Talk:X-Men Origins: Wolverine/Archive 1

Redirect
Change the redirect to the character himself.24.128.96.114 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jubilee????
i though i heard somewhere that Jubilee was going to be in it?

Gambit
I dont know what happened but about 2 weeks ago I was on IMDB and I was looking up Avi Arad and when I went to wolverine 2007 movie it had a different summery of it it said something about wolverine going back between x1 and x2 to find out about himself when he runs into Gambit to help him save his longtime girlfriend or someting to that degree. I dont know if anyone else knows about this but thats what I saw.

Weapon X and Lady Deathstrike
Weapon X (Lady Deathstrike included) have major impact on Wolverine's background, providing him his adamantium and great amount of training he is able to implement. I can't imagine not seeing Sabertooth, Silverfox and Maverick. Painbearer 11:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the era in which this film occurs, we could see Wolverine in action in World War 2. Although, given the time frame of the Magneto film, I doubt this is likely. I imagine it will take place in the early Cold War era, possibly with Omega Red as a villain. This would then allow Sabretooth, Silver Fox and Maverick to be introduced. Aericanwizard 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision
great work, Erik. Looks solid. I'm hoping that between us we can work through all the comics themed films over hte next couple months to get them all into a solid, reliable format with solid citation. ThuranX 00:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Omega red
I was on IMDB a few months before x-men 3 came out. I saw omega reds name on the cast list & i did read that they were going to use a charecter in the wolverine movie that they weren't able to use in the x-men 3 movie.86.139.121.217 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Grimm MD
 * IMDb is not a reliable source. --Jamdav86 09:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Premise
Until we have a sufficient set of citations to explain the plot, all we get is a premise, as set of themes with possible plot points. ThuranX 00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ken Watanabe or Kennot?
There seems to be a bit of dispute over Ken Watanabe's role as the Silver Sumarai in this film. It is strongly rumoured and heavily hinted almost everywhere now, even the local official paper in Singapore The Straits Times mentioned it today. I personally feel it's worth noting, even if it isn't completely verifiable. Share your thoughts. Jedd the Jedi 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs down. Wikipedia posts facts. Wiki-newbie 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If the Singapore paper stated that it had official information, from the actor, or the production, that would be an acceptable source. However, it the paper is instead reprinting rumours already stated elsewhere, and is rehashing gossip, then no, not at all. Can you provide us an actual llink, to check the story? ThuranX 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actor says he's never been contacted about being involved. Write this one off as pure rumor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actor says he's never been contacted about being involved. Write this one off as pure rumor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ratner as director, it seems

 * What do y'all think? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What do y'all think? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yet no press release. Alientraveller 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, hence my hesitation. Don't know if it was a slip-up or a journalist's poor assumption.  We'll sit on it for a bit, I suppose. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

