Talk:X-Men: First Class/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Relationship with X-Men Origins: Magneto

Shouldn't there be some information on the development of the Magneto film on this article? Bryan Singer and Lauren Shuler Donner have both said that some elements of Magneto were incorporated ino this film?--60.228.14.89 (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Magneto is covered in the X-Men film series article. It doesn't belong in this article since its development was unrelated and independent of this film.-5- (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

But they are related. Even the XMO:Magneto section on the film series article cites Singer saying that First Class "supersedes" Magneto. In fact, the plot of this movie seems to be more about the origin of Magneto than the originally pitched plot of First Class involving Jean Grey and Scott Summers. This film is more a combination of the two concepts under the First Class title and just because "Magneto" is no longer in the title shouldn't mean it is omitted from this article.--60.228.14.89 (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Supersede means to "supplant" or "take the place of". The Magneto movie was abandoned, but it doesn't mean that it was incorporated into this film. There's no evidence of that. When Singer came along he brought with him a new storyline. That storyline happened to include more of the Magneto backstory, but there's no evidence that they took any ideas from the Magneto script and used them for this movie. When Singer uses the word "supersede" he is saying that this movie will cover similar material from that movie, yet this movie was developed independently from that movie. Unless you can find a source that says this movie's development was dependent on the Magneto movie, it doesn't need to be mentioned. Anything else would be original research.-5- (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lauren Shuler Donner said that a lot of Magneto was incorporated into First Class here.--60.228.14.89 (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps there can be a small mention of elements of that movie being incorporated into this one, but it would be very inappropriate to have a whole section about the development of that movie in this article. You don't see a whole section on Cameron's Spider-Man film in the 2002 Spider-Man film article, for instance, even though that film incorporated elements from his planned film. There is a small mention of Cameron's planned film, however, and likewise that may be appropriate here.-5- (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added a mention of it in the Pre-production section.-5- (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion took place, a great deal of evidence has been released to show that this film is a combination of the original concept of First Class and the unused Magneto script, not least of all here and here. These sources clearly show that developments for this movie began in 2004 with Sheldon Turner, long before Zak Penn's script in 2006 as stated in this article. --139.168.140.27 (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Filming On Jekyll Island, GA

Hi. I haven't contributed to Wikipedia in a long time, so sorry if I did not format this properly. The sets have been built on Jekyll Island, GA, and supposedly they start shooting Monday. Word is, the scene is supposed to be on Cuba. It appears they have staged some sort of aircraft crash, as the prop department has some aircraft debris (engine, twisted metal, landing gear) and there is a huge chromakey backdrop in the shape of an airplane fuselage.

They have several cranes up, and I've watched them test the wire harness apparatus, which is also pretty interesting as well. Anyway, there are movie trailers all over the place, TCF trucks, etc. and supposedly they are closing the roads next week to start filming. I'll try to take a picture of the set (you can see it all from the beach side) and post it. 98.86.159.165 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Teaser Poster

That's the smallest teaser poster i've ever seen!!! Would someone resize it or should I?--163.150.137.101 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It the biggest size available, per the source. Wildroot (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

References to use

• ‘X-Men:First Class’: Three exclusive photos and a report from the stressed-out set, latimes.com

References to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/06/x-men-first-class-james-mcavoy-magneto-xavier-sequel-singer-vaughn.html
• http://www.movie-moron.com/?p=16270
• http://collider.com/james-mcavoy-x-men-first-class-sequel/94462/
• http://screenrant.com/xmen-first-class-sequel-ideas-schrad-117120/
• http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/bryan_singer_says_x-men_first_class_sequel_could_be_set_during_vietnam/
• http://splashpage.mtv.com/2011/05/27/x-men-first-class-sequel-cast/

Wildroot (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Is X-Men: First Class, which features an adult Emma Frost as a villain, a reboot of the series? Wasn't Emma Frost already featured in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which is set in the 1970's, as a teenager? How can she be an adult in the 1960's and a teenager in the 1970's in the same film series? 173.180.89.129 (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple inconsistency. In X-Men Xavier says that Cyclops, Storm and Jean were his first students, but that's obviously no longer the case as none of them are in the movie. Furthemore Xavier and Magneto are in their 20s in this movie, and have their "falling out" at the end. Yet in the prologue of X-3 they are shown to be middle-aged, still friends and recruiting for the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.3.61 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that, yes the Emma Frost character is an inconsistency, but the missing Storm and Cyclops are not. Xavier says that they were his first students, but at this point in time he has no students. The people in this movie are his teammates, whereas Storm and Cyclops who come in the 70's or 80's are his students. Plus, are you sure that Xavier and Magneto have their fall out in this movie? I assumed that if this is a trilogy it would happen at the end.74.192.45.152 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

X-men: First Class does not lead into the X-Men Origins: Wolverine. There are major inconsistency between the two movies. First is the Emma Frost one she is younger in Wolverine and an adult in First Class. Next is Scott Summers, he is a teenager in Wolverine which takes place in the 70's maybe earlier 80's but in First Class his father Alex Summer is a teenager in 1962 (note this might be the way they tie Alex to Scott since they didn't play Alex as his brother). Also Xavier is walking in the end of Wolverine however that is not the case at the end of First Class. This to me would make First Class a reboot of the series and not tied into any of the other movies. Silvaro001 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is never truly confirmed it was emma frost in xmen wolverine. The only real plothole in first class is how xavier got in the wheel chair. (EdwardX1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.248.221 (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Official site

The "official site" (http://www.x-menfirstclassmovie.com) currently redirected to a facebook OFFICIAL page, that what's the problem? Matthew_hk tc 13:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Factions

Why do I keep getting reverted? I added the trailer as a source for the factions of Azazel and Riptide because it clearly shows them flanking Sebastian Shaw, all three dressed in identical tuxedo's. Shaw and Frost are already sourced as members of the Hellfire Club. As for the X-Men, the cast photo released earlier this year shows the entire lineup dressed in their uniforms. So what exactly is it about my edits that constitutes "original research"? Jake Corey (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pure speculation on your part that the cast are split into factions. Whilst they may be on these "teams" this may not be how it plays out in the movie. It really isn't appropriate here, and the fact that many editors keep reverting this edit underlines this fact. It would only really be appropriate if the film splits the cast as such. Also, see other film articles which aren't split like this - how about X-Men (film) for an example. I will revert once again. Please do not split these factions unless consensus to do so is reached here. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How is it speculation? There is an abundance of sources that states the Hellfire Club will be the villains, the official plot synopsis states that the film will deal with the formation of the X-Men and the Brotherhood and I personally added a link to the trailer which shows that Azazel and Riptide are members of the Hellfire Club. Also while some of the X-Men articles do not feature a divided cast X-3 does, and I feel it looks neater and more organized. I suggest we adopt this layout as standard because the teams that various characters belong to is an important factor in the stories. Jake Corey (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'd appreciate it if you actually checked the content of my edits in the future, instead of mindlessly reverting everything I do. All I did in my last edit was remove the line that states Havok is Cyclops's brother, as Brian Singer has said that this is not the case. Jake Corey (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There are factions all around in First Class. First are the members of the Hellfire Club, Azazel, Riptide, Emma Frost and Shaw. Later Shaw recruits Angel into the fold. Then you have the X-men(however not really called that) Charles, Erik, Raven, Darwin, Alex, Hank, Angel at first, and Sean. Then the split at the end into Brotherhood Erik, Raven, Angel, Riptide, and Emma. X-Men with Charles, Alex, Hank and Sean. Silvaro001 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Insect wings girl

She appears at 0:55--0:57 in the trailer, any idea what character that's supposed to be? All I could think of is the Avenger's wasp, I don't see any character like this described in the credits. Dictabeard (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be Angel Salvadore http://x-menfirstclass.blogspot.com/search/label/Angel%20Salvadore Damiantgordon (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Prequel or Reboot?

I'm not sure if this question has been posed or been assessed but I had heard debates as to whether or not this is actually a prequel or a reboot, I personally feel it is a reboot as one key issue has been used in support of this claim, this movie is set to take place in the 1960's and features a human Hank McCoy and his later transformation into the blue furred version but as seen in the film "X2", there is a cameo of Hank McCoy on a TV in a bar in his human form, thereby creating a plothole/paradox/etc. Does anyone have an answer to this quandary? - RVDDP2501 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Having now seen the movie twice, this would be a Reboot IMO.Silvaro001 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This film is a prequel in that it can indirectly tie to the other films, but it is also a partial reboot in that it ignores some of the continuity of the other films. For example it ignores that Beast never joined the X-Men and that he didn't appear in person until X-Men 3: The Last Stand. Another example is that it ignores all of X-Men Origins: Wolverine as that had a teenage White Queen in the 1970s, while X-Men: First Class has an adult White Queen in 1962. Expect the sequel to go full reboot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.6.225 (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No Beast states that the uniform used to fit, this would imply that he was a member of the X-Men. Silvaro001 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think it must have been intended as a reboot. Too many inconsistencies with the original series. For example:

• Emma Frost is shown as an adult in First Class, older than Charles Xavier, but in Wolverine: Origins she is just a young child when an older Charles Xavier, played by Patrick Stewart, rescues her amongst other children at the end of the final scene.
• In Last Stand, Xavier and Magneto are much older when they first encounter Jean Grey. They are also still friends, and Xavier is still able to walk.
• In X2 Magneto refers to helping Xavier build Cerebro, but they separate before that happens in First Class.
• I also noticed the inconsistecy with Hank McCoy's cameo in X2 (where he is decidedly unfurry).
• It is pretty hard to square Mystique's and Wolverine's interaction with Xavier and Magneto in the original triology with the family background as portrayed in this movie (could Mystique later poison someone who had taken her in and loved her like a brother?), and the cameo by Hugh Jackman in First Class (both Magneto and Xavier react to Logan as if meeting him for the first time in the original X-Men movie).

