Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 2

Universe Titled. Page move necessary?
Deadpool writer Rhett Reese says in this article, "And we are part of the X universe, and that is important. Simon Kinberg is our producer and he kind of minds the store in regards to the X universe, so we are fitting into the larger timeline, we need to recognize that." I think this page should be retitled to "X Universe" or "X-Universe" or something similar, because aside from the fact that the universe has been named, I really don't think that "X-Men (film series)" is an appropriate title anymore anyway. "Deadpool" wasn't really an X-Men movie, it just took place in the aptly named X Universe. "The Wolverine" barely references the X-Men at all (except in its mid-credits scene). It just seems like the content of the article goes beyond the X-Men film series, which, as I understand it, includes only the four Bryan Singer films, the Matthew Vaughn film, and the Brett Ratner film. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems more like an affectionate term than an official one. And besides, this is still a film series. Deadpool and the Wolverine films are just spin-offs of the main X-Men films. I'm sure there will be Star Wars Anthologies that don't seem like true Star Wars films, but that doesn't mean we should start saying Star Wars Cinematic Universe or something. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a whole bunch of different film series (Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Avengers, etc.) set in a single universe. I know the X-Men films are trying to replicate Marvel's success by adding new franchises like Deadpool, but in the end they are still spin-offs of the main films, not completely separate films that happen to tie-in—Thor is not a spin-off of Iron Man 2, they were both developed separately and tied together during production; Deadpool was developed as a spin-off of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which itself was developed as a spin-off of the original X-Men trilogy. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no term for the film series or "Universe" as of the moment therefore there isn't any need for a title change.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a need for a title change. Deadpool has a separate franchise deal altogether, but the film happens to be set in the X-Men Universe. Even though it really doesn't have a clear title, moving it to something like X-Men (film universe) would do more good than harm. Deadpool is not an X-Men film, but is set in the X-Men universe.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 01:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The Deadpool movie is as much a part of the X-Men series as the Wolverine solo movies. No title change needed. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The Wolverine films were legally registered as part of the X-Men franchise. Deadpool was not. How is this so difficult to understand? -- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What possible source could you have to show that the Wolverine films were "legally registered" as part of the X-Men franchise, but Deadpool was not. "Legally registering" something as part of a franchise isn't even a thing.  How difficult is THAT to understand?  Rcarter555 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Dark Knight trilogy are three films all set in the same universe. Do we call that a shared universe? No, because it is just a trilogy and there is no need to make it any more complicated than that. Deadpool is a spin-off of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which is a spin-off of the original X-Men trilogy, which means that they are all part of a single film series as well. Stop trying to make this more complicated than it actually is. Just because it is common and hip to use 'shared universes' now, doesn't mean that everything has to be described as one. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop spreading false information, Molandfreak. Deadpool first appeared in X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Colossus whom appeared in the previous film also appeared in the Deadpool film. It is very much part of the X-Men film series, none of the producers/writers has said it is separated. So please keep your speculations to yourself. Thank you.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to make this so complicated... I'm not trying to redefine franchise or film series. Here's where I'm coming from: Deadpool is unique, developed by completely different writers and a different director than the X-Men films. I'm not saying that the page title MUST be changed to "X-Universe" or something similar, but I am saying that "X-Men (film series)" isn't appropriate anymore if the article includes information about Deadpool and the Wolverine films and other future franchises developed by Fox, such as Gambit, X-Force, and The New Mutants. Without trying to start a war, I'm simply stating that a title change should be considered so as to more accurately reflect the changing content of the article. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No thank you. These films are all under the X-Men film series--SuperHotWiki (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @SuperHotWiki what makes you say that, though? They're certainly connected, but what source or information do you have to actually establish that "Deadpool" is part of the X-Men film series? It appears to be just as related to the X-Men films as the Thor films are to the Avengers films. One editor mentioned that "Deadpool" could be considered a spin-off of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," which was a spin-off of the X-Men film series, which establishes a connection. But here again, what sources confirm that "Deadpool" is in fact a spin-off of "Origins"? Ryan Reynold's first appearance as Wade Wilson was in "Origins: Wolverine," sure, but that doesn't mean that a future film that he headlines is necessarily a spin-off. If we went by that logic, we'd have to say that the upcoming Spider-Man reboot is a spin-off of Cap: Civil War, because Tom Holland first appears in Civil War. We'd have to say that 2017's Wonder Woman film is a spin-off of Batman v Superman, because Gal Gadot appears there first. I'm really not trying to be a jerk about this and keep the argument going needlessly, but I didn't bring it up in the first place simply because it's, as Adamstom.97 said, "common and hip to use 'shared universes.' " I brought it up because there is content in the article that is not clearly and obviously related to the X-Men film series, and I