 * Producer speaks on the status of Wolverine. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Producer speaks on the status of Wolverine. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirected article due to lack of director. Alientraveller 15:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
As I don't want to edit conflict in this article revival, I'll just put down some thoughts on shaping up the article: Comments are welcome. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead section should be revised so it's clear to someone not familiar with X-Men what the film is about, especially in relation to the existing film trilogy.
 * 2) Is it alright for X-Men to be in the "followed by" section? I assume these attributes are for chronology within the films' universe.
 * 3) Do we need a sentence about the composer? I know we try to avoid citations within the infobox, but the sentence feels too added on.
 * 4) Is the rumor about Schreiber being Sabretooth completely unsubstantiated? Not worth a mention?
 * The norm on what films follow what is for an out-of-universe perspective. Only the Star Wars really get away with the episodic sequence. And yeah, the Sabretooth thing is just CHUD. Alientraveller (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I mistook the setup for an original film and its sequel to be reflective of the in-universe continuity. I guess I understand why Star Wars has that exception, but it seems inconsistent.  So change it back to The Last Stand?  I'm just concerned that the lack of clarity will cause some edit warring about the nature of the "followed by" and "preceded by" attributes. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would've thought that it would make more sense being in chronological order, seeing as it's about Wolverine's early days and therefore having no mention of the X-Men franchise (as if it's happened). Besides, it's not like X-Men Origins: Magneto will be displayed as being preceded by this film. Actually that's made me think... should the films even be considered as sequels or predecessors? I mean, they are their kinda standalone/seemingly unrelated to the events of the X-Men films, if you follow its principle arc, and if the claims that the X-Men Origins will contain x amount more films - well, it's just confuse things down the line. -- Harish - 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever our consensus, we should, at the completion of this thread, post a link to this section over at the X-men Film Series Page, so that we can demonstrate consensus for a single method of 'precession/ succession' for the franchise. I support OOU, not IU, reporting, but am open to one which is either reflective of the diverging stories - as Magneto and Wolverine represent two plot-indepedent sequels to Last stand that we put "Preceded by: X-Men The Last Stand" for both, and worry about X-Men 4 in its' own time, or one which is a literal timeline, and we go with true OOU, and Xmen, X2, XMen TLS, XO:W, XO:M, Xmen 4 would be the order. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We still need some consensus about this, Yes/no? ThuranX (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Not gonna disagree with such views of yours - your debates are concise, detailed, reek of thought and forsee a situation for a variety of angles. I know of a few politicians that could learn from your gang and you haha. -- Harish - 11:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think we've got an agreement to work in Out-of-Universe, I jsut want to make sure, so I can link it around at magneto and the fiml series pages. ThuranX (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's cool, bub. Perhaps it's time you made a cabal of sorts for the comic regulars? It might br easier to bring a consensus and help uniform the films more esaily. Just a thought. -- Harish - 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What? A cabal?  No such thing. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need one. There are about 6 of us who regularly work a huge comics film overlap, and we are all usually in agreement based on our discussions, not any obligatory lockstep. Frankly, I like it that way. we all 'know' each other, and like each other's editing styles, we all talk it out, and so on. It's not a cabal, just a coincidental like-minded group. ThuranX (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that we should be comfortable enough to be critical of other editors if necessary. Talking it out is peaceful, as we push back and forth mildly until we can figure out what's most suitable for an article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see... so it IS a cabal!! haha. Nah, honestly - I respect that. Too many rambo's on Wikipedia, so the fact that you can sort these problems out so well - it's great thing for Wikipedia. Keep it up, guys! -- Harish - 05:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sabretooth
Isn't Liev Schreiber playing Sabretooth in this movie and not a young version of William Stryker. It says so on the Sabretooth and Liuev Schreiber page that it has been confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiem (talk • contribs)
 * According to unreliable sources. Alientraveller (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This casting has not been verified by a reliable source yet. I've removed the unverifiable information from the articles of the actor and the character.  When we find out from a verifiable source what role Schreiber really does play, we can include it.  We're not in a hurry. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've revised it now to be more neutral. Perhaps Liev was approached for Stryker, but he decided to play Creed instead. Who knows. No other cast members have been confirmed now. I really look forward to the film's press conference. Alientraveller (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Liev is playing Creed...I just edited it last night to say so because it is confirmed. Now it's back to saying he is playing Stryker. We have confirmed sources that he is playing Sabertooth, so I don't see the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentHiggins (talk • contribs) 14:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First, he is not confirmed. No one is: damn Fox is forgetting to give a press release. Secondly, why did you delete your comment? Alientraveller (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon. It took Variety a while, but now the whole cast has been confirmed. Alientraveller (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See, people just need to be patient. What harm did it do to wait for confirmation? None! Steve  T • C 08:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that patience is key. Even though rumors can seem very likely (and sometimes not at all), that ambivalence is why we shouldn't include them right away.  This is casting information that was inevitable, and with the Variety article, we can say beyond a doubt that this is certain. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aint It Cool News link concerning Brian Cox
Does anyone think that link is reliable or what? It just seems kinda, well not reliable. Wiildroot (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Brian Cox was on a BBC programme, Film 2007 talking about Running With Scissors, the presenter Jonathan Ross asked him about Wolverine": definitely reliable. Alientraveller (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image
we now have a first image from the movie. Here- http://xmenfilms.net/gd/wolverine1_hires.jpg Perhaps it can be added to the main info box on the right of the page until a teaser poster is released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 04nbod (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really infobox material, and it could have been photoshopped, so it may not be suitable to illustrate the cast section. But sticking an image in there would ruin the article's format. Alientraveller (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely photoshopped. ~ QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if the image was genuine, I don't think that it would be very appropriate to insert into the article without the relevant context to provide a fair use rationale. I'm not usually a fan of non-direct advertising materials in the "poster" attribute of the film infobox, considering that production stills can come out fairly often.  We're better off sticking to promotional images that include the title or posters. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not photoshopped. It came from USA Today, which also has some details that could be used. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite being official, we don't know if Fox altered it. We won't know until we see more pictures. Alientraveller (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like Fox did a crappy job of photoshopping it, anyway. ~ QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Got a good oneAaaxlp (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not upload fake fan images with incorrect release dates. Alientraveller (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I was intoxicated (drunk)Aaaxlp (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Img_news2_26102007wolv1.jpgAaaxlp (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mutant Equality
Shouldn't a X-Men Origins: Magneto page exists as well? Hooper (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note: that link isn't red because it goes to a subsection of the X-Men trilogy page, but it does not have its own page like this one. Hooper (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the difference is that Wolverine is in active production and Magneto is only in development. Before Wolverine began filming, most of the content in the article existed at the trilogy page like the Magneto content does.  My guess is that a decision will be made following the reception of Wolverine, and if Magneto begins filming, a stand-alone article would be warranted. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 02:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Emma Frost?
Maybe I'm seeing things, but was Emma Frost in the second half of the Comic Con trailer? Some blonde lady either iced up or turned into a diamond form Teancum (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it too but I didn't really think of the White Queen when I saw it. Besides, shouldn't her possible inclusion shift the focus of the film alot since it mind need more explanation about secundairy mutations? Cyanid (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, seems that was her. BTW, does anyone know if the information published at SHH about a teaser bein attached to The Day Earth Stood Still are true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.108.132 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Tahyna Tozzi was shown using Emma Frost's Diamond skin in the trailer. I think it's safe to assume she is playing Emma Frost in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.194.163 (talk • contribs)
 * Good for you. Now let people who know policy wait for a source. Alientraveller (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Legend
What is the legend about the Wolverine? do I put that in this article too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stunt Airman Amaha (talk • contribs) 10:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Alientraveller (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Characters
Is it really necessary to go into that much detail on how much Jackman worked out for his role? Maybe just a note on the workout then link to the references. But it seems like a waste to go into all that right there in the "Character" section. 75.72.98.95 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that's been his main objective making Wolverine, I wouldn't call it undue weight. If Jackman had mentioned he'd done lots of research into soldiers and their combat styles throughout the past 200 years and we hadn't included that, there'd be a problem. Alientraveller (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Violation of creator's copyright
I removed content from the "Release" section that pointed to a place where readers could view material of the illegally leaked workprint. This is a violation of WP:COPYVIO since the footage is the property of the studio and was not intended for public attention, particularly in its unfinished stage. Wikipedia should not endorse linking to such items. Even if editors believe that this is acceptable, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article to say, "Hey, readers, check out this leaked footage that you've been reading about!" We are an encyclopedia, not a shameless blog. — Erik (talk • contrib) 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No copyright laws have been violated. All that is shown on the external link are screencaps of the movie, which are deemed acceptable; and also a short 3 minute 18 second video hosted on Break.com which (as it is under 10% of the total length of 1 hour 46 minutes 48 seconds) is also deemed acceptable under the DMCA.
 * Control-alt-delete (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Screencaps that are released officially from the studio and screencaps from footage released officially from the studio are what are acceptable. The linked screencaps are from the unsanctioned release of unfinished footage.  Even if we applied lenience to this matter, it is still unprofessional to encourage readers to go off-wiki to explore such leaked content.  The article needs to focus on commentary surrounding the workprint and have nothing to do with the actual proliferation of the content. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 03:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To follow up, WP:LINKVIO says, "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." — Erik (talk • contrib) 03:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Erik. ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The site being linked to, however, does not "illegally distribute someone else's work" as I said in my first response. Screencaps are deemed acceptable and a short clip of less than 10% of the movie is also deemed acceptable.
 * Control-alt-delete (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you were making a film and I got my hands on some footage, do you really believe that it is acceptable for me to show everyone screencaps from your film? A portion of illegally leaked content is still illegally leaked content. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * again, agree with Erik. A rock of crack's illegal, even if it's just a tiny portion of the kilo brick of coke you bought. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're comparing a screenshot to crack... nice going! ;)
 * Anyway, take a look at Fair use in copyright. The Fair Use Statute splits the work into four factors to determine if the work is being used fairly or not, with the fourth factor having the most influence.
 * Factor 1: the images are being used not-for-profit = fair;
 * Factor 2: the images may be protected by copyright = unfair;
 * Factor 3: only a small portion of the movie was screenshotted/video-captured (this actually goes back to my first point) = fair;
 * Factor 4: the images being on the site would have no negative impact on the potential market, or value of the movie = fair;
 * Therefore the images are being used fairly as it satisfies 3 out of 4 of the factors. Supposing it only satisfied 2 of the 4 but one of the 2 was factor 4, this would still be classed as fair.
 * Control-alt-delete (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (undent) While the images in question might very well qualify for fair-use, I don't really see any reason for us to link to the post. -- aktsu (t / c) 14:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) ThuranX, the drug comparison is a bit much. :) For the first factor, movie websites are not linking to the workprint or its samples out of their goodness of their heart.  They are invested in getting traffic, and if they do the linking or hosting, this is profitably favorable for them.  For the third factor, if this was true, clips would be immediately accessible.  I checked on YouTube, and even "clip" samples of the workprint are being taken down.  Break.com does not have any clip I could find, so I assume the DMCA claim is false.  Lastly, for the fourth factor, the studio disagrees with you, as evidenced by the removals.  In addition to these factors, what you wanted to link to would not be considered a reliable source (since it is a forum), and it would not be acceptable as an external link, either, per WP:ELNO #10.  We can see that no reputable news outlet is going to give direct access to the workprint or samples of it, and we should strive for that professionalism as well. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really not surprising the clips are being removed. The DMCA takedowns are rather automatic and doesn't at all take fair-use into account, see e.g. this (very interesting) article. If the case really "blows up" I don't see why we couldn't include a few images to illustrate the leaked version, but a link to a site with images is IMO out of the question. -- aktsu (t / c) 15:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict again) What's going on right now is a "live" event, so it's questionable to illustrate the leaked version at this point. If we evaluated the leaked workprint historically, then illustrations could be acceptable if they were deemed significant.  I imagine, though, that illustration of such retrospective coverage would have to come from a reliable source, anyway, and as we can see, no mainstream media outlet is hosting the content.  From what I have read, though, I doubt there will be anything to illustrate about the workprint... there are other parts of the film that are more worthwhile to illustrate. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Erik I disagree that the website is "not linking to the workprint or its samples out of the goodness of its heart" - I made the post on that forum because nobody else has released something like that yet on the internet (or at least that I can find), and I do not plan to make a profit by doing so. Furthermore, that site is actually losing money due to server costs so more traffic would mean a higher bandwidth bill.
 * The clip I posted on YouTube was taken down after 6 minutes of being online (however as pointed out by aktsu, DMCA notices are being flung around left, right and centre with no regard for Fair Usage.
 * As for you not being able to find it on Break.com, it is actually at the bottom of the forum post with the pictures on and I uploaded it as soon as YouTube removed it - video link - I completely agree with aktsu that an image or two by hosted on Wikipedia instead of a link to that forum should be put up under Fair Usage.
 * Control-alt-delete (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia hosting any part of the workprint is far worse than linking to it. Even if we disagree about the factors, and I am happy to pursue additional opinions if you desire to continue the matter, your links are not reliable.  Forums are self-published sources and not acceptable.  Parading it as an external link instead won't work, either -- WP:ELNO #10 discourages links to forums, too.  In addition, disregarding factors and reliable sourcing and external links for the moment, non-free images need to meet non-free content criteria, and no particular screenshot can be considered significant.  WP:FILMNFI requires critical commentary for screenshots; no particular image has received critical commentary.  If any is to be had, it will likely pale in comparison to significant screenshots from the completed product.  What you want to add does not pass WP:LINKVIO, WP:RS, WP:ELNO, WP:NFCC, nor WP:FILMNFI.  Why can we not focus on coverage of the leaking and the investigation? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would it be worse? Unreleased media isn't more protected by copyright than released media. There are contracts and NDAs but Wikipedia (and I assume the editors) are not parties to those agreements so they do not apply. The workprint is a copyrighted material that's treated *exactly* the same as any other copyrighted material on Wikipedia, like the movie poster in this very article. As CAD makes clear, the screencaps easily fall under Fair Use. So there's no real reason to *exclude* the images under Wikipedia's own policies.