--Legis (talk - contribs) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There are uncertainties surrounding this film and we may just have to see how it plans out. Here are some of my theories to your reasoning:

• In the comics, Emma Frost was initially presented as a rather old person due to her clothing, behaviour and attires. This could play on into the movies as well but we'll have to see as the series continues I guess.
• We are still yet to see a future alliance between the two as we have yet to see Magneto build Cerebro for Charles and their encounter with Jean Grey. Prof. X and Magneto are enemies but we still have to remember that they are still friends nonetheless whatever happens. This is shown in The Last Stand when Magneto cried out to Jean not to kill the Prof. and he also was grieving over the fact he died ("he died... so that our cause could live on". Well, something on the lines of that). Maybe down the line they may bring a villain that requires both sides to come together such a threat could be Apocalypse (not that it'll happen anyway). Remember that the Government aren't on the side of Prof. X anymore and without gaining resources without arousing suspicion, is a very hard thing. Maybe later down the line they will have to get together to find a mutant that may go as a whole storyline, but we'll still have to see how things pan out.
• In the comics Prof. X was able to walk briefly so it would still work here as well.
• Remember that First Class is going to be planned as a series so we may have to wait to find out why Mystique seems so cold and detached in the original trilogy. Magneto and Prof. X only briefly encountered Wolverine so it wouldn't have made much of an impact on them to have remembered him decades later.--92.6.89.244 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

All fair points. Let's see how it plays out. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely this *is* a reboot? The director himself, Matthew Vaughn, mentions "reboot" in two separate interviews quoted in the "Official Confirmation of Reboot" section below, *plus* there are several inconsistencies which mean that this film simply does not fit the continuity of the "original" X-Men films, e.g. Cerebro, Magneto's helmet, Moira, Hank... ShatteredPlastic (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Legis points out a lot of valid stuff. Anyway, if the writers call it a prequel, then it is--and subsequent films will probably iron out the inconsistencies. Like any good prequel, it's already filling in vital knowledge about the past left unanswered in the original trilogy. Remember in X2, when Nightcrawler asks Mystique why she doesn't stay in disguise all the time, to avoid being noticed, and she says, "Because I shouldn't have to"? Well, now we know that she once did think she had to, and wasted valuable energy trying to look "normal" 24/7! I imagine that there will also be additional confrontations with humans that will darken her mood further. As for the helmet and Cerebro, are you sure that they only ever make one of each? Once again, in X2, Stryker makes a copy of Cerebro in his crusade to anihilate mutants--so it's reasonable to think that Erik and Charles might make another "original" Cerebro--the one in the earlier trilogy--later; that, of course, means that Erik will have to make another helmet to block it. Another issue was brought up elsewhere on this page--whether Charles actually performed a mindwipe on Moira, or she just said that to the CIA. Although I can't prove it yet, my personal guess is the latter, as Charles might need her, a trained and trusted spy, to inform him of any human developements visa-vi mutants. In effect, she becomes a human/mutant double agent--but we'll have to wait and see.RobertGustafson (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Uncited

Ok here's the deal I am trying to stray away from unsourced claims from this article so it can be more like it's other X-Men film articles and from the sequel section we have this quote which is uncited.
While speaking about the sequels, director Matthew Vaughn said that "First Class is similar to Batman Begins, where you have the fun of introducing the characters and getting to know them, but that takes time. But with the second one you can just get on with it and have a rollicking good time. That’s the main difference between Begins and The Dark Knight."
Constructive this may be if true it has no source. Although I am putting this out here to ask if anyone knows where this came from. If we can't find out where this came from then it may be best for the article if it's removed. Any thoughts? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I did find some similar quotes on several blog sites, but they say he also compared this film to Star Trek, so it's hard to see if it actually is a credible quote. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:47 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So it would probably be better to remove it. Don't you think? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind somebody found a source for it. I can breath a sigh of relief on that one. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

References for use

• Tilly, Chris (2011-03-30). "X-Men: First Class: James McAvoy Interview". IGN. Retrieved 2011-05-13.
• Tilly, Chris (2011-04-13). "X-Men: First Class - Michael Fassbender Interview". IGN. Retrieved 2011-05-13.
• Tilly, Chris (2011-04-27). "X-Men: First Class - Havok Interview". IGN. Retrieved 2011-05-13.
• Tilly, Chris (2011-05-11). "X-Men: First Class - Mystique Interview". IGN. Retrieved 2011-05-13.
• Tilly, Chris (2011-05-13). "X-Men: First Class - Banshee Interview". IGN. Retrieved 2011-05-13.
• Tilly, Chris (2011-05-18). "X-Men: First Class - Beast Interview". IGN. Retrieved 2011-05-18.
• Tilly, Chris (2011-05-20). "X-Men: First Class - Angel Interview". IGN. Retrieved 2011-05-20.
• IGN Staff (2011-05-24). "X-Men: First Class - Darwin Interview". IGN. Retrieved 2011-05-24.

Hope these help.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a lot of plans here but this will be on my to do list as well. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Spoiler alert, for a reason

I've attended a press screening. If you see reports that Hugh Jackman has a three-word cameo (Beginning with "Go" and ending with "yourself") and that Rebecca Romijn-Stamos a very brief cameo as well, both uncredited, you can have confidence that those reports are accurate.

At this point, it would be original research to add them to the article, but since I can anticipate the sort of casting-rumor edit wars and unpleasantness that often goes with these articles, I wanted to try, in a perhaps clumsy way, to offer some sort of assurance. I know it's not much, but I can stake whatever small reputation I might have for care and accuracy to state this on the talk page in the hopes it will quash any potential disagreements. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Very interesting. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop crediting Rebecca Romijn in X-men articles as Rebecca Romijn-Stamos. She divorced Stamos in 2005 and married Jerry O'Connell in 2007. The movie articles need updating on this issue. 5Q5 (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The article says that Jackman's cameo is as Wolverine, but we need to clarify asap if Romijn is playing Mystique as an adult (brief flash forward/dream, etc.?). 5Q5 (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wolverine cameo is to tie to Jackman's own reboot of the character which is going to be closer to the comics.

If the Wolverine cameo is a tie-in for a re-boot of his character, yet the writers of X-Men: First Class consider that film to be a prequel to the original trilogy, then there's a problem. That would mean that there are two X-Men continuities--at least as far as Wolverine's concerned--which begin as one and subsequently diverge. (I've rarely seen such a trick--short of involving time travel, like in the most recent Star Trek film.)RobertGustafson (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

GB: That’s interesting because in comics, sure, Wolverine is quite short and almost hunched over at times, a sort of feral posture, and he’s bulky up high – he’s like the nasty bulldog of superheroes.

HJ: Yeah, he’s thick and it’s chunky and it’s powerful. I always think of Mike Tyson when he first came on the scene. Sometimes, he was a full foot shorter than his opponents and bent over [with this] massive build. There’s real power. You said bulldog, and that’s it exactly. Exactly. That’s what I’m going for, and if I have a massive heart attack first, well, you tell everyone what I was going for.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/02/01/hugh-jackman-to-wolverine-fans-the-planets-are-finally-aligned-to-make-a-great-movie/74.233.235.6 (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but a reboot implies it is the first in a series. Jackman called it a standalone. --Boycool (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a developing reboot and Jackman's comment states that it has zero connection to the previous film. 65.8.16.44 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Havok

How is it that Havok appears here during Xavier and Magneto's youth being that he is the younger brother of Cyclops, the first disciple of Xavier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.161.212 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Singer says that he's not his brother in this continuity, but some other sort of relative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.49 (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Having seen the movie to think they my play Alex as the father to Scott, however this is just my thoughts. Silvaro001 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Post-credits scene?

To anyone who's seen the film, is there one? If there is, please don't forget to mention its existence in the article. 5Q5 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is a post-credit scene. It will be updated here I assure you. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There was not one in the press screening this past week. I should note, however, that press screenings of Iron Man (film) did not include the post-credit scene that eventually was added to the public theatrical print. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no post-credit scene. Didymis (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Curious, can someone explain this: I agree that there is no traditional post-credits scene; saw the film yesterday. And the title credits sequence, which has 60s-style geometric-shaped animations in it, plays just before the end credits (worth staying for in my opinion, great music). But at the closing of the end credits, just before the MPAA PG-13 green logo billboard comes onscreen, something curious happens. Another billboard appears. I remember tan colors, like a desert landscape. Then I think a company name appeared over it, and then the PG-13 billboard came last. What is that? I thought it was odd. The production companies and distributor have their billboards in the title credits sequence. Could this be a clue of some kind? Are we suppose to Google the name of that company and it will lead us to a secret X-Men website? Someone who sees the film, please, write down what's on that billboard and let's research this. Could be nothing, but... 5Q5 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: should this be moved to X-Men: First Class?