really think that a potential page move incited by a source establishing a title for the shared universe at least warrants more than a "No thank you." -Rmaynardjr (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The MCU movies were established as separate series. The DCEU movies have been established as separate series. Fox made an X-Men film, then they made two sequels, then they made a spin-off telling the origins of the major character Wolverine, and then during the production of that film they began developing a spin-off based on one of the main supporting characters of that film, Deadpool, with the same actor attached. These are real world facts, it has nothing to do with when character's appear. We aren't deciding anything or making up anything based on what we think, we are just going off of what we know and what we have in our encyclopaedia: If you go look at the development of Deadpool, you will see that Fox got the rights, eventually decided to put the character in Origins: Wolverine, and then decided to bring Reynolds back as the character for his own film; in the case of Spider-Man, for example, Marvel made the deal with Sony to produce a new Spider-Man film, and part of that deal was that the character would also appear in an MCU movie, which turned out to be Civil War (if Spider-Man was a spin-off of Civil War, then the deal would have been for the character to appear in Civil War, and then they decided to make a solo Spider-Man film. That did not happen.). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Rmaynardjr, watch the films first to know that they all part of the X-Men film series. Once again, we don't need your "personal" opinion. None of the producers have said that Deadpool is not part of the X-Men film series especially when the character (and the actor that portrayed him) already appeared in a X-Men spin-off film which is 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine. So please, do us a favor and stop posting your personal opinions and theories here, this isn't a forum. Thank you.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @SuperHotWiki Feel free to respond or not to respond, I don't feel that strongly about the issue anymore anyway. Adamstom.97 explained things pretty well: I won't say that I'm entirely convinced that "X-Men (film series)" is still the best title, but the whole issue makes more sense to me now, so thank you Adam. Before I go, though, I just want to highlight the timeline here: I made a suggestion ("I think this page should be retitled to "X Universe" or "X-Universe" or something similar") and I backed it up with a source and reasonable logic. You and a variety of other editors disputed it, so I clarified that the more important piece of this to me was ensuring the article's title accurately reflected the article's content. I even specifically said that we don't have to change it MY suggestion, but that a title change could still be considered. You followed that up with a "No thank you." I made a suggestion, I was respectful, and I wasn't being unreasonable, and all of that was met with someone shooting down the idea. Look, when it comes down to it, the exact status of this film series/connected universe of films/etc. seems to be something of a gray area, and I really don't want to mess with the status quo. So I'll stop. Like I said, I really don't care that much anymore. But I want to make it really clear that if you look at the above recapped timeline, you'll notice I never treated this page like a forum and never offered a theory or opinion, so please don't call me out for doing so. Much obliged. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of fighting earlier on over misunderstanding of terms on both sides (even if it was a while ago, clarification is needed). Fox currently possess three Marvel film franchises that we are aware of (legally binding deals that allow them use of their characters in films). These consist of lists of characters, concepts and just IP in general from three franchises "X-Men", "Fantastic Four" and "Deadpool. There are sources to back up the X-Men and Deadpool franchises being separate already in this article, the Fantastic Four is elsewhere as it is currently not relevant to this shared universe. In short, there are two deals contributing to this universe, so it is incorrect to interchange "series" with "franchise" as some are doing above (the article itself is perfectly fine though). Saying it's "legally registered as a franchise" is nonsense as well of course, it is being released under that franchise deal because release and distribution is covered by the deal just as much as the production rights are, that doesn't mean it is in some way "registered" though. Ruffice98 (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, unless you haven't seen X-Men Origins Wolverine and the Deadpool 2016 film then you are free to think they are separated... however, its very clear that Deadpool and X-Men aren't separated and that they exist in the same film series. Do a simple research by watching the films. Fox has yet to "name" this shared film universe or whatever word you want to label this film series, so there's no need a name change.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying anything to the contrary. X-Men and Deadpool are separate franchises, but form a combined film series, in the exact same way Marvel are putting Iron Man, Captain America, The Avengers, Ant-Man, Spider-Man, etc. together and DC are putting Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman etc. together. That's all. Multiple franchises can make a film series, the problem is so many people abuse the word "franchise" to make it interchangeable with "series" that it causes confusion and issues. Even trying to explain it here I seem to have set off some anger while backing up your point. Ruffice98 (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Relevence of Deleted Scenes
Many people see characters who only made appearances in deleted scenes as irrelevent for this article, but I disagree. Despite never making an appearance in the final product, the scenes were filmed for the film, and are often included on the DVD release. An example of this is April Elleston-Enharo. She played a cameo role as a child version of Ororo "Storm" Monroe in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The deleted scene featuring her was on the DVD release, yet she is not listed on cast. I had her previously listed with the ref to refer to her character only appearing in a deleted scene, but a user kept deleting this, saying to bring my reasons to the talk page. Does anyone think that credit should be given?