That being said, there's no real reason to *include* them either. There might be after the film's release as comparison to the finished product, but right now, there isn't. 66.208.17.254 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No to images, no to hosting, no to linking. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent seeing as somewhere in the last few comments, it's been mixed up)

The original reason for this section in the Talk page was that I was being accused of breaching copyright law by posting the images on here. As has been proven by numerous people, this isn't the case and the images can be used fairly, in exactly the same way the movie poster can.

The idea of having an image or two in the article is to demonstrate what the workprint is link, in exactly the same way that you put a picture of a dog in a dog article (with a free image) or you put a Microsoft logo in a Microsoft article (non-free image). Now, does anybody have any backed-up arguments to me putting a couple of screencaps next to the Workprint section of the article? Bearing in mind what 66.208.17.254 said.

Control-alt-delete (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a straw poll below, please vote in it for inclusion or exclusion of the screencaps
 * Control-alt-delete (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Related characters articles
Be aware that people have been adding leaked, possibly false, definitely unverifiable info to character articles related to this film. Particularly affected is Deadpool, but keep an eye on Chris Bradley (comics), David North (comics), Emma Frost, Kestrel (Marvel Comics), and Silver Fox as those have already been hit. Oddly enough, Sabretooth (comics) and Wolverine (comics) are as yet untouched, nor are Gambit (comics), Blob (comics), Barnell Bohusk and William Stryker and other relevant characters, but keep an eye on those all the same. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I hardly think, at this point, that information from the leaked print is unverifiable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can verify that the information came from the leaked print, but not that the information will be in the released film; this is the problem with using an unfinished print as a source. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The differences between the information from the leaked print and the released film will be small at best. It is clearly more beneficial to include such information and edit any minor details that may be wrong after release than to simply ignore that the information exists. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose including in-universe information from the leaked workprint. I don't think it's realistic to say that readers can verify the information by illegally downloading the workprint.  Also, we cannot say for sure at this point how much the final product will resemble the workprint (since there was pick-up shooting and there is still editing), so it would be erroneous to pass off the information as accurate.  As the film is not authentically available to the public until May, we should hold off on these details.  After then, the information is legally verifiable by any member of the public. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. -- aktsu (t / c) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't think it's realistic to say that readers can verify the information by illegally downloading the workprint." Yes it is, because that is all they have to do in order to verify the information; verify does not require that the information be legally verifiable, only that it comes from reliable sources. Since reliable sources have deemed the workprint real, it itself becomes a reliable source for the information. Also, as I recall, it is only illegal to upload and share the copyrighted files, not to download and receive them, so one does not necessarily have to infringe the law to verify this information. Finally, you claim that we do not know how true to the final release the workprint is. While this is true, common sense ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_common_sense ) tells us that it is unlikely to be importantly different. Do deleted scenes in major published movies often alter the information greatly? Except for the special case of different endings, I think not. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fox described the leak as a "stolen, incomplete and early version". 71.194.32.252 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That tells us nothing we did not already know. Stolen? Of course, but irrelevant. Incomplete? We already knew that; it is a unedited workprint which is missing 10 minutes of added footage. Early? It must be so by definition, being a pre-release leak. I don't see what this description changes. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Has the workprint been published by a reliable source though? We know that a real workprint have been leaked, but can you verify that your downloaded version is the real workprint? No, for all you know it's a fake/user-made - and it is thus not appropriate to include the information from it here. ...or something along those lines anyway, you get my point. -- aktsu (t / c) 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Like I said, it is not realistic to consider downloading the workprint as an appropriate method of verifiability, considering that is the only means to do so. In addition, it is unprofessional.  WP:LINKVIO makes a case which I think applies tangentially: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."  In addition, primary sources like the film need to be "reliably published", and this is not the case with this film, which has not been distributed (cinematic word for "published", I guess) by the studio to the public.  I don't believe that floating around torrent websites qualifies as "reliably published".  Additionally, I don't believe common sense applies here... this is an uncommon incident, and we can't purport to know how the studio will treat the final cut.  Lastly, I do not see why we need to include such detail.  Real-world context is the core of all good film articles, and the film will come out to the public eventually, at which point in-universe details are useful to a large audience. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Professor X
He's in the movie in a scene. So are younger versions of some mutants. Including nightcrawler, storm.....and a few others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you shouldn't add it then, if your source is piracy. Alientraveller (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * a source is a source dude, may it be legit or pirated. It's established and RIGHT THERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.9.22 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger Friedman
How important is the coverage about Roger Friedman in this article? It seems like such a specific news item that has little bearing on the encyclopedic nature of this film article. I would recommend either removing the coverage or at least try to make it more pertinent with commentary about reviews of the workprint affecting the film and its release. — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard about Roger Friedman's review (never saw the original article) from multiple sources, and I think it is very much a part of the whole controversy. I tried to keep the information short because I think only a little information is necessary. --Tatsh (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My issue is that it's a very short-term event that seems at this point meaningless for encyclopedic coverage of the film and its leaked workprint. Even if consensus is to keep it around for now, the long-term relevance should be reevaluated down the road (a few weeks, since this won't be an issue anymore with the theatrical release). — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I, being the person who added the information, would like to see it stay while the information about the leak is still present. I agree it does not have long-term relevance to this site and it will not after the leak section is removed after theatrical release.--Tatsh (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I do not believe that we should start a "Reception" section just yet, with Friedman's review or anyone else's review. I think it is more professional to stay with sanctioned reviews that do not cause a row with the parent company. — Erik (talk • contrib) 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While we're at it... are we going to note that his "review" likely cost him his job ? - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's already noted in the "Leaked workprint" section; "his employment was terminated". — Erik (talk • contrib) 00:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He has NOT been fired> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/04/wolverine-review-gets-fox-blogger-roger-friedman-in-hot-water.html 24.141.175.147 (talk)


 * Yes, he has. That's from April 6.  This is from April 7: New York Times. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Workprint Leaked One Month Before Release
Not sure if it's worthy of mention, but the Workprint in DVD quality has been leaked onto the internet a whole month before the film's release.

One more issue - relevant to this one - is whether the plot synopsis should be updated in the Wikipedia article. The plot is now fully known due to the leak. Would it be inappropriate for someone who has watched the leaked movie to create a plot synopsis for the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.176.254 (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Deathbycheesedrum (talk) 02:44, 01 April 2009 (GMT)