See discussion here. postdlf (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reception

After all the major critics weigh in on Friday or earlier, we should probably just keep a couple of representative samples of the early (pre-May 24) film blog reviews, so as not to give these comparatively minor critics undue weight. I say this with all respect for their talents and critical insights, noting factually that they are minor compared to The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Variety, Film Journal International, Empire, the Chicago Sun-Times, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about limiting it to top critics in Rotten Tomatoes. Although I placed a negative review that wasn't top critic because that's the only one so far. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So are you thinking about removing some of the past ones? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We probably should. Having the negative review from that Australian website is good (unless there are a plethora of negative reviews from major critics, in which case we wouldn't need it), and keeping a couple of the film sites who got to see the film early would be good (they're notable in having the first reviews of the completed film). But having five or six relatively minor film sites seems like it might be too many once the major critics weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I was worried about that when that happened. I have full confidence that you know what to do with the situation. I hate to say it but I am stuck with house work for a little while. But I know I can trust you to be responsible to keep it in shape while I am busy. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're too kind! And isn't it nice we have a such solid handful of good, careful, journalist-quality veteran editors here in the Project these days? I'm really just so happy to be working with you and Triiiple Threat and some of the other editors here. Onward! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Another approach we could take is to look at Metacritic's page for the film (as the critics are mainstream and like Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics). Whatever its metascore is, we could use reviews from a score range close to the metascore to make up the bulk of the section. We could also include a review on the more positive end and on the more negative end to show what detractors thought. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we do, I hope it's as a result of consensus discussion, as I and Jhenderson777 are having above, for example.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been busy almost all day in real life and then suddenly when I come back I see a overdetailted plot summary. :( Hopefully that will be fixed. I totally agree that Metacritic is another good site. I am also surprised when coming back to not see more important reviews on this article. There should be tons of more important reviews now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And unfortunately me being busy in the real world kind of burned out my desire to be busy in Wikipedia for today. But I am so going to hopefully fix these problems in the future. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I gave it a try, with three or four Internet film sites, domestic & international trade mags, and consumer pubs each, trying with the latter to inject geographic variety (NY, Chicago, Canada, LA), an even mix of men and women, and a positive/negative balance while including Roger Ebert's in-between review. Hope I did well by my fellow editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you helping out so far. I hate being absent for all of this. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Both the reception and plot section are looking much better. Now all I need to do is find time to expand the cast section and the lead and the article should look great. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And you're one of the people helping to make them so! One thing to keep in mind (and I'm sure you know, so let's consider this a reminder for others) is that extras and background players try to sneak their names into IMDb and claim they have a credited role. Good ol' IMDb! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and heads up. I know how IMDb can be unreliable sometimes. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Geographical scene error

I will remove the section "Geographical scene error" for a number of reasons. First, it starts with a verbatim translation of this page, which is cited as reference, but citing as reference does not allow plagiarism. Then it says that "Many argentines were surprised about the situation and did not mind the error while others were offended by it", but the reference does not say that. The reference does not say anything about the reception of this mistake by the public (fat chance, the movie has been released today), it merely describes the mistake. It also says that the scene was filmed at Bariloche (another Argentine city) rather than at Villa Gesell, but again, the source is misread. This source says that the place resembles Bariloche, not that it is Bariloche. In fact, I searched around the web a bit, and found at many places (such as here) that the production was seeking places resembling Bariloche. Finally, a whole section gives too much importance to a small detail anyway; the one sentence at "Filming" should be enough. Cambalachero (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was removed while I wrote this. Cambalachero (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Budget before tax credits.

The budget was $160 million before tax credits. Probably should be included in prose. Source —Mike Allen 11:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A tax credit would just indicate how much they saved. They wouldn't of paid it first, then gotten a refund. Just wouldn't of paid the extra tax. Guess you could say how much in taxes they could of paid without the credit. But really, many productions work hard to film in areas where they wouldn't pay to begine with (areas with credits). So wouldn't you have to make some sort of breakdown in various areas taxes and credits... maybe a huge list saying how much more for one area compared to another, then you'd have to adjust for other costs they'd bare for each area. Basically, mentioning tax credit would be okay, but trying to change the total budget to fit the percieved savings would be thesis level work to do it justice. 68.226.20.51 (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuity umbrella discussion

Let's keep this thing tidy and keep all discussions on the perceived continuity issues under this header. I'll start off:

This is OR, and should be cited in the article as such, but let me just herein establish my thoughts on the continuity problems. In order of severity, here are the problems I've noticed:

• Xavier getting crippled at the end, but going on to walk in the Wolverine film and X-Men: The Last Stand.
• Emma Frost looks to be in her mid-to-late twenties here, though she looks like a teenager at the end of Wolverine.
• Moira is a (roughly) twenty-five-year-old American CIA agent in this film, and somehow manages to be a thirty-year-old Scottish geneticist forty-five years later in X-Men 3.
• Havok, allegedly Cyclops's brother, looks to be around twenty in 1962 for. This is someone who has a brother around twenty-seven in the year 2000. Granted, it's not impossible that his brother is significantly younger than him.
• The helmet/Cerebro thing, as described in the article.

I don't see Beast being furry in this film, and then non-furry in 2002 as being a problem. Both Nightcrawler and Beast have made use of image inducers in the comics, so it's conceivable that such a device will be introduced in the films to resolve the issue. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur it's OR, and I see that Kmecha7 reinserted it without the necessary OR tag. This section should not be in at all in this uncited form, and at best needs to be in a sandbox for work adding citations. But since I'm also led to believe this is a different continuity from the other X-Men films, Jackman and Romijn notwithstanding, the point of having this section may be entirely moot. In any respect, under clear Wikipedia policy, it is original-research synthesis and cannot remain. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The "discontinuity" section is questionable at best. If the major stake holders in the 5, potentially 7, films in the end insist that they are in fact one continuous arc, then a section in X-Men in film on the plot holes/snags/collisions is warranted. If not, treat them as separate and apart and leave the nit-picking to the fan sites. And if such a section is going to be there, it needs citation to reliable secondary sources. It cannot be supposition on the part of a Wikipedia editor, nor can it be sourced back to blogs, forums, and/or theory/spec posted on fan sites. I'd also be leery at this point of using current reviews that focus on the discrepancies.

- J Greb (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Since it is listed as a reboot of the series, this OR makes little sense. Why would a reboot have anything in common with what its rebooting? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The listing of it as a reboot was added spuriously by someone. It was unsourced, and all the official sources I have seen class the film as a prequel, not a reboot. It can't well be both. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

By Hollywood logic, it actually could be! Assuming it's purely a prequel, though, this section is still an OR analysis that one editor synthesized from disparate sources to make a case for a certain interpretation. It's a clear violation of no original research and is fancruft besides: What moviegoer, other than a comics fan or an X-Men fan, would care? --Tenebrae (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"...is fancruft besides: What moviegoer, other than a comics fan or an X-Men fan, would care?" is a bit of a stretch for me. Yes, an OR section is highly likely to originate from a fan, but if a reliable secondary source is provided, something that isn't fan-ish musings, there is something that can be paraphrased and summarized in an encyclopedic manner. And if done right that section, like hopefully the article it is in, will be written keeping in mind it needs to speak to casual readers not just those that are fans of comics, Marvel Comics, X-Men, and/or the X-Men films.

I still don't think this is the article for such a section though. It is an issue relating to the whole franchise, not just a single film.

- J Greb (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

More evidence for a reboot from the director.

“Obviously [Abrams] couldn’t make everyone happy with that one, but he did a pretty good job… He made a fantastically exciting reinvention of that world, with those great characters. And I think there will be comparisons a little bit with X-Men: First Class. It’s very similar, in a way. But we’re doing some cool stuff in this movie, some really cool stuff that you haven’t seen before.”

"It's not like the other X-Men movies which I think is important. I think they need to sort of take on a new... you know, what 'Batman Begins' did for all those Batman movies? We bloody well need it. I'm not saying it's going to be as good as Batman Begins, but it's the same sort of attitude," he said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.6.225 (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Official Confirmation of Reboot

SuperHeroHype: When you were in New York six years ago for "Layer Cake," you were already well into development on the third "X-Men" movie and you had a lot of great ideas that sounded cool, then you left that. And now you're back, so what was the biggest factor in convincing you to do another movie? Was it the story or Bryan Singer's involvement?

Matthew Vaughn: Unfinished business, that's what inspired me. I was totally excited about doing "X3" and basically co-wrote the script with (Simon) Kinberg and Zak Penn. We did that in six days together, and then storyboarded the whole movie, prevised all the big sequences, and then like an idiot, thought that I didn't have enough time to make the film I wanted, so I had to leave. I sort of regretted that ever since, and when Fox rang me up and said, "Do you want a chance to reboot X-Men and put your stamp all over it?" When they told me that, I thought they were joking at first, and then they told me it would happen in the '60s against the Cuban missile crisis as the backdrop, I thought, "God, this sounds cool. Why not? Let's do it."

http://www.superherohype.com/features/articles/167401-exclusive-interview-with-x-men-first-class-director-matthew-vaughn

My main goal was to make as good a film that could stand on its own two feet regardless of all the other films. However I thought anything that worked in all the other movies, and I could have some fun with nodding towards, I would. But my main rule was, ‘You know what, we’re trying to reboot and start a whole new X-Men franchise’ and therefore, making a film work on its own two feet was far more important than trying to be referential to the prior movies.

http://www.slashfilm.com/film-interview-xmen-class-director-matthew-vaughn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.6.225 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rebooting a franchise, which is what he says, refers to a business decision in this context. The quote above specially says "franchise" — that's a business term. It may, but does not necessarily, mean rebooting continuity. The Fantastic Four has just been rebooted with FF#1 — doesn't change the continuity. TV's Scrubs was rebooted as Scrubs: Med School its last season — didn't change the continuity. The "official" designation, to use your term, came from the studio, and it calls this a prequel. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.8.6.225, 5 June 2011

This film is actually a reboot that discards the continuity of the other films. Beast didn't join Professor Xavier until X-Men 3: The Last Stand.

65.8.6.225 (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Without a reliable-source citation, that's an original research synthesis. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done There are many discussions going on about the continuity and reboot issues. Cambalachero (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The way I recall X-Men 3 is that Beast went off to politics then rejoined the X-Men when he disagreed with the government's position to neutralize the mutants. Remember when he came walking out with Wolverine both in uniform in the hallway and said "I can't believe this still fits." 5Q5 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 190.17.119.98, 5 June 2011

When Erik get the location of the nazis in Argentine that is "Villa Gesell", the production make a big mistake. Villa Gesell is a beach location in Buenos Aires, and Erik Arrives to a mountian location, that could be "Villa La Angostura". Please Advice This error in the movie.

190.17.119.98 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What on Earth are you on about? 33% of that didn't make sense. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

He talks about this hidden content. I will restore it as soon as I arrange a translation. Whenever they wanted to name another location and named Villa Gesell by mistake, is speculation; the fact is that scene was not filmed in Argentina and that the selected location does not match the actual geography of Villa Gesell. Villa Gesell is indeed one of the small Argentine cities benefited by European immigration before, during and after WWII, so it is not unlikely that they really intended to reference it and the mistake was just in the geography (however, most of that immigration was of Spanish and Italians, most Germans settled at Entre Ríos) Cambalachero (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Cambalachero (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again, it´s no mountains in Entre Rios, The only place in Argentina that looks like the place of the movie is the Patagonia near to Cordillera de los Andes, and there has no european inmigration, And Argentine cities aren't benefited with european inmigration it's only people unemployed or exiled. And "cabron" is an mexican word. We are talking a city near Chile is ridiculus. The big European inmigratios are from 1880 to 1913, please study history, america no is USA only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.17.233.206 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Schmidt / Shaw

Let's say I don't read X-Men comics. Watching the movie, and knowing nothing about the comics character, I would have no reason whatsoever to think that "Schmidt" is an alias. The movie never says this. Indeed, in real-life it's more likely a Nazi-backed scientist would adopt a non-Germanic name after the war, making Shaw the alias — and that is OR supposition no different than saying Schmidt is the alias.