Comment added by Special:Contributions/TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2016 (ROI)


 * Deleted scenes may be added at film articles if noteworthy, such as Loki being cut from Avengers: Age of Ultron, which was a big deal and was explained by the director, etc., and so it was decided over there that the information was significant enough to be kept, despite not actually being relevant to the final film. If this cameo was agreed to be kept for similar reasons (not just because fans think it is important to note), which I am honestly not sure about, I am not familiar with the history of the Origins: Wolverine article, then it would be fine to have the info there, but it is still iffy for this page. This is an overview of all the films, so deleted scenes is way too specific and detailed for this article. It seems really out of scope to include, and really illogical. Can you seriously give a good, non fanboyish answer to why an actor who isn't even in any of the films should be listed in the table about major characters that recur throughout the films? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said, there is only one deleted scene at the moment, and it WAS acknowledged by the filmmakers. If Loki is mentioned in the Marvel Cinematic Universe article for his appearance in the Age of Ultron deleted scene, there is no reason why April Elleston-Enharo can't be featured here. My "good, non fanboyish answer" is that Storm IS a MAJOR character in the films. April's scene made it to the DVD release of Origins, was featured in the trailer and was acknowledged by the filmmakers. Loki's scene in Age of Ultron got a mention despite the scene NEVER being released. Have any other reasons why pril Elleston-Enharo can't be featured here??

Comment added by Special:Contributions/TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2016 (ROI)
 * You are missing the point. We had reliable sources talking about a scene that Tom Hiddleston was in that got cut from AoU, mostly talking about why he got cut. But we don't include him at the franchise cast list, as that is only for actual cast members of the films. So if this cut cameo is notable enough, meaning has some good reliable sources talking about it, then it can be mentioned at the XOW page, but if she didn't actually appear in the film, then she doesn't belong here. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Katrina Florece is only called Jubilee in a deleted scene of the first X-Men, yet she still is credited for her role. Also, most cast pages I have seen mention characters who nly appeared in deleted scenes whenever the character itself is notable enough. April appeared as Storm in a deleted scene, Storm is a major, notable character, meaning that the deleted scene should be mentioned in "Recurring cast and characters" as well as in Origins: Wolverine. I do see where you are coming from however. After all, Fantastic Four is not included on the list because Deadpool appeared in one of the trailers.