The film is great! But the premiere will be ruined. In the post-credis scene Wolverine is in Japan and there will be a sequel if the movie has a good gross revenue. --Batman tas (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * April... Alientraveller (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so it wasn't an April Fools' Joke, but I still gotta wonder why people put it in the wrong place... Alientraveller (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Placement looks good! Thanks for using Entertainment Weekly... sounds more reliable to come from them than from the bloggish SlashFilm. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 12:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I was in the process of moving it but we got E/C'd... --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Happens! :) — Erik (talk • contrib) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The BBC have done a news article commenting on the peculiarity of this kind of workprint release. It reeks as if Fox have done it on purpose, as free and effective publicity.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's really really unlikely - studios like control, there is no control in this action and it would lead them open to legal action from their investors and marvel (who get a percentage). From the BBC article, it appears it was leaked from the company doing the effects. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I subsectioned "Release" into "Leaked workprint" and "Theatrical run". At first, I did not think that the leak would be covered significantly, but I think that reports from various news outlets indicates that there will be more to it. In addition, the information being tucked away under "Release" led to accidental redundant additions on some editors' parts, so the "Leaked workprint" subsection should clarify in the TOC and the article body that the coverage exists. — Erik (talk • contrib) 12:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - it's clearly a significant event in terms of the film and copyright, piracy etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Get that damn plot off the damn page. I only came here to scroll down to check a cast members name I forgot the other day and as I scrolled I caught glances of the plot which spoilt stuff for me. The plot should not be on the page until after the movie's official release date. Some of us actually like to wait til the movie's finished before knowing these things... I hate the damn idiot who leaked the 'workprint'. 82.3.88.240 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop cussing and whining. Wikipedia isn't here to cater to you. It's not censored. So if you don't want to know the plot then don't read it. It's not up to wikipedia editors to make sure you don't get the ending spoiled...12.199.45.142 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why there is no "Plot" section. Everybody have watched the film. --Batman tas (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The workprint does not count as a primary source that is reliably published; the authentic distribution of the film is what is acceptable. We will flesh out the article with plot information when the film opens to the public.  No deadline here to put up such information pronto. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Contest
I'm not sure if anyone wants to put something in about the contest for the premiere, kinda like the one held for The Simpson's Movie. I think it's fairly notable. ONEder Boy 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never done this before, but I am a huge fan of Gambit, and I know that the power he has is not to manipulate potential energy, but to change and object's potential energy to kinetic energy. You're character discription is not entirely true, and the link is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit_(comics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveshltn (talk • contribs) 00:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protection
Since the discussion back here hasn't seemed to put a hold on using an unacceptable source that does not meet reliability or verifiability standards, the current semi-protection has been up graded for the remainder of its duration.

If the same issue reappears after the protection expires, the page will be protected again until either the film's World Premier (April 29 IIUC) or its general release (May 1).

- J Greb (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to protect to undo a revision at X-Men (film series) and protect that too. Wikipedia needs to send a message that piracy is a crime and it does ruin it for those who want to add decent behind-the-scenes information about the film. Alientraveller (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * hrm... missed that one on the sweep when I was placing the semis.
 * And just so it's clearly pointed out - of the 19 articles that I'm aware of (any more?) this is affecting, 8 are semi-protected and 1 (this one) is fully protected. All of the protections are currently set to go on the 12th. At that point, if one of those 9, or any added between now and then, get hit again, the padlocks go back on until the 29th.
 * - J Greb (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I stand corrected - thats 7 and 2 not 8 and 1. - J Greb (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The question of whether it's "illegal" to use a pirated video as a source is a specific legal opinion, not necessarily implied by the law. This video has been cited by Fox News blogger, Roger Friedman, and the AP, among other news outlets, so the idea that Wikipedia can't cite the video as a source is frankly absurd. I've asked that this page be unlocked so that there can at least be a debate about whether this is a verifiable source. Hopefully, Wikipedia will allow that debate to ensue. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: A discussion can occur on this talk page without needing the article page to be unprotected. - jc37 11:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I do believe that is part of what the declining admin at WP:RFPP was stating as well.
 * As for the rest...
 * Setting aside the leaked print, are there any reliable, verifiable, secondary sources that go into the detail necessary to give a full, point by point plot summary of the final print? The full character attributions and appearances?
 * Friedman's situation is noted in the article since his piece had a negative impact on his employment with Fox. As has the initial item about the print being leak and the legal lengths Fox has gone to in response to the unauthorized (and frankly yes, illegal release - point to something that shows Fox allowed, otherwise the release is theft) release.
 * A few other points:
 * In crafting a plot summary we are dealing with a fair use of the source material. That is, even though someone else owns the rights to the film, it is fair for an encyclopedia to provide a minimal plot summary in an article on the film.
 * WP:NFC and WP:NFCC are the Wikipedia's guideline and policy regarding fair use. Included in them is the idea of respecting the commercial opportunities of the owner(s) of the material. Providing a detailed plot summary prior to the release of a film does not do that.
 * Verifiable sources are generally those that any reader of the article can access, either on the web or as a hard copy. Best practices have been that such a source should not involve pointing a reader to a circuitous route to where they will find out how to get an illegally obtained and released version of the film.
 * The upshot is that, since there is no deadline, we go cautiously.
 * - J Greb (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This has also been discussed here and is a problem stretching across a number of character articles too. An unreleased film can't possibly be a reliable source as it could easily be subject to change (especially because of this pirated release) and is impossible to verify without illegally downloading it. I am not sure what the situation is with using test screenings as a source but this must surely be below that in the usefulness stakes.
 * Equally its worth making a distinction between news coverage of the illegal release and sources for the plot - they are sources for news on the release of the pirated version. (Emperor (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm with JGreb and Emperor. We can wait until a final release print is officially screened and the plot reported upon by reliable sources. For a 'scoops' site, see LatinoReview, AICN, dark horizons, SuperheroHype, and others. Not Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Highlight "regimen"
✅ Since it is protected, can J Greb or some other Admin correct this - "Jackman underwent a high intensity weight training regimen to bulk up for his role." &#x262D; &emsp; мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 22:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Format updates - J Greb (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL - What i meant was a correction of the misspelling of the word "regiment" - the bolding was so you could easily see the mistake. "regimen" is atually the right word (not a mistake), and is now bolded for no reason. "Who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him ?" [[User:Machete97|  &#x262D;  &emsp;

мдснєтє]] тдлкЅТЦФФ 10:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Grammar - Dog
I get the protected status, but it's annoying to have to ask someone else to take time out to edit something for me. Under Cast- Liev Schreiber, the passage "Sabretooth hates him because he loved and needed his half-brother, inspired by Dog Logan, Wolverine's sibling in Origin, but is too proud to admit he needs him" is poorly stated and as such suffers from a minor grammatical issue. It should read more along the lines of: "Sabretooth, inspired by Dog Logan, Wolverine's sibling in Origin, hates him because he loved and needed his half-brother but is too proud to admit he needs him". ---D--- (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * hrm...
 * The grammer is bad... but so is the statement. Is there a solid source for 1) the familial relation in the folm and 2) the writer(s) saying they worked the Dog Logan character into Sabertooth? - J Greb (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is not solid resources as of yet for the family tie in the film, though I'm pretty sure they've directly alluded to it in one of the trailers or teases I've seen. Of course that'll be made clear when the film is legitimately released. As for the the statement's overall validity, if they ARE half brothers, and the film follows the plot of Origin as much as it appears to, than it'd be pretty clear that Sabretooth is indeed based on Dog Logan. I think this will all bare out to be accurate, but obviously it's up to the discretion of the editors with access to the page to make the call until a final version of the film is released.---D--- (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Status of workprint

 * There appears to be some dissent regarding the content of the finished film versus the workprint. Official stance is, it doesn't have the reshoots. However those who have seen the final cut are reporting that the final movie only adds finished effects and audio work. The leaked-cut and final running times are identical also. Worth keeping an eye on as formal reviews commenting on the subject should start coming in before the release date. Sockatume (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Headlines
Exclusive Hugh Jackman interview Seems like this has a lot of info on the film --155.178.6.10 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I request an administrator implement this interview with the director: X-Men Origins: Wolverine Will Have Multiple Secret Endings! Alientraveller (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For the editors looking at these sources, do you have a specick stament that you feel should be added to the text? Or is it "just add the links"? - J Greb (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to the theatrical run that "each print of the film will have a different post credits scene", citing the source of course. Alientraveller (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And added - J Greb (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