We can only go by what the movie itself says, and the movie does not specify. We can only say that in the scene where he kills Hendry, Shaw reveals that he was the German scientist, and that he looks the way he does because of his mutant ability. (The movie does not, by the way, say that ability makes him "virtually immortal." All it does is show us that he is de-aged.) --Tenebrae (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

He is Shaw. In every one of his appearances of the film, he is Shaw, unless you have sourcing to the contrary. If any of the official sourcing made it ambiguous as to whether he was Schmidt or Shaw, then maybe we would have a case to not call it an "alias", but he IS Shaw. And all the official sourcing on the film, as well as the credits, support this Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 07:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not accurate. In the first scenes, the nameplate on his desk says "Dr. Schmidt", and a New York Times citation also notes this name. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I just saw the movie. When Lehnsherr confronts Shaw near the end of the film, he says how he absolutely "agrees" with his worldview on mutants, "But you killed my mother," and then he kills him--having spent much of the film looking for Schmidt. That means that Shaw absolutely is Schmidt--as Magneto undoubtably remembers clearly who shot her. It's so blantantly obvious I don't think it can be called OR. If it is, then, if this were math, you couldn't say that "if a = b and b = c, then a = c" (transitive property). The "1 - 2 - 3" counting in both the mother-killed and Shaw-killed scenes should remove any doubt. RobertGustafson (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

When Oliver Splat Platt is talking to Xavier or Lehnsherr, he says something like, "...Shaw/Schmidt, whatever you want to call him..." --Boycool (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Sorry to do this but as it stands there is a very active IP hopper constantly editing the posts of other editors.

I hope this is temporary and I'm going to take a stab at undoing the most recent run of vandalism.

- J Greb (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, 4 IPs - 98.64.30.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.77.225.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 74.233.235.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 65.8.16.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - based off of BELLSOUTH.NET out of Miami are currently active at this. - J Greb (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A certain IP seems to try to explain that this is a reboot. I am not convinced yet. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't mind them discussing it. Refactoring, rewording, and deleting other editors' posts though is way over the line. As is socking by IP hop to continue doing it or "show" broad support. - J Greb (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I hope this semi-protection isn't too long though. Having IP's not allowed on a discussion page is kind of sad. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It currently is. I'm hoping it won't need to be re-applied. - J Greb (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed and fair enough. I placed a mantain template just in case a IP editor wanted to discuss it someplace else. They would be free to discuss it on my talkpage. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit-war

User:S-i-m-o-n is essentially a new user (only 16 edits since 2006), who has stayed clear of 3RR but continued to edit-war at here, at 20:50, 6 June 2011, after I'd asked him nearly 10 minutes earlier, here, at 20:42, to please discuss rather than edit-war.

He insists on a change to his POV, changing an objective statement that does not have a POV one way or the other. Worse, he claims that his POV is the only possible correct interpretation, and telling another editor to "be objective."

The movie does not specify a mindwipe. It's equally likely that Xavier would not manipulate her and that she is feigning her lack of recollection. That's POV as well, so the actually objective thing would be to simply say: "She tells the CIA she has only vague memories of events." Anything else is a personal interpretation. And as I've shown, there are two equally plausible interpretations.

This is an WP:SPA — he hasn't edited in months, and only 16 times total, making no other edits on his return except here — who is insisting on a POV and refused to discuss, preferring to edit-war instead. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae, apparently more interested in fellow users' date of registration than accuracy, is using his own frequency of editing as a foundation to place, ironically, his own spin on what actually happened in the closing scenes. At what point do details not matter? I'm sure the scene could have been summed up a lot more cursorily than it has been, as that would appear to be his main concern. What is being described as my "POV" is in fact both visually and literally evident in the film—he has yet to refute any of the components which constitute evidence.

He now states he considers the matter worthy of discussion but would not start one until reverting to his preferred edit a number of times.

Tenebrae has constructed an alternative take on the scene whilst ignoring (A) pertinent dialogue and (B) the only visual cue used consistently throughout the film which signals the character's otherwise invisible powers.

However, more attention ought to rest with Tenebrae's opinion of myself and my edit summaries, given the reasoning and course of action that is being mistakenly attributed to me. Not one for having words put in my mouth, it would be appreciated if this was reviewed by someone who doesn't throw Edit War warnings around at the first sign of being wrong but instead believes in actually having a discussion.

The movie does not specify a mind-wipe in much the same way it does not specify whether Sebastian Shaw is dead. The understanding of the narrative rests with the viewer, alas it is Tenebrae's unbudging belief that all and any interpretation is something separate and distinct from fact and that any such inclusion is folly.

I have been reasonable with them up to now but I cannot understand this display of bravado. All comments are welcome although I worry that one person has already leapt to Tenebrae's side prematurely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S-i-m-o-n (talk • contribs) 22:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't respond to S-i-m-o-n's POV interpretation of my opinions or what I apparently believe.

I can only say that "visual cues" by their nature are open to interpretation. I've no idea what "pertinent dialog" he means, since no dialog whatsoever says Xavier has mindwiped her.

Indeed, an alternative POV is that Xavier would never do such a thing to someone he loved, and that she is feigning lack of memory. I am not arguing for that alternate POV, but simply demonstrating that the scene is open to interpretation — and who is to say that either of these equally plausible versions is correct? The only neutral thing to do is to say only what we physically see on the screen, and let readers draw their own conclusions.

And if S-i-m-o-n is more comfortable with "appears to kill Shaw," then I certainly can't argue with that phrasing. It seems that in "The Death of Captain America," Sharon Carter only appeared to kill Cap, after all. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As clearly explained in the Edit Summaries, Xavier adds, "I know you won't" after MacTaggert promises to remain silent, this would constitute pertinent dialogue, but apparently not to everyone it seems. The combination of this along with the visual cue, which Tenebrae seems adamant in taking offence to, and the following scene which not only corroborates the setup but also shows MacTaggert giving what little information she can remember to the CIA, thus going back on her word—but only as a consequence of the mind-wipe, would all seem to prove Xavier's use of his powers. …but since when did circumstances matter?, I'm sure is the question we're supposed to ask ourselves. S-i-m-o-n (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There's really no need to be sarcastic.

I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience, when someone loves someone else and says, "I know you won't [do something]," that can be interpreted as a sign of trust — not that the person is going to blithely betray and manipulate his loved one. I'm not arguing that's necessarily the case — simply that for a reasonable person, that's an utterly valid way of seeing that scene: He trusts her. But that, too, is POV, and so we can only say what we unarguably see on the screen.

I would note that your phrase "would all seem to prove" is constructed as an argument to push a point of view.

I should add, incidentally, that it's very common for writers and filmmakers to deliberately stage a scene ambiguously, to let readers or viewers fill in the vacuum for themselves and debate the meaning of a work of fiction. That's not unusual at all. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"I know you won't" when said alone without a clause however, can mean one person's greater understanding of a situation over another's or even intimidation as opposed to Love or Trust as you suggest. Lets stick with the dialogue that's actually used.

"would all seem to prove" should be considered as politeness on my part rather than forcing upon you something you're clearly resistant to. As for reeling from sarcasm; a sense of humour often makes for an easier means of illustrating a point, there is no need to be so sensitive, if you're intent on seeing everything as malice then you will surely find it one day.

S-i-m-o-n (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know how to reply to posts so pointedly personal as S-i-m-o-ns two above. I don't know what the "alone without a clause" stuff means; Xavier just says, "I know you won't". But more to the point: You call me mean-spirited ("intent on seeing everything as malice"), oversensitive, stupid ("this would constitute pertinent dialogue, but apparently not to everyone") and either foolish or unreasonable ("adamant in taking offence" [sic] at a visual cue? How could anyone be offended at a visual cue?).

We comment on content; we don't attack another person the way you're doing. You have no right to verbally harass another editor or to impugn his intelligence and personality. Please stop this uncivil behavior, which goes against not just Wikipedia behavioral guidelines but simple human respect and good manners --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And I will say, as J Greb and others note, I should have gone to the talk page sooner. I agree with what other editors have said, here and on the 3RR Noticeboard, that offering to discuss sooner rather than later would have helped. The other party could have done so also, of course, but since I've been around long enough to know better, I should have initiated. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think the final scenes with Moira are that open to interpretation. She promises not to tell, which he confirms. They kiss and she's next shown giving a rather scattered debriefing to her superiors. She remembers little, ending with '... a kiss'. Unless she actually wanted to show herself as incompetent, she would've surely fabricated a better story. As for the argument that Xavier wouldn't manipulate those he loved - besides dozens of examples in the comics, he also clearly reads Mystique's thoughts at the end. He loved her too and he even promised not to read her thoughts. Yet, he did it anyway. Kusonaga (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's one interpretation. Others interpret it differently. I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that one particular interpretation is the correct one and everyone else's is wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he loves her. Which is why he wiped her memory. Otherwise the government may have used coercion/torture to get what they wanted out of her. The scene with the dialogue in question and _that_ gesture is very very clear. Anyone suggesting it is mere POV to say he wiped her memory has little to no understanding of film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.224.78.76 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just commenting on last bit. If the object was to avoid coersion/torture, the very last thing you'd do is make her all forgetful. That would actually be more likely to cause the use of torture then not. If your interigators feel like your holding out, or really just forgetful, maybe a little pain will help you remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.20.51 (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether Charles actually performed a mindwipe on Moira, or she just said that to the CIA: Although I can't prove it yet, my personal guess is the latter, as Charles might need her, a trained and trusted spy, to inform him of any human developements visa-vi mutants. In effect, she would become a human/mutant double agent--but we'll have to wait and see. If X3 is any indication, I'd say they're going to have a long relationship, beit strictly professional or personal as well.RobertGustafson (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Soapbox and jargon

As I noted in an edit summary, and hope now to discuss with User:SarekOfVulcan, I recast the opening sentence of a paragraph from "Matthew Vaughns [sic] commented at various websites on how he went about creating the reboot." to "Describing his thought process toward the material, Vaughn said,..."