http://www.mtv.com/news/2593631/storm-cameo-in-x-men-origins-wolverine-movie-cut-says-producer-but-might-make-dvd/

Comment added by Special:Contributions/TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2016 (ROI)

One reason it shouldn't be there is because she was never intended to be in the film. That might sound like some fanboyish/in-universe reasoning, but the reason why she was even included in Origins was to cater to fanboys who want to see whatever they can. Unlike "Emma Frost" who did make it into Origins then it was ignored. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't know much about all of these other actors/characters. But that doesn't matter, because we are discussing this cut Storm cameo, not anything else, and the fact remains, if she wasn't in the movie, then she doesn't belong in a table about people who are in the movies. End of story. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is they're both cameos, only one was saved (Emma) and another (Storm) was cut. So it's more about relevance (Loki), rather than just not appearing. Storm's appearance in Origins shouldn't be included because she has no relevance, not simply because she didn't make the final cut. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Film Table
I think we should add a wikitable to the Films section. In other major film franchise pages, such as Star Wars, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the DC Extended Universe, they all have tables that showcase key information on the film such as directors, writers, ect. I'm am told that this is unnecessary and that this information is already listed in this article but that isn't the point. The point is that a wikitable would be a quick visual guide for this important information. I understand that there is already a cast and crew section but that should be for a more detailed look into the making of these films. The other franchises I mentioned have both a table with this information as well as more detailed sections as I just stated. Additionally, my table would look nicer and be a lot easier to follow. What do you guys think? Can we add a simple and helpful table to the page?

Here is an example of what it would look like:


 * Well, at the moment this is unnecessary, as the info is already there. So perhaps discuss why you think we should use your table instead of the already present crew one. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, all the information written in that table are already in the article. There's already a crew section which contains more information since it does not only mention producers/directors/writer. While the release dates are already written in the box-office section and are also mentioned in the films section. The Wikipedia article links to each film are already linked twice in the article. I also think this "visual guide" takes too much space and it does not give anything new but only to mimic the format of Marvel Cinematic Universe, DC Extended Universe and Star Wars - franchises that are not solely dedicated to the film series unlike this one. And the editor also kept adding back the "untitled Fox/Marvel" films which weren't even confirmed to be X-Men films.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know...some people might require all this information in one place. So, it could be useful to have this table in the page.Wilson30337 (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who are these "some people"? Its not require to repeat information and mimic the articles for Star Wars and Marvel Cinematic Universe. I can name a dozen of film articles which doesn't feature this "table".--SuperHotWiki (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about the readers who want to learn about this as a FRANCHISE, not a film series. And are those "film articles" pertaining to massive franchises with multiple entries and spin-offs?Wilson30337 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good for you and flash news, this article is for a film series. Read the title of this article. And like I said earlier, release dates, director, producers, status of the films are already mentioned in the article more than once. No need to repeat it.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Magneto's Parents
Someone added "Mr. Lehnsherr" and "Edie Lehnsherr" to the character list since they appeared in X1 and First Class and with archival footage in Apocalypse. I'd argue that since the third appearance doesn't add any new footage that doesn't really count. It's listed as achival footage and cameo, but it's actually just footage from First Class with nothing new added. Not to mention how irrelevant the characters are to the franchise as a whole. Thoughts? 2001:982:4947:1:D40F:FD4:C3AB:9779 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree. Mainly in their irrelevancy. Even if they appeared in more films, are they really important enough to add to the grid? I say no. Rcarter555 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Just footage from First Class with nothing new added" IS archival footage. TotalTruthTeller24 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It is archival footage yes, but they still just worked on two movies, and they were also listed as a 'cameo' for Apocalypse which is not correct. Either way though it doesn't take away from the fact that these characters are quite unimportant in the big picture for the franchise. 2001:982:4947:1:F46A:4BF5:B71A:7C5D (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Scott Adkins as Weapon XI
I see people have been removing Scott Adkins as Weapon XI. He is not just a stunt man in the movie, but actually takes over the role from Ryan Reynolds as it were. Reynolds only filmed the Wade Wilson scenes, Adkins was responsible for all the scenes with weapons XI. I'd argue that he probably should be included. 2001:982:4947:1:19B5:70A6:5420:6CB4 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. That was the status quo version until an editor removed it in an edit that has since been erased by an admin. See page history.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems like it was removed again. 2001:982:4947:1:7957:BF60:C3FD:AE54 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've restored the status quo and have asked that redllink editor in the edit summary to please come discuss the issue here. I believe the only way for this be resolved is to find the official credits and see how they credit Adkins — as "Weapon XI" or simply under Stunts. That should solve this. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Scott during the filming was not cast as the character, he appeared in the stunt scenes is all. Ryan Reynolds was used for the up close shots where he is still doing 'acting'. If we were to list every stuntman who became a real actor afterwards, it would get too messy. Burningblue52 (talk)