power discriptions
Shouldnt the descriptions of the characters be edited, most describe the comic book characters while others are just completely off. -- Paulley (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Info to add
I'd do this myself but the article is locked - see http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/04/24/x-men-origins-wolverine-will-have-multiple-secret-endings/ --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See ... That aside, Got a specific sentence you'd like and place to see it? Or just tacked onto the Theatrical run section? - J Greb (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just really that the theatrical release will have multiple versions (although from the source it's unclear). something like em..er..The studio plans to release multiple versions of the film, each with a different after-credit sequence. in the theatrical run section. I'm sure someone can think of a decent wording... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ah and you did - good stuff, thanks. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Should'nt the plot be here?
Honestly I think the plot of the movie SHOULD be in the article, because wikipedia should be a source for information that does'nt have morals, for example, there probably is a page on masterbation which could teach someone how to Jerk off, but you guys wont allow a plot summary for a leaked film? This is ridiculus.(Wookiemaster (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
 * For your query the page does exist at Masturbation and the process is under techniques ; However, please keep in mind that this article is about X-Men Origins, and just because something is on another page doesnt mean it has to be on this page. 69.157.70.176 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no plot until the movie is released; for reasons already enumerated and discussed, in ample measure, above. ThuranX (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, I dunno about morals (I think those things get in the way of getting things done) but I agree we should have the plot up. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Yes. Plot should be up. Wikipedia has no policy against spoilers. Much as I hate the griefers who put spoilers everywhere (and don't think the lack of a spoiler policy is an excuse to intentionally front load spoilers everywhere) the Work print is a valid source, enough for plot summary. A proper summary would provide an opportunity to move a lot of the cast information into context and slim down the other sections.  Also previews have been shown in the UK tonight, the point will be moot soon if it isn't already.  -- Horkana (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's out in Australia now, so I assume adding a plot would be acceptable now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dertop (talk • contribs) 11:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot can be added now
I've seen a lot of talk about whether or not the plot should be included, with a lot of people citing that it shouldn't because the only way to know it is due to piracy. However, the film has just been legally released in New Zealand (just got back from seeing it), so there is definitely a way to know the plot now. I would add it myself, but unfortunately I don't have a great memory for detail and so wouldn't be able to do it justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.87.163 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Main Timeline
The article originally said the movie was set about 20 years before the first X-Men movie. No date has been given, still 20 years is highly unlikely. Cyclops in the first X-Men movie wasn't even in his thirties, and in "Wolverine" he is attending high school, therefore he's 16 to 18 years old. So my point is, the movie is likely set about less than 15 years earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedric diggory (talk • contribs) 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Cedric diggory (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We would need a reliable source stating the time period that the movie is set in, no matter if there are inconsistencies. ~ QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 08:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the final scene seems to be implying that the Three-Mile Island incident was actually Wolverine fighting Weapon XI I'd say it's supposed to be 1979.
 * Well, the first X-Men movie states that it's happening "somewhere in the near future". The movie was released in 2000, so the timeline of the trilogy may be taking place somewhere between 2005 and 2015. 1979 is like ~30 years before the trilogy, so its impossible for Scott to be there in the first place, unless he was an infant. And yeah, Stryker is already kinda old during that Weapon XI project, so technically this episode is taking its place somewhere in the late 80s or even in the early 90s. Which is sorta stupid, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.24.66.175 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Dog Logan
I edited a section of Dog Logan which seems to say Sabertooth in Origins and Dog Logan are one in the same person. I reworded it to only say there are similarities. If anyone knows much about this topic, I invite you to edit X-Men Origins: Wolverine or Dog Logan or discuss it here. Habanero-tan (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dog Logan's article can say that the movie picks up the character's origins a bit, but I've removed (I think here) a reference that flat-out said Creed was also called Dog Logan, which never happened. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The young version of Victor in the movie is named Dog in the credits.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bullets
How did the admantium bullets take away his memory? In the comics, he was once shot several times in the head with them and all it did was knock him to the ground and maybe stun him for a second, but his memory was intact. Emperor001 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing ways to improve the article.VatoFirme (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussing differences from source comics could be an improvement. Answers could be mentioned in either this article or a related one.  Emperor001 (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As editors of an encylopedia, we're obligated to state the facts, not draw the differences between versions of story. If an reliable third party source reports on the differences, then we can add that differences have been noted, but we cannot be the starting place for that kind of commentary. ~ QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 22:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cameos and assumptions
All things being equal, the "cameos" among Styker's caged mutants need some sort of reliable, verifiable source to cite.

Yes, there are 4 that look like they could be: As well as one that that could be argued into being Nightcrawler. But of all of those are uncredited - nothing identifiable in the credits like "hazy mutant", "blurry mutant", "gagged mutant", "freezing mutant", let alone by the names of the comic book characters. Of the lot, Toad is the only one that can be pointed to as a visual reference to the earlier movies, so I've left that point even though there should be some sort of confirmation. I've pulled the Quicksilver and Banshee ones though since they rank as drawn conclusions - an editor familiar with the comics assuming that these have got to be those characters.
 * Toad,
 * Iceman,
 * Quicksilver, and
 * Banshee.

- J Greb (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The person in the ice cage was definitely female and could therefore not be Iceman. 94.170.4.71 (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That was Storm. She is in the credits as Young Ororo.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Storm's cameo apparently came in Africa and I've seen rumor that her scene was cut.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And there was no "Young Ororo" in the credits... so... - J Greb (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed references to them in both the plot and cast sections. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 11:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

there was a kid with white hair that had superspeed Im 100 % sure that he was quicksilver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.3.195 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the "blurry mutant" mentioned above. Within the film the character never spoke, was never spoken to, or talked about. There also was no entry for the character in the closing credits. And without a reliable, verifiable secondary source to cite it has no business in any article here. Fansites and forums are not reliable and an editor's personal opinion is original research. - J Greb (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

BUDGET = Incorrect?
Budget is $130m according to Chris Aronson, 20th Century Fox executive (Senior Vice-President of Domestic Distribution) in this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090504/film_nm/us_boxoffice;_ylt=AlUNk.h3iWCSmVR37h_MA_BxFb8C).

Seems to be more reliable than Box Office Mojo's figure of $150m, but that's my own opinion. Any thoughts? Armuk (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