The original sentence, aside from containing the unnecessary phrase "commented at various websites" (we can see where he commented from the footnotes), is written in a slanted fashion. Vaughn uses the term "reboot" in his quote, and that absolutely remains. But for us to use the term "reboot" when others connected with the film, including Vaughn's studio employers, use "prequel", is a form of WP:SOAPBOX and is non-neutral. In other words, Vaughn is entitled to his opinion, which we quote, properly. But the studio and others are entitled to theirs as well, and the omniscient-narrator voice should not take sides.

I think on its face the phrase "Describing his thought process toward the material, Vaughn said,..." could not be more neutral.

As for the phrase with "prevised": The word is jargon that neither the Merriam-Webster website nor Word spellcheck recognizes. If the phrase were needed for Vaughn's full thought to be comprehensible, that's one thing. But to include a jargon word that even a major dictionary does not carry only creates confusion, when our goal is to be clear. Since the word only appears in a minor side phrase, I'm not sure that the the benefit of including it outweighs the cost.

May other editors weigh in, please?--Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps as a compromise, now that I've read a follow-up post on Sarek's talk page, we could substitute "[previsualized]" (in brackets) for "prevised." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Or, we could just reproduce his quote exactly, linking to the article explaining the word, as I did before. I'm sorry I reverted your good changes before, but this quibble is a bit OTT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what OTT means, but yeah, if "prevised" wikilinks to "previsualization," then that certainly addresses my concerns. Good job tracking down that fairly obscure industry term, and good working with you! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Visual effects

For the film's visual effects, AWN.com has an article here. At some point, fxguide.com may also have an article. In addition, Cinefex is a good source to use, but its articles are not online. For the July 2011 issue, Cinefex covers the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Relation to other incarnations of X-Men

I was curious how this incarnation fits with other instances of the X-Men series and wanted to suggest a section on the topic. I don't mean to suggest a discussion of continuity differences with other films (though stating this is a reboot would be nice). I mean, is the Xavier/Mystique relationship copied from a comic or is it new? Is Shaw a new villain or did he appear in previous comics/films? Is the Cuban Missile Crisis backdrop new? What other ways does Xavier get crippled, and do they all make Magneto at fault? Was the CIA guy heading up the research facility an existing character or not? Are the various miscellaneous mutants reused or created for this movie? The section might be titled "Context" or similar. I'm somewhat of a fan of X-Men, but I wouldn't consider myself hardcore by any means. I figure if these questions interest me, they might interest the general reader, so a section discussing it would be useful. 24.220.188.43 (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Prequel/Reboot Argument #2

Hey, I've just seen the movie and I wanted to address something that is bugging my mind, I'll keep my comments as spoiler free as humanly possible. After seeing this new movie and the previous trilogy, I can honestly say that despite the studio's attempts to retain continuity and a connection to the previous movies, this is not a prequel per say and more of a reboot because one glaring issue has come to my attention. As you may know in X-Men 3, Prof. X and Magneto go to Jean Grey's house and recruit her, now I'm going to try and word this carefully for those who haven't seen First Class, due to circumstances in First Class, there is no way the two of them would pair up and recruit Jean as well as the fact that Prof. X's 'condition' here would make that scene in X3 virtually impossible. If you or anyone are still unsure as to what I mean, I would gladly explain via personal message to avoid spoiling it. Thank you and I hope we can clear this up. - RVDDP2501 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think if this really is the first film in a new (prequel) trilogy, there will be some retroactive continuity to address these issues (i.e. Xavier having some temporary cure or Beast turning human for a while). The Xavier scene in Origins: Wolverine was very surreal and, considering most of his dialogue was telepathic, could easily be retconned into an image Xavier projected into the minds of the children (First Class does show Xavier making a group of people invisible and Emma Frost making herself appear in a general's arms). This could also explain Emma's appearing as a child in Wolverine. Also, the Hank McCoy of X2 isn't necessarily the Beast of The Last Stand and First Class, and the same for the "Emma" of Wolverine and Emma Frost in First Class. I think everyone's accepted that Billy Dee Williams and Tommy Lee Jones weren't the same Two-Face. This all obviously violates WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, but hopefully it will satisfy speculative fanboys. --Boycool (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been of debate lately because of how the stories progresses. But the main way to have it confirmed as a sequel/reboot is mainly by the creators itself. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I just wanna say that this is a prequel. Yes, there is some un answered questions and plotholes, but their is still other assumptions. I mean, look at how in Wolverine Sabertooth is different in X1. Also there is the possiblity that Emma Frost in First Class is the mother of the the emma frost and her sister in Wolverine. Think about it, She has psychic and crystal powers, the women in Wolverine, one had daimond powers, the other had persuasive powers. Really think about it. Also, maybe Xaviers paralisis was an on and of thing but became permanent with old age. Also, Havoc was already announced that he will not play the role of cyclops's brother in the films. Oh and did anyone notice the appearence of a very young Storm while Charles was testing cerebro. (By EdwardX1)

(By EdwardX1), I seriously hope you are trying to be funny by demonstrating the absurd lengths people go to to try to assert that the new film is a possible or in your case actual prequel. The director has already stated that the new trilogy can be compared to Nolan's rendering of Batman which _are_ reboots which _are_ unrelated to the earlier Batman movies. I don't mean to sound condescending but anyone with even a remote engagement with film theory with narrative with the comics even should be able to tell that First Class is not a prequel to the original trilogy by any stretch of the imagination.

There are some very obvious callbacks to the other films, such as Hugh Jackman and Rebecca Romijn reprising their roles, Charles and Erik playing chess, Charles's vanity about his soon-to-be-lost hair, etc. --Boycool (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK I'm getting confused by this debate. The source we use for prequel (which is an interview with director) says the film is both a prequel and a reboot. Reboot is used twice in the sourcek, once by the person who wrote the article and once by the director, himself. So since the director confirms reboot as a concept in the film, why is it so controversial an edit? Millahnna (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Millahnna is completely right. The source uses both phrases, and the director himself uses the "reboot" terminology so you can't use the source for one word but exclude the other. That violates WP:NPOV. Editors may have their own views on whether the film is a reboot or prequel, but let's stick to what the source says please. If you can't agree on using both phrases, then it might be best if you reword it to something like "The film is as an origins story of the X-Men, and is set primarily in 1962" or something to that effect. There is simply no excuse for the edit-warring when the source itself doesn't commit to one specific wording. Betty Logan (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics has been through this kind of debate at least a couple of times before, so I'm familiar with a lot of these points. The director, who in this case is also a co-writer, deserves to have his opinion noted, and I'm all for including his self-contradicting quote somewhere within the body of the article — I think it legitimately points out the vagueness that even he feels. But he is not the final word on the film — the studio is, as the owner of the film, and what the studio itself has been calling it is a prequel.

(If I had to guess, and this is strictly own opinion, the studio wanted a description that was easy for the mainstream audience to grasp. The mainstream audience doesn't care about minor inconsistencies.)

That said, I would only be averse to Betty Logan's suggested phrasing if we couldn't dig up a specific statement from the studio. I'm sure we can; I haven't looked since I've wanted to stay away from this debate, and only enter it now since we're hitting old ground that's been covered, fruitfully, before. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I should point out that this has also been thoroughly discussed on the discussion page of "Reboot (fiction)". The discussion was rather lengthy, kinda went off topic, but ultimately resulted in a stalemate. I understand that evidence suggesting that it is a reboot is a little overwhelming, but thought I should weigh in that Vaughn describes it as "an official in-continuity prequel". It is clear to see that it is not a reboot for several reasons (including the reusage of the exact same footage from the original trilogy in First Class, the stressed importance and implied futures of certain characters (some of which are not as important in comics and other media), and the shere amount of sections that do keep in consistent continuity with or nod to the original trilogy (despite the many faults in the continuity)), but as the reboot option is better sourced and more verifiable, I am okay with that. Particularly because the only verifiable evidence I have provided is from the director, who also contradicts himself, calling it a "reboot". Just thought I'd weigh in my opinion... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to saying, "The film acts as a prequel to and reboot of..."? It's certainly confusing, but that's what the filmmakers seem to be saying. --Boycool (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the studio is really the one with the final word, I'd like to see if we could dig up a quote of exactly what the studio specifically said. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Would something similar to how we dealt with this at Death Race (film) work? That film was a remake that the director considered a prequel. There was a long, slow burn edit war about it until a couple of editors finally helped me track down a source that made any sense on the subject. The discussion of how this came about is still on the article talkpage (Prequel vs. Remake). What I ended up going with there was (from the article's lead and production sections, respectively):

Though referred to as a remake of the 1975 film Death Race 2000 (based on Ib Melchior's short story "The Racer") in reviews and marketing materials, director Paul W.S. Anderson stated in an interview and the DVD commentary that he thought of the film as a prequel.

Comingsoon.net reported that "Paul saw his film almost as a prequel if anything; almost the genesis of the Death Race,"[1] though the film is referred to primarily as a remake in reviews and marketing materials.