really? unreal
The article begins, "The X-Men film series is an American series of superhero films based on the real stories of fictional superhero team of the same name"

Notice the bold part: What is "real" supposed to mean? The stories are non-fiction, only names have been changed to protect the innocent? The stories are true to the source material, where other adaptations are not? The stories retcon away other versions of the X-men saga?

Know what? i'm just gonna cut that part of the article. If that's a mistake, let me know why here. Thanks.

71.121.143.247 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've looked into the edit history, it's a rather obvious bit of vandalism. The editor in question changed the article then changed it again to make them look a bit less noticeable than their initial version. Ruffice98 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Erik M. Lehnsherr
TotalTruthTeller24 keeps on changing Erik Lehnsherr to Erik M. Lehnsherr on the basis that because of an Easter Egg from a film more than decade ago, it still has relevance. Even if that film still has relevance (and all those other Easter Eggs from Stryker's file still have relevance, which they probably don't due to the new timeline), a middle initial doesn't give the page any more value than it had before it was added. If this is something that was beyond that file that was simply to make Magneto's file look more interesting (and people called him that or he called himself that), than I might think otherwise, but it isn't. It's really something that just belongs to the X-Men 2 page. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Fictional timeline
I don't even see the need of a timeline chart, because not only doesn't it really add any more value to the page, it makes it sound like Wolverine altered the timeline in such a way that it's ignoring the fact that the new X-Men trilogy is a new timeline, one that was different even before Wolverine went into the past (yes, they tried to retcon Mystique's aging, but even that doesn't retcon everything else). The dystopian future scenes are just based on the new timeline that began in First Class. It's just not worth the hassle, even if it's well intentioned. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Logan Plot Description
I'd argue that we should probably change (or remove) the current plot description for Logan. Details such as the year 2024 and the inclusion of Nathaniel Essex have not officially been confirmed and originated on IMDB. Though Singer mentioned Essex in X-Men Apocalypse DVD commentary, Mangold himself has denied Essex himself is involved in the film. All official plot descriptions we have received have instead only focused on Donald Pierce's Transigen project and the Reavers. 2001:982:4947:1:9184:8F9A:CF95:8279 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Recurring Characters
Now that we are nine movies in (with a tenth coming next year), I feel the table for recurring characters has become a tad chaotic. If we add any more movies to it, it'll become impossible to read. Since we have a seperate page for X-Men films cast members I suggest that maybe we could use something similar to the example below in order to reduce some of the clutter.

We can still stick with the rule of not adding a character until he/she has appeared in 3 movies, and this can obviously still be altered or expanded. Names for categories such as OT and Beginnings Trilogy is something that obviously also is open for debate. Any thoughts? 145.101.136.21 (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The table is fine. The table will get bigger and you will just have to scroll left and right to read the table.SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I love this idea. Similar things have been done with the Marvel Cinematic Universe chart, as there are too many movies, to be able to list them all. By dividing the movies into trilogies (i.e.: Original Trilogy, Prequel Trilogy, Wolverine Trilogy, and Deadpool) the chart becomes more concise and easier to read.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it looks so trivial, not encyclopedic and its inaccurate since not everyone showed up in all films within a trilogy.SuperHotWiki (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Cast Table
I've been told to come here to show this new table. I wasn't aware that someone had previously attempted to discuss this but my version is different:

