ignore it. When I said I would leave out details, I was refering to leaving them out so that you could better understand and not draw conclusions that don't exist. You see, I gave you all the details and you undermined my argument by picking one particular area and drawing the conclusion that I meant something by including it. I was simply supplying you with what they do. Had I meant to imply something I would have come right out and said it. Example, had I meant to imply that I would leave out certain information so that MY arugment would be better, then I would have said so. But, what I was IMPLYING is that I should leave out bits so that you don't draw some wacked out theory from what I am saying, just because I give some extra details. You keep drawing conclusions from what I say that have no bearing on what I was actually trying to convey. Now, here we are arguing about nonsense when the real reason we are here is to discuss what should be in the review section. Now, let me make this as clear as possible. By going to movies.go.com you can view a rather large list of reviews (reviews by Movies.com critics, and the reviews from other companies (i.e. Times, Entertainment Weekly, etc.)). From these reviews you can see that there are more positive reviews (more as in the frequency of positives compared to the frequency of negatives) than there are negative reviews. Even the mixed reviews give are more positive rating of the movie when it comes to grading it. Now, I am by no means stating that there were not negative reviews, simply that the number of positives outweigh the number of negatives in the aspect of it being entirely mixed. I believe is should entail more of "The film received a majority of positive reviews, with some negative and mixed feedback. Even though the reviews were not overtly one-sided, there was more of an expressiveness toward the positive side, as seen by the actual grade the movie received by the individual critics." Now, please don't assume that I am implying that what I just wrote needs to be exactly what is written there. What I wrote is simply a suggestion of I believe would be a more accurate description of the review section. I think that what is there now is more of POV, because people are picking quotes from reviews that are personally biased and don't reflect the overall review of those critics. If a critic calls it lackluster, but gives it a favorable rating, that section uses the "lackluster" portion of his review to assume that it is a negative review. You can give a postive review of a movie and still feel that there are parts that are not good. So, my main problem with the section is the nitpicking of reviews to support a biased opinion of the movie, when the overall opinion of that movie(by those critics) was not as onesided as this article's section is leading it to believe. Bignole 17:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether I leave your sarcasm alone is beside the point. It's incivility and isn't allowed: Wikipedia:Civility

The other issue is your continued accusations of bias to anyone who disagrees with your opinion of the film. Another tenet of Wikipedia is assume good faith. If all of us didn't love the comics field, we wouldn't be spending so much time at this. Please stop and ask yourself: Why would any of us would have any reason for bias except toward the film? So I ask you to avoid the accusations of bias; I don't think they're warranted, and I know accusations are not helpful in the tone of a discussion. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 21:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae, leave the page the way it is. If your opinion is based on localized opinion, I suggest that you broaden your sampling by reading the reviews of the film here at Rottentomatoes.com and here Metacritics.com -- Basique 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bringing friends in to stuff the poll is very improper Tenebrae as is calling people "crazed X-Men fans". Facto 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Basique, and actually, I could use your help. Would you mind going to Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand#Discussion_of_straw_poll and casting a vote for "Leave it alone, it's fine the way it is", beneath where you see my name? There are some crazed X-Men fans who have begun threatening people with NPOV complaints to Admins if anyone dares say anything negative about the new film, even if it's Variety or the Hollywood Reporter. If you can help in this way, that would be great. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem man will do! -- Basique 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

-quoted from User_talk:Basique#African_characters_in_comics

Instead of vote stuffing like User:Tenebrae, I'm going to list the poll at Wikipedia:Current_surveys and let people decide for themselves which option to vote for. Facto 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This from the person who votes three times in his own poll.And asking one knowledgable colleague to vote is pretty poor "vote stuffing", to use your wild-eyed phrase. -- Tenebrae 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not vote three times in the poll, I indicated my preference for 3 choices. Polls can be multiple choice, do you understand? Read the poll voting instructions.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. If you don't see a choice you like, add your own. Facto 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My sarcasm is who I am, and I didn't say anything that was actually that uncivil. Your constant assumation of what I am trying to say, instead of simply asking me to clarify what I am saying, is rather rude in an of itself. You constantly jump to a conclusion without bothering to find out the facts, as you have done in the paragraph below this one. Bignole 21:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made no mention of my stand about this film. Did you read anywhere previous where I have stated my opinion of this movie? For someone that chastices me for not "assuming good faith" you constantly assume that my opinions on in the worst for this article. I simply feel as though that section is highly biased toward the negative. I don't think it needs quotes from different critics that further prove his lack of neutrality. I have not said that I think we need to put more positive quotes in there, because that would be doing the same thing. There should be no quotes from critics in there, you should simply link the critics so that the reader can read the entire review for himself/herself and make their own assumptions. The way they are now, we are supplying a portion of a review that does not include the entire opinion of that critic (which is rather funny that we are including opinions at all). Unless there was a vast amount of contraversy surrounding the reviews I don't think they are worth noting more than a paragraph, and the paragraph should simply state the rating that each critic gave the movie, and leave their choice words for a link. If you simply supply the rating that the critics gave to the movie, you establish your neutrality. You provide links to the specific reviews so that the reader can establish their own opinion of what the critics were saying on their own. Bignole 21:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:Civility and it says nothing about sarcasm being incivility. You need to stop pretending to be an arbiter of civility and actually practice civility. Also, this is a film article primarily and there's no need for your comic book slant here. Inserting other people's insults toward Director Ratner is not appropriate here. In fact it's very hypocritical of you to talk about civility when you would allow comments like "lacklaster direction" to be said of Ratner.Facto 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy can't cover everything, and I'm sure if an Admin were to be asked whether sarcasm were an appropriate tone to take, he or she would disagree.