M41A Pulse Rifle and other possible easter eggs
Will.I.Am, character was holding an M41A Pulse Rifle when he teleported next to the Nigerian leader towards the beginning of the movie. That's a strange but obvious homage to "Aliens." I don't know if we want to add a trivia section to the article, but this is possibly worthy of note here. If there were other easter eggs like this, it might be good to include a section in the article. Anyway, should we mention the pulse rifle? Transentient (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Free images
After seeing the reverting of a non-free image, I sent out a request for an image of Lynn Collins and uploaded it today. The same author has allowed us to use the two images that I just added to the article. Other available images that I uploaded that can be used (they are currently used on their respective actors' pages) are: File:HughJackmanApr09.jpg, File:RyanReynoldsApr09.jpg, File:TaylorKitschApr09.jpg, and File:LynnCollinsApr09.jpg. Feel free to add/rearrange the images in the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with content on the score?
The article says that the score uses themes from Batman Begins, Crimson Tide and 300, meaning it's a staple of all Media Ventures composers. I agree, but are there any sources?--Surten (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Surten
 * FYI, Tyler Bates was never a member of Remote Control Productions, which is no longer called Media Ventures. —Atheologic (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Bates isn't a Remote Control Productions but his style is rather similar. It was just a generalization. Thanks.--Surten (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Surten
 * That is a somewhat true generalization, although Bates used some thrashing guitar work in 300. I wonder how Zimmer's Gladiator score might have sounded with some brief moments of hard-hitting metal (badass?).  Anyway, unsourced content has been removed from the Score section, awaiting cited review information. —Atheologic (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
I've posted a great deal of relevant information pertaining to the score, notably the Burlingame recording review. I would really appreciate a valid explanation as to why including a Wiki-infobox and track listing is not a fair addition as one can find the applications of these objects in many other film articles for their soundtracks. —Atheologic (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See . — Erik (talk • contrib) 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael-James Olsen's Character
The character is listed in the film's credits as Dog (Young Victor) and should be listed as such in the article. It keeps getting changed by IP users. Keep an eye out. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it Dog (Young Creed) rather? Habanero-tan (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been brought up that the IMDB credits may not be accurate... or "more than accurate". Those having seen the film have mentioned that bits have been added to the IMDB listings. This is one that is pointed to as problematic. - J Greb (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen the film (both the workprint AND the theatrical) and I am pretty sure I saw in the credits at the theater where it said Dog (Young Victor) and I know for a fact it is listed that way in the workprint.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Track listing
A track listing was added to the "Score" subsection, and I removed the listing because it contributes no encyclopedic value to the article. Such a track listing of an album is merely a bland listing of what scenes in which the music plays and takes up unnecessary space. Track listings that are more appropriate are those for soundtracks since they can link readers to songs' articles and musicians' articles. Here, it is not the case. We can identify the composer and the instruments used in prose form. Again, such track listings are not best practice. — Erik (talk • contrib) 21:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the "Music" subsection. You are very persistent in making this specific kind of removal, but your explanation does not satisfy.  Can you cite a ruling from Wikipedia that corroborates with your judgment?  If you can, I would very much like to read it, and then I could accept your reasoning for this action. If you can't, then I think you should refrain from further deletions of track listings.
 * I also noticed that you deleted the track listing for Apollo 13. FYI, I didn't add that one, but I would have cleaned up the presentation of it.  So, I guess what I'm asking is... what's stopping you from going on some one-man crusade to delete all the track listings for every film article on Wikipedia that displays one?  Would you also consider track listings in actual film score articles, like the one for Jurassic Park, to be "bland" and "not encyclopedic"?  If that is the case, why stop with film scores?  Why not start deleting track listings for music albums, like Lamb of God's Wrath album?
 * All I'm asking for here is a ruling to back up your reasoning. —Atheologic (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Track listings are indiscriminate information. The track listing for a musical score does not provide any encyclopedic value.  Scores are best known for how they are integrated into the film, and this is best conveyed in prose.  Your straw man argument of stand-alone albums' track listings is not comparable to these scores since songs are commented upon separately.  This is not the case with musical scores, which are reviewed more comprehensively.  Some exceptions may include topics like Batman (album) due to the fame of the album, but in this case, there is no reason to expect the score for this superhero film to warrant this type of independent fame. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay Erik, I accept your reasoning based on the citing ruling. Seriously though, you should have simply cited this ruling on the very first instance in which you deleted the track listing.  It would have avoided all of this mess.  You should learn from Kollision's way of doing things.  Yet, you still have not answered my other question: "what's stopping you from going on some one-man crusade to delete all the track listings for every film article on Wikipedia that displays one?"  And I'm speaking of "indiscriminate" and "bland" track listings here.  Oh, and what about all those "bland" track listings for band albums where there is no commentary on separate songs?  That Lamb of God album does appear quite "bland;" will you delete it or improve it? —Atheologic (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for such a crusade. :) A lot of articles on Wikipedia, film-related and otherwise, are in poor shape.  Yet I do not consider track listings "harmful" to articles; they are just not ideal for highly developed articles.  If articles having the listings are actively developed, I would encourage removing such listings as junk information.  Like I said earlier, musical scores are best analyzed in the context of their overall integration into films; bands' albums are usually reviewed in both the context of the whole album and the context of specific songs.  Track listings are more core to such stand-alone albums than albums that complement the mood of an entire film.  Additionally, some films have soundtracks which are usually compilations of music from the outside.  I think that the track listing setup works here because it is a decent layout of song titles and performing artists, which can be linked so readers can explore them.  An example is Tropic Thunder. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the future you may undertake such a task, and just as well heed Kollision's way of doing things. —Atheologic (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Major or Gen. or Col. William Stryker
There is one problem with Stryker: Most sites refer to Stryker as a Colonel, but that's probably not his rank (he was only Colonel Stryker in X2). Some refer to him as General, but in a trailer (it's in large) he refers to himself as a major.

But his rank might change over the years (maybe years, then how did Blob become normal to obese). So could someone give me a good reason or a good answwer to what is his rank?

Jal11497 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He introduces himself in the post-credit sequence (in Vietnam) as Major Stryker. That sequence is likely sometime in the early to mid 70s. By the end of the movie, which is years later (6 years after the mission to Africa), he is addressed as Colonel Stryker. He rose in the ranks during the multi-year duration of the film.

In regards to this article, if the plot section addresses him as both a Major and a Colonel, we should be sure to have the right rank with the right part of the film. Medleystudios72 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection
I requested Semi-Protection for this page due to the extreme amount of edits being done to this page. Most of the info is not true (the rumored 3rd secret ending) and is being done by non-registered users. Until the attention dies down, I think the page should be protected.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, adding a protection template to a page is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected. This does not actually confer protection to the article. To get a page protected you have to make a request for it. Aktsu made the request and it was declined. Keep reverting and discussing for now. You may also want to read Protection policy for more information on what situations protection may be used for. - kollision (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll for inclusion/exclusion of screencaps for workprint
Please sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) under the position you support. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Commentary should be placed above, in the section marked "Violation of creator's copyright".


 * There are no legal issues with including screencap(s) / Include the screencap(s)
 * GETTA GET (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Control-alt-delete (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 66.208.17.254 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC) — 66.208.17.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 62.212.74.70 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC) — 62.212.74.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I feel there are legal issues with including screencap(s) / Exclude the screencap(s)
 * — Erik (talk • contrib) 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --Tatsh (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alientraveller (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but I suspect as much. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Candyhammer 21:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * --Maverx (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Darrenhusted (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: Single purpose accounts will be tagged as such - this should help inform consensus, not operate as a form of ballot-stuffing. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I should point out that I never actually signed this poll. Also fair use does not cover the use of those images because usage would fail under WP:FUC and 2. A straw poll cannot override our fair usage policies.  --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And that ladies and gents is the coffin nail in using the image from the leaked file and basing plot summaries on it.
 * Now, are we done with this on this article and the articles for the related characters? Meaning that the info based on the leak can be pulled. Or do the articled need to be locked down until the first?
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, plot summary does not seem to me to be covered under FUC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is. Mostly under point 2 of FUC.
 * While it is a reasonable argument that an article on a movie will convey some plot summary after the movie is released by the studio, such a summary should not be so detailed or all encompassing that a someone reading the article walks away with the feeling that going to see the movie is redundant. Such a "summary" would impact the film's owner(s) profit from the film.
 * Once you start looking at a film that has not been released, any summary based on a leaked or illegally obtained print of the full film will have a larger impact on the owner(s) commercial opportunities. Yes, we can point to the trailer, reviews of the trailers, and interviews, that's what the studio has released. That's what they are willing to use as a draw, and it is fair to use.
 * Oh... and one other item to think on. While we no longer have spoiler tags, that is mostly, if not entirely, because it is expected that a published, released, or aired work will be covered fully in an encyclopedic article. There is an expectation of spoilers. The expectation with an article on a yet-to-be published, released, or aired work is that it wont be gunning to spoil the work.
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh... and just a side note here... for the time being it would probably be best to restrict images to caps that: You'd think the last thing we'll want is encouraging someone to use a digital camera in a theatre... - J Greb (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * are from the trailers,
 * are from the television spots,
 * were released as part of interviews,
 * were provided to news organizations to run with reviews, and
 * were released prior to the films release for promotion.

Clone Ending Hoax
There was a rumor spreading, before the movie was even released, that involves an ending where Weapon XI is a clone of the real Dealpool. It should be treated as a hoax and reverted, as nobody has come forward to say they actually saw this version once the movie came out. The rumor can be found here. The rumor has been reverted many times at Deadpool_(comics) as well. Habanero-tan (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that be that the rumour should not be included until it is confirmed as a 100% Hoax/Fact? I know someone who claims to have seen the Clone Ending, and while I believe them, one person doesn't exactly count as proof of existance. If it is a Hoax, it seems to have become such a widespread belief that it warrants some form of mention.