Obviously there are modifications to be made but this is what it looks like now. Thoughts? 109.149.225.250 (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the differences? They are not immediately clear. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * from what I can see they have added in three categories at the top of the table for main series or the xmen related titles, the wolverine titles and then spin offs like deadpool Brocicle (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the only change, then no. We shouldn't be ordering into separate series like that when they are all considered a single X-Men series, and this article is about how they are all one big franchise. Chronological order should remain. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I could see this working if they were divided into 'trilogies' such as "Original Trilogy", "Prequel Trilogy", "Wolverine Trilogy", and "Deadpool Trilogy" (once the second film comes out and the third goes into production). All the extra 'spin-offs' stuff doesn't really make sense as a whole. But with the franchise expanding with the TV shows, New Mutants, Gambit, and X-Force - eventually the chart will have to be condensced this way so that the chart is viewable. Perhaps those expansions listed above could be 'spin-offs'. Or just not even have a 'trilogy' title at all.

--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Deadpool was highlighted for its R rating?
This isn't a huge issue, but I'm not sure if this makes a lot of sense. In the lead, we say, "Deadpool was highlighted for its faithful interpretation of the source material and R rating." It wasn't highlighted BECAUSE it was rated R, but rather because of the vulgarity and violence of the film that resulted in an R rating. Should we reword this? Perhaps to, "Deadpool was highlighted for its faithful interpretation of the exceedingly vulgar and violent source material." This sort of covers both points in one. -RM (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Any objections to this? -RM (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Deadpool: No Good Deed
Deadpool: No Good Deed is a 2017 short film directed by David Leitch, written by Rhett Reese and features Reynolds returning as Deadpool. The short made its debut before the film Logan when the latter was released in theaters; however, the teaser was not screened with Logan in international territories. The film served as a teaser for Deadpool 2, with Reese confirming on Twitter that the short film was not a teaser or a trailer for a sequel. The short was uploaded to Youtube by Reynolds on March 4, 2017, revealing the name of the short to be "No Good Deed".

I believe that as Reese defined this as a short film, not a teaser, and not a trailer, it should be listed on this page before Logan in the "Films" section, given that it actually made its debut before Logan. Does anyone have a legitimate reason for this short film, the first short film in the X-Men film series, to not be seen as notable enough to include on this page?

Impending IP (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It could be under tie-in materials.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I conflicted about where this information should go. I definitely think it should be added but the page as a whole is for the film franchise. This short film (as far as I know) hasn't/won't appear on the big screen nor make revenue towards the franchise. I personally see it as a personal project between Reynolds, Reese, and Leitch, but again that's just my opinion. If it is to be added I am leaning towards tie in material. Brocicle (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * All Right then! I'll add it to that section then!    Impending IP (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To me, this seems like just promotional material (as evidence by the "Deadpool 2 coming not soon enough"). Yes, it's more than a trailer, but falls short of being it's own separate film.  It's certainly not in continuity with the other films, as evidenced by the movie posters and marquee advertising that "LOGAN" is playing. Rcarter555 (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In regards to that, Deadpool is known for breaking the fourth wall, the continuity of Logan itself has been questioned and Patrick Stewart has stated that Deadpool would allow him to return as Professor X, despite his fate in Logan. Maybe the shaky continuity is his excuse? Nurseline247 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The sequence that was released in theaters in the U.S. is slightly different from the short-film released online by Ryan Reynolds. The sequence is technically a part of the Logan film. Rather than having the sequence at the end of the credits where most superhero films have it, the director opted to instead include the sequence before Logan begins. He has stated he felt like the movie ends stating what they wanted to say, and that a post-credit scene would take away from and not fit the movie. Never does the sequence say "Deadpool 2 coming not soon enough" as stated up there^. It says "Deadpool coming....not soon enough". What this relates to is the fact that he was not quick enough to save the person from being mugged. The theatrical sequence is called a "pre-film sequence", similar to "mid-" and "post-credits scenes". Since the two sequences are different and separate; as well as given the fact that there are no credits following the sequence (as there would be with a "short film"), this argument should take note that it is just a sequence that was filmed specifically for Logan. It's as simple as that.