A professional film reviewer's middling or negative response to a director is not an "insult", but a legitimate critical evauluation by a knowledgable critic. A film review referring to "lackluster direction" is not incivility; by that definition, no negative critcism toward any movie or piece of literature or art would be allowable on Wikipedia.--Tenebrae 21:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, re: sarcasm, we needn't ask an Admin. Wikipedia:Etiquette gives an example that assumes we all know sarcasm isn't appropriate here:

"However, don't hesitate to let the other party know that you're not comfortable with their tone in a neutral way -- otherwise they might think you're too dense to understand their 'subtlety', and you'll involuntarily encourage them (e.g. 'I know you've been sarcastic above, but I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue. However, I don't think your argument stands because...)."

I'm just sayin', it's both good and practical to be polite. Isn't that something on which we all can agree? -- Tenebrae 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The grading system used on that website is subjective, in essence a review of the review. When you look at the details you find that it could even be considered skewed because they only assign grades to five of them, four of them from the positive category. In my mind that pretty much invalidates the grade at movies.go.com as a true indicator of the reviews. CovenantD 17:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

They don't assign grades over the grades that the critics assign. EW assigns it's own grades, which you can verify in their magazines. When you read a newspaper they assign their own grades there as well. You are making seem as though they are being subjective with that they want. Bignole 17:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, I think the real problem is just a lack of communication and when it comes to the internet you can never really clearly express what you are trying to say, and when you do you have to worry that it taken the right way. I am simply trying to remove all bias from the section, but when it comes to review sections, unless they are almost 100% one-sided, it is really hard not to be biased toward one side when it comes to a film that has both negative and positive reviews. I think basing your opinion on two websites, is limited in an of itself.

I mean here is what movies.com lists.

CRITICS' REVIEWS SOURCE RATING THE GIST

POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR X-MEN: THE LAST STAND Boston Globe 3 stars/4 "… uncommonly careful moviemaking …"
Chicago Tribune 2½ stars/4 "It's not stuporous, and it's not super."
Entertainment Weekly B- "… brings on a baby-faced potential ensemble cast for X-Men: The Next Generation …"
New York Daily News 3 stars/4 "… adrenaline-fueled fun."
New York Magazine N/A "… lots of neat-o special effects."
Variety N/A "… a wham-bam sequel …"
The Village Voice N/A "… boasts the meatiest hook of the three X-films."

MIXED REVIEWS FOR X-MEN: THE LAST STAND L.A. Weekly N/A "… a sub-soap-opera melodrama …"
The Onion's A.V. Club C+ "… lacks that crucial X-factor called inspiration."
San Francisco Chronicle N/A "… almost as mindless as Fantastic Four …"

That is hardly only 4 positive reviews, and they don't list any of them as negative. The ones that contain the negative responses still gave the movie a mixed review. Granted, there are tons of critics out there, and this (even in my opinion) doesn't solidify the movie as completely acclaimed, because it wasn't. But, i think that people's opinions of the director, well before the movie ever came out, have scewed a lot of their responses (in the articles review section and critics themselves).

I think that adding a choice if there isn't one there to represent your opinion is good, but, I don't think that answering many is helping the cause, at least not if you don't express an order to which you prefer the most. Poll are multiple choice, not multiple answer. I think that if you wish to pick multiple answers then please also include a numerical preference for which ones you like the best (1 being the best, 2 second best, so forth and so on). Bignole 23:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Critical Response

I just removed this from the article. Should this be re-added. And if so, it should be made into a list showing off the ratings from different notable websites and magazines with source. Havok (T/C/c) 10:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A paragraph is always preferable to a list, if possible. --Chris Griswold 17:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Article_body:

The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, and whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced. … Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count).