Lozeko (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Character Assumptions and Overall Assumptions
People, how on earth can we say Dust, Toad etc. are in the film when it hasn't even been confiremed by ANY source (and besides none of the characters look remotely close to Dust and Toad IMO)! Banshee however should be noted as it has been confirmed by Hood (I think it was him) who said banshee would make a cameo! Stop making assumptions about certain elements and focus on what is in the film rather than the comics as this is an adaption. And also check your grammar! Tekkenzone (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In general I agree with that... but the Banshee point would need a verifiable, reliable source included when it's added. - J Greb (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No Stan Lee
Well, there is no Stan Lee Cameo in the movie. I think this is notable. I just can't find any reliable sources to back this up. I can find numerous non-reliable sources. Anybody have something we could use?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Stan Lee didn't invent Wolverine. While other marvel mutant characters were used, I suspect Marvel is saving Lee's cameos for their own studio stuff.--68.223.160.47 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * actually it is more he promotes the charcters that he is known for creating and with only one of the X-men, it would have been very likely that he wouldn't have done it anyway.--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction
Should there be a mention of the fact that the film somewhat contradicts X2, where it is established that Wolverines Adamantium bonding takes place at Alkali lake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.144.20 (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Was there an image or snippet of dialogue that suggested otherwise in Wolverine? Regardless, you will have better luck pointing out the differences between the films and the comic books.  Take William Stryker for example: in the comic books he's a religious nut out to kill mutants in the name of God, but in the films he's an army colonel with the petty motivation of revenge.  The filmmakers probably thought that making a man of the cloth the bad guy would be pushing it too far with American movie audiences.  Whatever.  Of course, you also have the tons of conflicting facts and stories between the films and the comic books pertaining to Wolverine alone.  So, good luck. —Atheologic (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such contradiction. Both movies establish that the adamantium bonding takes place at Alkali Lake. Medleystudios72 (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In Wolverine the adamantium bonding takes place at a secret base in a rainforest hidden behind a waterfall, it's definately not alkali lake. 86.150.144.20 (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I recommend another screening for you.

The dam of Alkali Lake is clearly visable in the background in one shot. There is a sign that ACTUALLY reads "Alkali Lake" and when he escapes, he runs through the wilds of Canada to get to the Hudson's barn. There is no rainforest. The only thing that appears to be contradictory is the inclusion of a waterfall next to the door he escapes through. However, in X2, it never shows exactly where the door was Wolverine escaped through. It opens and the outside is washed out in light. There's no reason to interpret it as impossible for another egress that comes out next to a waterfall on the other side of the lake or something. Medleystudios72 (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * hey guys, in the comics didn't he goes nuts and killed the professor who was head of the Adamantium bonding? of course there is alos the thing with Yuriko in X2, like where he didn't really seem recognize her at all.--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deadpool
It should read "Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson/Deadpool" not "Scott Adkins as Weapon XI/Deadpool." Although Weapon XI is able to copy and use Deadpool's powers, he is not the actual character of Deadpool. Please fix this, as I am not "Auto confirmed" or whatever...

Zjbusch (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Source? Alientraveller (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Wade ever referred to as Deadpool in the film? Ihe parts I've seen only have the amalgamated Weapon XI creature referred to as Deadpool (actually, the dialogue is "I needed your powers for the Pool" "The what?" "The mutant-killer, the Dead Pool") - that makes it pretty explicit that only the Scott Adkins character is Deadpool in the film. --82.6.93.196 (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just Because he isn't reffered to as Deadpool doesn't mean he isn't him, he's still called Wade Wilson, isn't he? & what is The Merc's real name in the comics? Ryan Reynolds has stated he plays Deadpool, he has stated he has wanted to Play DEADPOOL ever since he first heard of him (Same as me & many others who also wishes to one day play him or someone just like him) you can't go claiming something like that just because of One line in the film over the Creators/Actor/& any other source that confirm Ryan as Wade Wilson, better known as Deadpool, The Merc with a Mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.196.40 (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just repeating the logic that applied when The Incredible Hulk came out Talk:The_Incredible_Hulk_(film)/Archive_3 - It was a valid point of discussion then, why not now? --Charax (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... *SPOILER* there is a specific line in the movie where Logan acknowledges that Wade and Weapon XI are the same person (even though they are played by different actors). He sees that Weapon XI's mouth is sealed and says something along the lines of, "Styker finally figured out how to shut you up."208.79.15.102 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there scope to mention how unfaithfully the film portrays Wade Wilson/Weapon XI/Deadpool? There are an incredible number of inaccuracies as far as he's concerned. The only things they share are: name, talking a lot (although no breaking of the 4th wall), healing factor (although no disfigurement) and preference for katanas.--82.47.43.217 (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC
 * Well, the characters of Wade Wilson and Weapon XI are not the same (there are three possible end credit scenes, one of which shows WW finding Weapons XI's head, and they are played by different actors). Now, if there is a difference in pre-costumed Wade Wilson to the comic version of Deadpool, then that can be explained by time periods.  There is no reason to assume that before he donned the costume that he would behave in the same way as he would after the costume.


 * But, in any case, a reliable source would be required to note the differences. ~ QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 08:38, 1 May 2009

Wepon 11 is just a mulitated wilson so it could read all three for him but just dont use deadpool like this person said and i remmember this line "Ummm... *SPOILER* there is a specific line in the movie where Logan acknowledges that Wade and Weapon XI are the same person (even though they are played by different actors). He sees that Weapon XI's mouth is sealed and says something along the lines of, "Styker finally figured out how to shut you up.""

they are soposed to be the same person the only reason they arent played by the same actor is because weapon 11 doesnt have any lines and doesn't need a pretty face just like in halloween myers was played not by an actor but by a random gguy until they show you his face why pay someone mmore for somthing a random stunt man can and will do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.3.124 (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The line is, when Wolverine sees Deadpool, "Wade...so Stryker finally found a way to shut you up." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.114.150 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why people don't want Wade Wilson to be labeled as weapon XI/deadpool? It is the same person =-_-= --"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because all reliable sources say that Ryan Reynolds played Wade Wilson, and that Scott Adkins played Deadpool, except in a few close up shots. Also no where in the film, other than Wolverine's comment (which is a guess that Deadpool is Wade, and not a confirmation), is it established that they are the same character. Stryker even tells Wolverine that Wade is dead. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remeber him saying that wade was dead. and yes they are, they just used a different actor for the ending fight scenes--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes no sense
This sentence does not make sense "Wolverine was released to mixed reviews; critics praised Hugh Jackman's performance, but considered the film and its screenplay a little disappointment." please change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.188.202 (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You change it. Habanero-tan (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Release date
This film was released in New Zealand on 29 April (I just saw it at the cinema), not the 30th, as the article states. This should be updated. Roche-Kerr (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The release date for Australia is also wrong. It should be 29th as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dertop (talk • contribs) 11:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was it released in the UK and and other countries first? All the companies that made it (Marvel and Fox) are American. Emperor001 (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter where it is released first? 217.123.65.22 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't know their reason, but almost all of the filming was done in Australia & New Zealand, and the star is Australian. Elf | Talk 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuetrality of reviews
The show averaged a "37% rating--or 15% when filtered for their "Top Critics"--with 218 reviews (80 "fresh", 138 "rotten")", yet only one positive review statement was placed, while several negatively-charged remarks were made. As it's a rather popular article right now I just don't want to rush in and add all sorts of positive reviews and cause a stir, but the section seems awfully biased. --Teancum (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is a mix of in-between reviews and negative reviews. Perhaps cherry-pick the positive reviews from Metacritic to balance it out? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added two fairly favorable review comments. As the movie received below 50% aggregate scores at both RottenTomatoes and Metacritic, I'd say I'm satisfied now.  If nobody else has an issue we can remove the POV tag. --Teancum (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Special Endings
The version of the film I saw includes a short clip after the credits (hardly secret). Logan knocks back a shot and (in Japanese presumably, but according to the subtitles) asks for "Another". He is asked if he is American and replies he is Canadian he thinks. Asked if he is drinking to forget, he replies no, he is drinking to remember. if others make note here of the end clip they saw they could then be added to the article in some sensible way. -- Horkana (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The section on the after credits ending includes a cited article which mentions an appearance by Deadpool in the ending seen by that reviewer. Also that article seems to be source of the misnomer "secret ending".  -- Horkana (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, are these endings after all the credits, or are they during the credits? Because I didn't stay to the very end, but the version I saw had the ending currently mentioned in the article's plot summary, with Stryker being taken in. Is that on all versions, and then there's an extra scene after the credits, or is that the scene that's different? - Chris McFeely (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an extra scene after the credits, at the very very end. This video review mentions both endings but after the workprint leak Fox seems to be forcing all unauthorised clips off the web so I haven't seen the second ending myself yet. http://www.yourgeeknews.com/wolverine-review -- Horkana (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dammit. I saw the Stryker bit but I assumed that was the only credits scene bit meaning I missed the Deadpool and Wolverine scenes. Ugh I hate when that happens. From now on I'm staying in my seat til the entire thing is over.