--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The sequence appeared before the 20th Century Fox studio logo, which historically has been the start of every film. I think there's still a question and until someone from the production says "yes, this should be considered a pre-credit sequence to Logan" we must assume it is just a marketing tool for Deadpool and not technically a part of the Logan film.Rcarter555 (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Very well, I'm just stating that the unconventional approach is very much in-line with the character himself, and is similar to the way marketing was done for the first film. It also couldn't be a "pre-credits scene" as that would place it before the end-credits of the movie. The description I've seen which makes the most sense is the "pre-film sequence" reference. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page discussion
Opinions from other editors? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I would support your argument AlexTheWhovian! Look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe films in development, or the DC Extended Universe, or the MonsterVerse, or the Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe -- they all list the films that are currently in development with their own sub-sectioning title. I think that organizationally it would make sense to be similar to these other pages. Also, if a reader wants to find the New Mutants movie information right away, they can click onto it from the quicklink box at the top. The films in development should be listed as the other pages. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is also further supported by the fact that we now have a section for the Untitled X-Men TV series. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 21:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * what section? I reverted that edit. There's already a consensus that TV shows are under tie in materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)
 * And your what about the section titles for the other franchise-universe articles? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously no one responded to you other than me. If giving the films under development subsections is that important, don't you think more veteran editors of this article would have already suggested that? The bullet list format has been implemented for years. wait until the film/s go to production where you could move them up to the films section and give them their own subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)


 * You need to sign and timestamp your comments Hotwiki. Everytime you make a comment you need to be doing that. Also I like the comment up there that supports AlexTheWhovian. All other franchise related articles provided in the examples list upcoming films with sub-sectioned titles. Just because it's how the page has been for years, doesn't mean it's correct. The page needs to be updated as many of these films, which used to be just ideas, are now in active development. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that silence is not consensus. The link above is simply to an essay. Anyone can write an essay on anything. Instructional essays can be helpful. Opinion essays don't really mean anything.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that's a valid point. What is your opinion about this topic, Tenebrae? --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , still forgetting to sign your posts. And you continue to avoid the topic that it is acceptable on other franchise-universe pages, many of which are run by "veteran" editors, especially the Marvel one. And "veteran" editors do not get the final say, per WP:OWN; they do not own this page, and anyone is welcome to make editors, make suggestions and partake in discussions., it's less of an essay, more explanatory supplement to WP:CONSENSUS (a policy), and just as valid. The point applies for it. If you're going to discuss an editor's position on guidelines, do so on their talk page, or give an opinion on the topic at hand. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The "Films in development" section should definitively have subheaders like those in the "Films" section, to be consistent with the rest of the article and with the Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Extended Universe articles. The bullet points makes it hard to follow and there is enough content to divide into subheaders. If you want, the last two points (Deadpool 3 and X-Men sequel) can go under "Other potential projects", but all the other should have their own header. Brojam (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I like the subhead "Films in development" more than "Future" (MCU article) and "Upcoming" (DCEU article), since it seems a less predictive term: "Films in development" is not saying "Here's what will happen" but rather "Here's what's happening now." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the films in development should have their own headers. The seperate headers for novels, games and comics that popped up a while back are completely unnecessary, but I don't think that is the case here. 92.111.179.110 (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the overall consensus, and agreed formatting is that which is similar to Marvel Cinematic Universe, DC Extended Universe, MonsterVerse, Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe, Cloverfield franchise, etc. By keeping the page organized, the reading process becomes clearer. As the previous editor points out, if it were a few minor topics, bullet-form would work. However, this has become a much more detailed section, and the sub-header sections would improve the page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)