That being the case, I'll integrate some of that previous material up top, as per stated Wikipedia style. -- Tenebrae 11:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The featured articles are a better barometer than the Wikiproject it seems. Or put into context, it could read, "Despite mixed reviews, the film has broken records at the box office..." or something to that effect. The best film articles leave the critical section, major discussion of the box office, and awards in a separate section. The opening should state things briefly and talk more about various aspects of the film. Again, going by the best film articles. Tombseye 07:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that "paragraphs are preferable to lists", but as it stands currently, the "critical response" section is really just a list section that's been run together with the bullet points removed. If it's really just going to be a listing of sources and a brief summary of their review, a list does make more sense. --DDG 15:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Facto, who calls any legitimate criticim of Ratner, even by Variety and the NY Times, "insults", has led me to take Facto to mediation over this section -- changes to which should be refrained from, certainly at least by the two us, until mediation is resolved.

Additionally, his own straw poll, in which he voted three times(!), shows consensus to leave this section the way it is.

Facto is trying to goad me to a 3RR. His current attempt failed simply because, as the admin who examined the issue said:

"I do not see the diffs you provided as clearcut RVs, at least not all of them. They look like regular edits. Please try to resolve content issues at talk page."

Not on the page itself, but on the talk page. I believe User:Facto is letting his enthusiasm for the director cross over into harrassment of another editor, which is an issue I'm adding to the mediation list. -- Tenebrae 13:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The section was recently removed as shown by this diff. At first I reverted it, thinking it was the section that was under dispute from earlier, but now I'm not too sure. Reasoning for removing it would be that it is inherently biased. I'm not quite sure what should be done with it. Cowman109^Talk 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking above, I see that it is currently undergoing a straw poll, though still there is little consensus as to what should be done with it. I won't touch it at the moment myself as to not incite another debate about it, so, uh, yeah. Cowman109^Talk 01:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the section is biased. And I commended User:71.124.110.245 for being bold and removing it. Facto 01:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You were correct the first time Cowman109. CovenantD 01:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

1R

This is one reversion User:Facto of a disputed section awaiting mediation:

Revision as of 19:54, 2 June 2006

I'm returning it to Critical reception to its disputed state pending conclusion of mediation. --Tenebrae 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The awful tone of this discussion

This is the first discussion on Wikipedia I have seen in which more than one person is being relentlessly uncivil. We have things like Wikipedia:Wikiquette for a reason: it is apparent from this page, for instance, that some people just do not want to work together and get along. Assume good faith and trust that we all want to work toward a good, unbiased article; cease the snide remarks and sarcasm, neither of which help us toward our goal; state clearly and concisely what it is you think we should do and why; and don't be a dick. Otherwise, no administrator will look kindly on the way you have handled yourselves so far. --Chris Griswold 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I really hope this wasn't prompted by my comments above; I thought what I said was pretty obviously facetious, but if anyone took it at face value, I'd be more than happy to retract it... EVula 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

EVula was kind enough to leave a note on my talk page saying this also, so I absolutely take him or her at his or her word that he or she was being facetious. (Boy, do we need a gender-neutral pronoun!) His or her clarifying took fortitude, and that's something we all can appreciate. -- Tenebrae 15:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"He", for the record. EVula 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Critical Review: Let's find a solution FAST

Ouch ouch ouch headache... I just read through the whole bit on the Critical review... and all I have to say is... wow that's a lot of reading. :) We should probably solve this quickly, and then archive all this stuff, as it is soaking up valuable Talk Time in this article. Anyways, based on Wiki policy and examples, I think the answer here is pretty clear: in that the suggestion to remove all critical reviews from the article is just plain wrong.

1. It would violate a key Feature Article priniciple: 2(b) "comprehensive", which means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details.
2. Also, every single FA film article has a critical reception section in one form or another. To delete that section, would simply go against every example in the past.
3. Removing this section would also raise questions about the neutrality of the article: FA 2c)

Instead, I think you should have a mix of reviews. Let's look at just the big picture:

• Rotten Tomatoes= 54% positive
• Meta Critic= 58 "Mixed or average reviews"

It's obviously mixed. No other way of looking at it. So at the very least, there should be either be 2P:2N reviews... or maybe 3P:2N reviews.

When choosing the reviews, make sure you cover all the bases and that the combination of reviews matches the type of film you are reviewing. For example, the reviews for V for Vendetta (film) have a political component and a comic authenticity component because that was the kind of film it was. On the other hand, the reviews for Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, had to contend with the expectations of Star Wars fans and the expectations of earlier films. X-Men 3 may or maynot be different. For example, it may or may not, have a politcal component that people comment on, or a comic book authenticity component in the criticism, or this film might just be another popcorn film. (I have no clue, as I haven't read through the reviews in any great detail).

And in any case, don't expect what you put down now to stay when the Feature Article review comes around. Afterall, it's only 2 weeks after the release of the film! Things will change, so take it easy everyone! That's my 2 cents. --P-Chan 02:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You took time and did a lot of research that shows great care for the film and the article. I know I'm far from alone in saying thank you. -- Tenebrae 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)