86.26.82.69 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just previewed a print. No Deadpool scene, but the Wolverine scene was there. WhoIsWillo (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The workprint supposedly has several minutes of missing footage. Not a reliable source. ~ QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 18:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I work at a movie theater. I saw a release print. WhoIsWillo (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen both - they were identical. However, I'm in the UK and it appears we are getting just the Japan ending, which is in the workprint and the US is getting both the Japan/Deadpool ending. Hopeful a RS will turn up that confirms this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What's this about Weapon XI being a clone? Is there any evidence for it?VatoFirme (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Deadpool ending can be seen here: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/ElBicho/news/?a=7247 --TriPredRavage (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Stryker scene is not a secret ending. It is in all versions of the movie. The secret endings come after ALL of the credits and you will not see them both. You will either see the Japan one or the Deadpool one depending on which print of the movie your theater has. Again, you will not see BOTH secret endings. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Question on the "Stryker ending": is it original research to point out the obvious fallacy of Stryker walking off until his feet bleed and such, to the point where someone has to go looking for him, when he starts off this little walk on a FUCKING ISLAND? What, did he flag down a passing ferry and walk laps around the deck while it took him ashore? -- Pennyforth (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Three mile island has a bridge going to/from it. You can see it during the movie as the camera pans out and the emergency crews are using it to access the island. Aml830 (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also possible that he was walking around ON the island. She didn't say he had to walk in a straight line.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Post credits scenes
"A fourth ending shows Stryker walking down a road, when he gets stopped by some armed forces telling him he's being taken into custody for killing the general." This is also mentioned, in more words and slightly different context, in the opening paragraph of "Post credits scenes". Not having seen the movie, myself, I'm now confused whether (1) the mentioned scene occurs always, followed by more credits, then one of the three others mentioned, (2) the scene occurs always, followed by more credits, then any of the four scenes, with the one I quoted being somehow distinct from the one in the opening paragraph, (3) or the introductory paragraph is extraneous.

Anyone? -pinkgothic (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This scene happens during the credits (less than a minute in) and is in every version of the movie. It is not a hidden scene.  The hidden scenes are after ALL of the credits roll.  Everyone gets up and leaves after the Stryker scene thinking its the hidden scene and they end up missing the REAL ones.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, there are only 2 different hidden/post credit scenes. The one with Logan at the bar and the one with Weapon XI.  The third one that supposedly shows Ryan Reynolds walking up does not exist, or at least there is absolutely NO evidence of its existence anywhere other than the rumor mill.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The version I saw had the Stryker scene before the credits. --DocumentN (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, according to the plot summary of this article Weapon XI hand touches his head and the head makes a "hushing" sound, but according to the Weapon XI character profile on this article Wade picks up the head. Is there more then just 2 post credits scenes? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I removed it per Talk:X-Men_Origins:_Wolverine. People keep adding it in, it's the #1 reverted thing in this article. Habanero-tan (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Visual effects

 * Wolverine Gets Indestructible in X-Men Origins at VFXWorld. — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wolverine : The Making of an X-man at fxguide. — Erik (talk • contrib) 19:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * X-Men Origins blu-ray movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.225.79 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Box Office
I've noticed that two sites that've been cited as sources have different worldwide totals for the film. Box Office Mojo puts it at $313 million while The Numbers puts it at $323 million. I don't edit these sorts of articles too often and I was wondering if there's a consensus regarding the reliability of the two? I've seen BOM sourced a lot in movie articles but this is the first I can recall seeing The Numbers. Is one more reliable than the other?Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The project favours BOM. The Numbers is used rarely. As studios tend to inflate rather than deflate figures I would always err on the side of the lower figure and source as such. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's "he"?
In the "Cast" part of the article is such a sentence: "Victor hates him because he loved and needed his brother, but is too proud to admit he needs him back." From my point of view, this sentence is highly ambiguous as "he" is used to refer to both Victor and James. Could someone please fix this? Wyvernoid (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The he is clearly Victor, while the him is Wolverine. Who hates whom, he hates him. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Good topic retention
This article is part of the X-men films good topic. However for the topic to remain at good status, this article needs to be improved to GA status by July 30. I would recommend copyediting the article, updating access dates, ensuring the article meets the GA criteria, and nominating it at WP:GAN. With sometimes a month-long backlog there it's a good idea to nominate early. If any assistance is needed in preparing the article, let me know and I'll help out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Secret Endings
There was a mention of the secret endings before it got edited, but those got deleted, so what exactly are they again? I've read in certain places (comments on reviews) that there were three, but I've only heard two in great detail. Fruckert (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After the credits, I saw a scene where Wolverine was drinking in a bar. Is this what you mean?Drakesketchit (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one of those...apparently different locations got different endings, here in the US we got that one. Anyone remember the other ones? Fruckert (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Secret ending I saw was XI surviving in the rubble in the DVD I just rented. Its not mentioned in this article but in the Weapon Plus Article. --Doom Child (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Time period of the movie
Movie takes place in the late 1970s, as the vehicles shown do not look any newer than that period, and it takes place 6 years after the Vietnam War. Do you concur? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 10:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As no date is stated on screen for the bulk of the film after the opening titles then to pick a time period and state the film is set in that period would be your opinion, and it certainly doesn't belong as a chunk of text slapped at the end of the summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Trimming Tim Pocock's Section
I've noticed there's a chunk of information on Tim Pocock there that's irrelevant his role in this film. There's even a bit about how the actor decided to "play the character" differently than James Marsden. Nothing against the guy, but honestly his role was barely more significant than that of the extras following him out. His role in the film deserves at most a short sentence. Given the significance of the character to the series, perhaps a long sentence (two would be stretching it). Somehow, he has a longer description in terms of number of characters and word count than Hugh Jackman. Even if there is no strict Wikipedia rule about the length of a description like this, WP:ROC still has something to say about the random excessive information there. FantajiFan (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, Liev Schrieber, Taylor Kitsch and Danny Huston's entries all have more text than Jackman's... But the detail on Pocock was excessive, so I shortened a bit. igordebraga ≠ 22:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Great article
Came here looking for a small item of information and ended up reading the whole thing. Congratulations to the contributors of this article, it's quite impressive. I almost want to actually watch the thing now... Skomorokh, barbarian  19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Preceded by?!
The film is preceded by X3 only by release date, not by chronological order. This should be mentioned in the article. --Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 14:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not written in-universe, so in real life it is preceded by X3. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam firing squad
The attempted execution of the brothers in Vietnam seems to be a rather glaring anomaly to me. Surely everybody knows that such sentences were neither pronounced nor carried out on G.I.s, no matter their crimes? 82.4.188.111 (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And people can't shoot metal claws out of their hands, and survive a firing squad. And that is not the correct use of anomaly. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * also, it wouldn't be that unlikely that the G.I.'s simply set up a firing squad themselves. "fragging" gained quite a lot of notoriety during the Vietnam War. DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Countries in the infobox
Of course you shouldn't list every country that the film was released in on April 29th. That's why this being a an English Wikipedia, English speaking countries are all that are relevant to list. Not to mention Australia which was a country that had part in the production, and according to the MOS makes it OK to list.173.88.129.35 (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because we are an English encyclopedia doesn't mean we give undue weight to English-speaking countries; we only present information in the English language. If we were to list Australia, we would also need to list every country that released the film on the 29th. This, of course, is excessive. The way it is now is both correct and a discriminate list. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 04:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And that doesn't take away from the fact that Australia was apart of the production.


 * Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release dates in the country or countries that produced the film. Australia fits the bill for that.173.88.129.35 (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Australia should be in the infobox, as it is the first large English speaking country that the film was released in. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The release date for Australia is in the infobox. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 14:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is now, but you removed the word Australia, and left 29 April 2009 by itself . Darrenhusted (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It was then, too, the actual release date. Whatever, it doesn't matter that much. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 15:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)