Both sentences use an interview with the director as a ref. I also dropped a mention of the DVD commentary feature where he expands on the idea in the home media section. Since this situation is similar in that the studio is referring to the film one way in marketing materials but the director thinks of the film another way, this seems a reasonable compromise to me. We avoid calling the film a reboot ourselves while still noting the concept. Millahnna (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In my point of view it's seems to be a little bit of both. If not there is definitely obvious continuity errors but then there is homage to the original movie as well with the beginning of the movie and Hugh Jackman in it. I think we need to expand on what the creator's have said. With the dvd coming out I would have thought we got to hear a little bit of their definition of it is. I was watching a little bit of one behind the scenes story but I don't remember hearing them defining it as either one but it's been a while since I seen it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If it has actors reprising roles then it isn't really a reboot; if it has continuity errors then it isn't really a prequel. What can we derive from those two observations? It's a retconned spin-off! Betty Logan (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Betty Logan that sounds pretty accurate but deriving something probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source to change it on Wikipedia though. What do you think? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The newest Star Trek film could be used as an example of the prequel/reboot debate although they gave a reasonable in-universe explaination for the change. Likewise the back of the DVD advertises that this is how it all begins, although this could be how it begins for an alternate reality series of films & not a true prequel for the original's.

Also in the comics, Magneto temporarily changed sides & this could be the same reason why he's seen with Prof. X in Jean's house in X-Men 3. Of course the real reason is because the producers and/or writers hadn't planned ahead to avoid these possible conflicts. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

All of this, unfortunately, comes down to our own analysis, which falls under disallowed original research. This is all fictional, made-up stuff, so there's no objective, real-world factuality. With fictional material, the author — in this case the studio, which has final cut and final say — is theone declaring it a prequel, and it would be presumptuous of us to tell the studio that it's wrong and that we know better. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That I am sure we know. I am not sure why a director's word isn't considered reliable though. I think we do need to at least note what he said. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Farmers Insurance TV commercial

Shouldn't there be a new section in the article "Marketing tie-in" or whatever that mentions the cross promotion TV commercial being shown right now while the film is in release featuring an actor in Beast makeup in a classroom and a clip of Havoc from the movie with an insurance guy holding a target that gets zapped? Go ahead if you agree. 5Q5 (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Unless someone cares to challenge it. 5Q5 (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Lensherr" vs. "Lehnsherr"

As per the official movie website it's "Erik Lehnsherr", not "Lensherr". "Lehnsherr" is a German last name, see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehnsherr (Lehens-Herr, literally "Master of the Fiefdom"). Perhaps this fact should be added to the Magneto article, too. -- NotInventedHere (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's what is on the movies site and/or within the film (credits and captions) then fine. But noting it off of Wikipedia - any Wikipedia - or IMDb isn't. - J Greb (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I see in the article the name has been corrected. 5Q5 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

However: The contractual movie credits themselves, which appear as the end credits on the film and in the official cast list given to press, say:

• Erik Lensherr...MICHAEL FASSBENDER

The movie's website is a product of the marketing department. We need to go with the official credits as appear onscreen. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a typo in the credits then (which are frequent for German names). Do you have a link to the "official cast list"? -- NotInventedHere (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got a physical copy, distributed to press and which contains the exact credits as contractually appear onscreen. The ultimate citation would be the onscreen credits, which these represent. I'll look for a link, since press kits are frequently posted somewhere online. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In the first three movie articles, see X-Men_(film_series), it is spelled Lehnsherr. If it is indeed spelled Lensherr in the onscreen credits seen in theaters (English-language version only?), it is likely a studio error, a blooper. I'm for spelling it Lehnsherr in the article and add a parenthical note about the misspelling in the credits once that is confirmed. You know, the studio could have done it intentionally to get us all talking... 5Q5 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For background information, I've found two major sources each for "Lensherr" and "Lehnsherr" (plus two that just give "Erik"):

• http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117945347?refcatid=31 Variety: Lensherr

• http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/esearch/e3ie161d52b7c6dfd0fd7323276163036e6 Film Journal International: Lensherr

• http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/movies/x-men-first-class-review.html The New York Times: Lehnsherr

• http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20483133_20483469,00.html Entertainment Weekly: Lehnsherr

• The Hollywood Reporter and The Los Angeles Times just say Erik. --Farpointer (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a sourced parenthetical line in the cast section of the article regarding the different spellings of the name. I didn't use IMDb as a source, but you should know that on major studio films, IMDb verifies the credits, and Lehnsherr is what the studio wants as the correct version. If you do a Google search, you can find articles all over the web where people have made the Lensherr typo, including both spelling versions in their articles. 5Q5 (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

thumb|Portion of page 1 of 20th Century Fox official studio credits. With all due respect, IMDb is never a good source. Here is a screengrab (click to link to full-size) of a page of the actual X-Men: First Class credits distributed by the studio. Clearly, it's hard to trust IMDb when IMDb, as we see here, will go so far as to change the official studio credits.

That said, I think 5Q5's asterisked note handled things exactly well. My compliments to you for finding an accurate, neutral way to express it. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 124.149.112.170, 20 June 2011

The Rotten Tomatoes link in the External Links section seems to be broken. It looks like it should actually be http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_first_class/ .

124.149.112.170 (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done The footnoted link was fine. The EL link was redundant and I removed it. Thanks for noticing. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Mutant cameos

Aside from Wolverine (Hugh Jackman and adult Mystique (Rebecca Romijn) appearing in the film, there a numerous mutant detected by Cerebro. The white-haired girl could be assumed as Storm. The guy with shades and baseball gloves could be Cyclops. Is there a way to identify the other mutants? There is a girl talking on the phone. There is another girl and a lastly there is a boy reading a comic book. 112.202.119.45 (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Bluntly: "I recognize..." isn't going to get the info into the article. The Jackman and Romijn cameo's have reliable secondary sources that are valid for inclusion. Unless there is something similar for the Cerebro scene - not forum musings, not fan spec, not wikis, not IMDb - none of those go in. And this page is not the place to speculate either. - J Greb (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No translation (subtitles) & the black guy dies

Should we mention that other than english languages are used throughout the film, and that there's no translations for it? And on a side note, why do so many modern films do this? Also, what's the cliche called where the one black guy dies in a film. Token, I mean Darwin, gets taken out right away. 68.226.20.51 (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Smells like OR to me. Also, what movie were you watching? I seem to remember subtitles in the non-English scenes. I'm pretty certain of it, in fact. As far as Darwin dying first and that being a cliche, source it, and we'll add it Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And Oliver Platt gets killed before him anyway. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolute aside... considering the scene that is one horrible, and hopefully unintended, pun... - J Greb (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah. You mean it was "Oliver Splat!" --Tenebrae (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Why hasn't the listings of Henry Jackman's soundtrack for First Class not been added? --Bartallen2 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Take That

It says that a Take That song was featured in the end credits, but there wasn't one. Is this because it was only used in certain countries? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is all that's listed on the official credits from 20th Century Fox, minus the licensing data:

SONGS:

• CONCENTRATION CAMP (from X-MEN)

Written by Michael Kamen

• LA VIE EN ROSE

Written by Louiguy and Edith Piaf

Performed by Edith Piaf

• PALISADES PARK

Written by Charles Barris

Performed by Freddy Cannon

• RUN (I’M A NATURAL DISASTER)

Written by Thomas Callaway, Brian Burton and Keith Mansfield

Performed by Gnarls Barkley

(contains a sample of “Junior Jet Set”, performed by Keith Mansfield, courtesy of KPM Music Ltd.)

• A LITTLE BIT OF SOAP

Written by Bert Russell

Performed by The Jarmels

• GREEN ONIONS

by Al Jackson Jr., Booker T. Jones, Lewie Steinberg and Stephen Cropper

Performed by Booker T. & the MG’s

• HIPPY HIPPY SHAKE

Written by Robert Lee Romero

Performed by Chan Romero

• SOVIET NATIONAL ANTHEM

Written by Anatolij N. Alexandrov

Performed by The Red Army Choirs of Alexandrov

--Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Alessadri, 7 August 2011

Under Cast section

Don Creech as CIA Agent William Stryker

to

Don Creech as CIA Agent William Stryker Sr. (Without the hyperlink)

Alessadri (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The hidden note next to Creech's credit on this page explains that he is credited as "William Stryker", no "Sr." Original research, such as deducing that the character would be "Sr." due to having the same name as his son, is discouraged. --Boycool (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Gottlieb Funland

I don't know if this is worth mentioning, but the pinball machine being played about an hour into the film is Gottlieb's Funland, which came out in 1968, whereas the film is set in 1962. Oh, and take it from an old pinball pro, the manufacturers never had enough lead time on development for it to be a prototype. Kid Bugs (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you could find a reliable-source citation for the year of release — and pinball history is pretty well documented, so I'm sure there are histories and collector guides around — then I suppose if there were a section on the production design (certainly not a bad thing to have in a film article), then this could be a part of that. There's not really any place for it now, as consensus is not to have trivia sections in articles. But, yeah, I could get behind a section on the production design. I'd bet the production designer or art director has talked about the movie somewhere or other. Heck, I've seen a production-designer interview in an article about the movie The Fighter, and an interview with the Captain America: The First Avenger propmaster, so the XM:FC production people isn't far-fetched. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ipdb.org/ lists it. I don't mind pointing to it in Talk, but I won't make any substantial changes to articles. Kid Bugs (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rusk

Given that world leadership in the movie seems to follow the real history, and that we're listing Craven's character as McCone, shouldn't we link Wise's character in some manner to Dean Rusk? john k (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

McCone is name given in the film. I don't believe Rusk is given. There may be likeness / rights / surviving family reasons for this. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Excessive Reverting

Whoever is making blanket reverts should stop. If he/she has problems with specific additions, he/she should take them up individually--as well as check the film. I've seen it; that's how I know my additions (Wolverine's profane single line; the sameness of Schmidt and Shaw, as Magneto says to the latter "but you killed my mother" [who else could he be talking about than Schmidt??]; and Mystique's telling Beast to embrace his mutant nature like she has) to be correct. Let's have a discussion first. RobertGustafson (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the edit history and don't see anyone reverting your edits; maybe you could provide links to these reverts? That said, under WP:BRD an editor is within his right to revert changes to an article, the obligation of starting a dicussion falls to the editor initiating those changes. Betty Logan (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We also need to keep the plot between 400 and 700 words as per WP:FILM.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The specific guideline discussing plot summaries for films can be found at WP:FILMPLOT. Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Watch the grammar!

I added an em dash and the words "along with" between the references to Angel and her fellow recruits--because only they, not her, have "code-names";--besides, when you use the term "respectively", the number of items in each list have to match. My experience is that when it comes to writing (as opposed to speaking), it's very important to have good grammar--especially with complex or long sentences--lest the reader get lost or confused. Unlike speech, which is about 5% verbal and allows for many forms of inflectional grouping, writing is like 95% verbal and allows very minimal inflection with which to group ideas.RobertGustafson (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

People adding new text should first look over the existing text, and stick to the existing punctuation conventions. In particular, using em dashes in place of hyphens. (Yes, I know it's purely a question of aesthics, but consistency is important.) The em dash is one of the "special characters" below the editing window. Also, re-read any new or revised text before and after saving the changes to make sure the grammar is correct and easy to follow. It's easy, when simply typing in thoughts, to accidentally inject confusing subject/verb (and other) disagreements in tense, sense, number, and gender; that's why a look-over is vital! RobertGustafson (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Production credits

Once and for all, here are the production credits right from the studio's official, published, contractual credits: TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX Presents In Association with MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT and DUNE ENTERTAINMENT A BAD HAT HARRY / DONNERS’ COMPANY Production.

There is no Marv Films in the credits. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM May 21, 2012: There's one additional company according to Variety, and they are listed in the credits but after a small block and before the cast: "Produced in Association with INGENIOUS MEDIA" --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to those Credits Tenebrae? Just a point, As I declare on my UserPage I've been subcontracted to Marv in the past (not on this shoot though) - but generally the name of one of the involved studios was given instead if we needed to identify ourselves to other suppliers/contractors even though we were operationally working for Marv (I guess like Heyday films and Warner). In this case a quick Google for '"X-Men: First Class" Marv Films' Returns the CV's of the principal crew Editor/Sound Editor/1st AD/etc... and identifies their contracts on the shoot were with Marv not the Studio. I don't have the filmon wondereifyou knew of a transcript of the credits from somewhere I could look at? ser:Stuart.Jamieson|Stuart.Jamieson]] (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

These are the onscreen credits. They also appear in the printed production credits in the press notes, which are available in any library with a reasonably comprehensive film section. You and I have had this conversation before — there's more to the world of reference data than what is online. And as I'm sure you're aware, film credits are a contractual entity; if Marv Films is not credited, that should indicate something to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware that a production company credit isn't a contractual requirement (unlike say a DGA, PGA, or WGA credit) and that for a smaller production company involved in the chain it could be credited in another way rather than an "In association with" or "Co-Production" credit but as I don't have immediate access to any of the things you list, I thought it pertinent to query whether they could be found somewhere within my reach to check. However whatever the credits say - is it reasonable to challenge sources presenting the claim of experienced Crew such as the sound mixer Simon Hayes, and 1st AD Marcia Gray) that they were contracted by Marv and not Fox to work on the film? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe you know well that that constitutes original research. It also seems as if you're involved with the company about which you wish to make a claim, which some might perceive as WP:COI. For the record, the term "Marv" appears nowhere in the credits whatsoever. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually there are secondary sources that say Marv films was involved in the production, so backing them up with a couple of primaries is not original research. I have no conflict of interest here, my employer sent me to do some work for a contractor who was working for marv on Stardust. I have no wider connection with marv, and do you really want me to highlight all your conflicts of interest, articles that you have created, edited, or self-cited in? At least I'm open enough to declare that I did work on Stardust and that my involvement was de minimis. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And there you go again, threatening me with invasion of privacy over what you think you have uncovered in your obsessive background investigation of me. I'm finding an admin about this right now since your wiki-stalking behavior was creepy when you did it to me at Talk:Demi Moore here and elsewhere, and it is equally creepy to me now. Threatening to violate another editor's privacy, attempting to pry into his personal life and making accusatory claims without evidence is beyond the pale. You are an obsessive creep and I wish you would stop following me around Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't threaten anything Tenebrae - I asked a rhetorical question about your treatment of my declared COI (on stardust) and how you would feel if the tables were turned. Feel free to tell who you like just be honest about it. But this little carnival distraction seems purely to distract from the discussion in hand about Marv films involvement here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"do you really want me to highlight...?" is a threat. There is no other way to take it. You are threatening me. And as for Marv Films, 20th Century Fox, in its official credits, says the company wasn't involved. It doesn't get more official than that. But because they're your buddies, you're saying the studio is lying and some supposed secondary sources are telling the truth.

Stay out of my personal life and don't you dare threaten to reveal my private life and identity here where it's no one's business. "do you really want me to highlight...?" is a threat. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Guys, focus on the article content and as little on each other as possible.

Stuart.Jamieson, as you note you have self-identified as having worked for Marv. The wise thing would be to be conservative about dropping its name into articles. Best case, it looks like OR - you are filling in information from your personal knowledge from working there rather than from a citable source - worst case, it looks like shilling. If you have reliable sources other than yourself, post the links or the hard copy which can be verified. That's a lot easier all the way round.

Also, be careful about the phrases you choose. As noted, you are very open about who you are. Not everyone who edits here chooses that route and their choice should be respected, it is part of the reason WP:OUTING is a policy. You may have meant what Tenebrae quotes as an off hand comment, but it can read like a threat. You and Tenebrae have bumped into this before, so please, think before you save an edit that will hit that hot button.

Tenebrae, at the moment I don't see anything that rises to stalking. Or anything here that calls for "...you sick, obsessive bastard..." which can be seen as a personal attack.

If either or both of you think the side issues need a wider look, there WP:WQA and WP:ANI, but please don't play it out here.

- J Greb (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, in my reading of this conversation, I noticed that you asserted a conflict of interest on the part of Stuart. I see that Stuart responded by pointing out that you yourself had at least presumptive conflicts of interest with articles you had written. You reacted by calling this a threat of invasion of your privacy. In my opinion, while presumptive or apparent conflicts of opinion may exist between editors and articles, a distinction must be made between those and actual conflicts of interest--that is to say, conflicts that can be shown to have a direct deleterious effect on the editor's edits. Unless one can show that if not for the said conflict, an edit would not have been made in the way it was made in an article (in other words, that the edits are not valid under all relevant policies, guidelines, consensuses, standards of writing, etc.), then the matter should be dropped. Remember, focus on content, not the editor. When in conflict, focus on the substance of the editor's position, and the evidence/arguments that he/she puts forward for it. Falsify that evidence/reasoning, or explain why you disagree with it. But if you do not have evidence that a conflict is coloring the content of the article, then bringing up such matters is just an ad hominem argument, which violates WP:AGF.

For what it's worth, "Do you want me to highlight..." does not seem at all like a threat. You made an accusation of COI, without showing (that I can see) who this colored Stuart's edits or his position, and it seems that Stuart did so in turn. Neither of you should engage in such behavior. Let's just stick to the substance of the disagreement, shall we? Nightscream (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record - I am not "buddies" with anyone at Marv. I worked on one shoot, was subcontracted not directly contracted to marv, spent more time getting to know the cast and other crew, and the most I saw of anyone from Marv was Vaughn going past me at a distance whilst I was at my work position before he went onto set. None of that applies to X-Men: first class beyond what I said about the fact that we identified ourselves by giving the studio name and the Marv name only referred to the work done by Vaughn, Goldman, Thykier, and their direct staff. I also have no personal experience or opinion on this shoot and am just examining the sources where I can find them hence I'm questioning why the CVs of Marcia Gray, Simon Hayes and the Corporate sites of companies such as POV identify Marv as one of the production companies involved in making the film. And Secondary Sources such as ABC identify that they have received permission to use materials related to the film from Marv Films (amongst the other companies), and other secondary sources such as the film review site firstshowing.net claim that Marv Films is helping produce the film. I'm not accusing Fox of lying here, just saying that because a film isn't listed in the credits does not mean it was not involved in the production, and doesn't mean it can't be sourced as having been involved in the production. If you actually wan't something from my opinion I think at a minimum I think it's unlikely that Vaughn and Goldman would work directly for another production company without limiting their liability (both fiscal and actual) through a shell company such as Marv or Vaughn Productions.. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That was all very convoluted and you're straining to make what sounds like OR synthesis. In any event, lots of people claim to have worked on lots of things. But when the owner and rights-holder of the film specifically says a production company did not work on it, I'm not sure why anyone would insist the studio is either lying or too incompetent to list all the production companies — which are major entities. This isn't like neglecting to list a gaffer who worked on the film for two days. You say, "I've been subcontracted to Marv in the past." It would not be unreasonable to deduce you want to be subcontracted to Marv in the future. Shoehorning a past and potential employer into a film article in contradiction of the official credits is not right. Perhaps other editors would like to comment, or perhaps you'd like to call for an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Owner and Rights-Holder does not specifically say a production company did not work on it. It fails to credit a production company which is recorded in secondary sources as having worked on it. Shall we discuss whether Ethan Cohen did any directing work on Fargo as he wasn't credited for it? Credits are not the be all and end all, and sometimes secondary sources reveal that personnel or companies worked on a film uncredited - in this case I suspect because no Marv staff were acting as producers, Marv did not hold any rights to the underlying work, and Marv did not contribute financially . I'd be happy to have comments from other contributors regarding the sources that state Marv's involvement. Again I advise you to drop the COI stick - Marv was never my employer - I work for an employer who selected me to work the subcontract to a company that was contracted to Marv. For me to work for Marv again, they would have to be shooting something in the geographical area covered by the division I am employed by, Marv would have to have contracted the same company who would have to need additional staff and would have to approach my employer, and my employer would have to select me to work the sub-contract. Anything I do or say here has no bearing on that potential chain of events - I've said I have no COI here, and I stand by that, but I also stand by the fact that you should be considering you own edits if you want to throw around COI claims. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You said previously in this thread, "I've been subcontracted to Marv in the past." Now you say, "Marv was never my employer." I never said you were; stop making false statements. I said, "It would not be unreasonable to deduce you want to be subcontracted to Marv in the future." Contractors tend to use the same subcontactors repeatedly since they have a history with them.

J Greb has asked that you stop making unverified claims about me, saying to take it to WP:WQA and WP:ANI if you wish. Otherwise, stop making these unwarranted, inaccurate and obsessive accusations.

The Owner and Rights-Holder did say a production company did not work on it, by not listening them in the credits. To say that Disney has to make a statement specifically denying that Revolution Pictures, 1492 Productions, Bluegrass Films, Imagine Productions, and every other company in existence did not work on the film is ridiculous. Marv isn't listed in the credits — Disney has no reason to deny credit to a firm that legitimately worked on the film. Lots of companies claim to have worked on a film when they did not, or make that claim through some strained chain of this-person-worked-for-this-person-who-worked-for-this-person-who-worked-for-Marv. It appears you have an issue with Disney.

You want to call for an RfC for your theory, then please do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I would also note, re your veiled suggestion of WP:OUTING, that a longtime editor was recently banned for that: See here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You said "Shoehorning a past and potential employer into a film article" to which I responded "Marv was never my employer" and your opinions of subcontractors do not bear out in my personal experience where the turnover is high. I see you've now moved from Non sequiturs to Affirming the consequent - obviously to show this to be true you have secondary sources that state Revolution Pictures, 1492 Productions, Bluegrass Films, Imagine Productions, and every other company in existence did work on the film? Disney may have any number of contractual reasons not to credit Marv, but that would be down to the agreement between them. I have no issue with Disney - that's a straw man (so many logical fallacies in a single post) and there's no need for an Rfc when editors can casually chip into this lightweight conversation.

As for WP:OUTING, I have never stated anything that would identify you, and you seem to like hide behind that policy to avoid answering the question of if you have made breaches of other policies. I agree with what J Greb said, but it was two ways (neither of us were to focus on the other) you need to stop making comments about me (which you fail to do) and Nightscream's comment to you affirms the general points I am making to you, so not as inaccurate as you would like other editors to believe. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

When someone can't argue points on logic, they attack the other person instead. Very nice. And you misread Nightscream's comments in a very self-serving way.

Call an RfC or don't. But there's no certainly no consensus to add a claim that directly contradicts the official Walt Disney Pictures credits, especially without journalistic sources and especially — as J Greb noted so it's not just me saying this — based in part on your own personal connection. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"certainly no consensus" well let's see: to quote WP:CONSENSUS "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." - This claim has been in the article since 18th September 2010 - Consensus has held it to be accurate until now, and now you're seeking to change that consensus - all very well and completely within process but it is you that should be looking to demonstrate there is consensus for the change you wish to make. I've questioned that change on the grounds that there are secondary sources that support the original material - as for Journalistic sources that's not a requirement (they only have to be reliable and if you want to challenge that then you can ask WP:RSN) but I also think it's something you would be unlikely to find, Marv as an entity seems to have minimal direct coverage in any general journalistic sources (though possibly in the specialist press that I don't have access to, that may be different) but has far greater coverage in other types of secondary sources. I think there's an irony in the way that a primary source is being given the as the crux of the entire reason for removal against secondary sources when our policy is to use secondary sources and we have secondary sources available here. As for "Personal Connection" you can keep repeating it like a personal mantra but it's not going to make it true, and has no basis in reality. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. First, from March 1 till May 17, that claim did not appear there, so the most recent consensus did not include it. Second, all claims have to be cited; if someone slipped in an uncited claim that might not have gotten noticed right away, It was never a valid edit to begin with — you can't have consensus for uncited, unsupported, unverified claims.

If you think your obsessive desire to credit a company that no objective journalistic source credits doesn't indicate some less-than-objective desire, that is what has no basis in reality. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And just in terms of common sense, I would ask you to consider: Just because someone who worked on a film has a production company does not mean that production company was involved. Lots of freelance / self-employed creative people maintain corporate entities, but we don't always do work under the auspices of that entity. I don't notice Marv Films suing for credit, and since the company doesn't seem to have a public website, it's reasonable to wonder that perhaps there is a reason there is no Marv FIlms credit on the film. Is Marv Films itself even claiming it's a production company on First Class, or are your untrained, non-journalistic sources assuming that because Vaughn directed and co-wrote the film that he involved his company? It looks to me as if Vaughn is keeping a wall between films he works on as himself and films he produces through his company. Aside from any other consideration regarding reliable citing, we should think about respecting such a choice. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And incidentally, there are journalistic sources for production companies. Here, for example, is from the Variety review. Lot of companies are mentioned, but not Marv Films: "A 20th Century Fox release presented in association with Marvel Entertainment and Dune Entertainment of a Bad Hat Harry/Donners' Co. production in association with Ingenious Media. Produced by Lauren Shuler Donner, Bryan Singer, Simon Kinberg, Gregory Goodman. Executive producers, Stan Lee, Tarquin Pack, Josh McLaglen. Co-producer, Jason Taylor. Directed by Matthew Vaughn. Screenplay, Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, Vaughn; story, Sheldon Turner, Bryan Singer." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a load of material there Tenebrae and a lot to go through, some of which shows a misinterpretation of my points and intentions and while I did break in down into blow by blow replies, It's better to be short and I'll refer back to my original question "Do you have a link to those Credits Tenebrae? [...]. In this case a quick Google for 'X-Men: First Class Marv Films' Returns the CV's of the principal crew Editor/Sound Editor/1st AD/etc... and identifies their contracts on the shoot were with Marv not the Studio. I don't have the film on wondered if you knew of a transcript of the credits from somewhere I could look at?" - my point here was never to push this into the infobox at all odds - but solely to identify if Marv had any involvement acknowledged that could align with the sources that I had already be found that say they did, and only if it was reasonable to do so insert it in the most appropriate way - to do that I wanted to check the credits myself but instead this is getting blown into an unnecessary argument. I will continue to look for sources but there's no real need for further discussion unless other editors want to contribute. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As I'd noted, Marv Films is not listed in the onscreen credits. It also does not appear in the printed production credits in the press notes, which are available in any library with a reasonably comprehensive film section.

As for people putting something on their resumes ... really? If I, as a journalist, see people who claim to have worked on a movie and then have the studio tell me, "No, they did not," that's a red flag. There's a reason we look for objective journalistic / academic sources as opposed to self-published sources. And in agreement with 20th Century Fix, neither Variety nor The Hollywood Reporter nor Film Journal International, to name three leading trade magazines, have reported that Marv Films was involved. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, who did the studio tell you didn't work on the film? Simon Hayes is credited (and it is he who said specifically his contract was with Marv) and Marcia Gay has a long and distinguished enough career that there is no reason for her to lie about who/when/where she worked for even if she did it uncredited. And Firstshowing.net is a journalistic source, with an editorial team and is used as a reliable source in over 200 articles - so if you're now claiming that it's unreliable because it disagrees with Variety then there's a lot of film articles needing cleared up now... - still there's nothing new being added to the debate here clearly you wish to believe that the credits are sacrosanct, I disagree lets just agree to differ.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstshowing.net stopped making that claim once the film came out! You and I have had this discussion before about what trained journalists look for and the assumptions that people who've spent four to six years getting a journalism degree or working in the field for decades don't make.

Firstshowing — sloppily and unprofessionally, in my opinion — stuck a boilerplate tagline at the end of its X-Men: First Class articles ("Marv Films & 20th Century Fox will be bringing X-Men: First Class to theaters everywhere starting on June 3rd this week"). First, that promotionally toned tagline doesn't include the production companies that verifiably made the movie, so no one at Firstshowing did the basic research a first-year J student learns to do. Second, the final time it makes that claim is this May 30, 2011 article. Once the film came out and FIrstshowing saw the actual credits, it stopped making that claim. It then should have run a correction or updated its articles, as a more responsible publication would have done. So, no, even Firstshowing.net does not agree with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In the three articles it ran after the film release, it didn't mention any production companies no Fox, no Donner, no Bad Hat, no Ingenious - so claiming that it stopped using Marv is irrelevant and false logic, because it stopped using Fox as well. But as I say agree to disagree... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Irrelevant and false logic"? Wow. You dont think a responsible journalistic organization would have questioned why something it was claiming as fact was not represented as so by the studio and the onscreen credits? The fact FirstShowing.net stayed silent on the subject, and tacitly accepted the official credits, is hardly irrelevant. I just don't understand why you think people spend four to six years in journalism school learning the profession if anyone off the street can do it. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, re: FirstShowing.net, I have to wonder how many of those 200 cites are actually just to FirstShowing's copying, with attribution, news for which The Hollywood Reporter or Deadline.com, etc. did the original reporting. Those cites should be to the original source, not the copier. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As I say above - if you're right: "there's a lot of film articles needing cleared up now..." so perhaps you should raise the issue at WP:RSN and recruit some editors to look at cleaning up those articles? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In all sincerity, that's a good idea — I recently recruited some editors to help archive Toonopedia, since the future of that invaluable site is in question. Again, being absolutely sincere, I'm genuinely glad we could find even this small bit of common ground. It's a start. -Tenebrae (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we can do better based on your comments above how about Vaughn's reticence to publicise, how about a consensus that: Marv may or may not have worked on the film as an entity but that the absence of a credit, or credible secondary source to support it's involvement means that it should be left out for now. If a reliable journalistic source can be found to support it or a direct quote from one of the [key] film-makers supports it's involvement - the subject of this debate should be reassessed to examine the quality of that source and the best manner to allow the inclusion of the company within the article? If we are agreed then any editor can feel free to close the thread and summarise as such, possibly also add a hidden note to the article to avoid imdb watchers re-adding it in the interim.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you and I could not have phrased it better: "If a reliable journalistic source can be found to support it or a direct quote from one of the [key] film-makers supports its involvement, the subject of this debate should be reassessed to examine the quality of that source and the best manner to allow the inclusion of the company within the article." You forthrightly note "key filmmaker," which to me means a Marv company principal.

And my completely non-scientific, non-citable gut guess is that Vaughn has reasons, possibly tax-related, for keeping his corporation separate on this occasion. From what I gather, the British tax laws are much more stringent than in the U.S. — even the latest episode of Mad Men alluded to that!

So, yes, once again: common ground. If someone one would like to close the thread, I'm certainly amenable. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)