Talk:Darwin (character)

His Power

It feels wrong to call his power "reactive evolution" since his power has nothing to do with evolution at all. It feels better to call it "adaptive mutation" or some such since it better describes his power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.72.156 (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What is it called inside the fictional universe though? I think it would be good to have both the canon name no matter how inaccurate it is and a name that more accuratly describe how his powers are presented to us. --TiagoTiago (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Omega Level Mutant?

With the ability to change his body on a molecular level, does Darwin meet the in-universe criteria for omega-level? I'm not sure how well such information could contribute to the article, but a discussion of his power level and his use as a deus ex machina, would be helpful in understanding the literary uses of the character. 66.109.248.114

In-universe criteria is for somebody with a medical or scientific background (Xavier, Beast, Forge, etc.) stating definitively that Darwin is, in fact, an Omega-level mutant. Anything less is just speculation. CovenantD 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarity of text

Some clarifying about how and when Darwin changed from an unconscious energy being into someone who could jump aboard a spaceship uninvited and later watch a marriage while in shackles would be welcome. Luis Dantas 13:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's Darwin?

I was just wondering if anyone knows where Darwin is because after he came back from space with Professor X he hasn't been seen since. He's supposed to be on the Uncanny team but his head shot isn't there and he hasn't appeared in the new arc or even mentioned. Anyone know where they are hiding him? [User:Thelaststand3|Thelaststand3]] 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He is missing in action after battling the Hulk in World War Hulk and before the Extremists storyline (Uncanny X-Men #487). 80.56.132.129 11:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oct 27 revert

While the stated intents of this edit ("Copyedit; details; removed unsourced POV assertion; etc") are sound. It botched a number of things in the execution:

• Restoring categories that were removed by CfD.
• Back sliding on an update of the infobox template.
• Converting the reference section back into in text web call outs. (A section is preferable even if it is but 1 item.)
• Restoring "hedging" to the text in some sections.
• Removal of a valid inter-Wiki link (French version)

It's all well and good to copyedit down the plot summary, and possibly the ethnicity section (that looks like it lost some context and attribution of the writer(s) responsible for said depictions), care needs to be taken not to restore incorrect, out of date, consensus removed formatting.

- J Greb (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

X-Men: First Class (Film) - Darwin's survival?

While it is obvious that film makers take greater artistic license and often deviate farther from canon, you cannot assume that Darwin's powers/abilities MUST be different.

I have seen many revisions undone by Odoital25 claiming that because there is no direct evidence that he did in fact survive, that it must be unsubstantial. This is simply not true. The film character bears the same name as the comic book character and the default viewpoint should be that he DOES possess the same powers... even if the film does not explicitly show EVERY variation of that ability. And the burden of proof lies in the film explicitly revealing that his powers ARE DIFFERENT. One MUST assume that powers are the same, from Comic to Film.

Also, in classic film style, there was a flash of light and cut away to another scene. Which any experienced moviegoer would know, often signifies an open ending. And a possible return. Just like a horror film, you never turn your back when the creature "appears" to be dead.

Odotal25, I understand your wish to preserve neutrality. But deletion of a vital, open-ended debate regarding Darwin's mutant power is simply YOUR OWN PERCEPTION of the events of the film. And there have been many attempts by many people to add content to the wiki page that reference the fact that the Darwin character has face similar "near-deaths" that would look very real to those around him on more than one occasion. And it is WELL within reason to believe that the film makers would know this and would leave the character open and alive for future use. Joeviocoe (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No it is not reasonable to assume. In fact, virtually every mutant power has been completely missrepresented and changed in this movie series. Further, almost every facet of the characters lives have been changed in this movie series, so just because something happens in one continuity doesn't mean it will happen in another. Further, the section is about his appearance in the movie, not in the comic, so any details from the comic are completely irrelevant for his character. And using his comic book powers for reasons why the film makers would bring him back is an opinion. His body is completely charaed. Every character said he is dead. The creators of the film have not gone on reccord saying he is coming back or hinting at it or anything of this nature. The mentioning of his near deathes happened in the comicbook, not in the movie. This section is about his appearance in the movie, therefore, adding comic information in reference to his comic character is irrelevent. Further, CAPITALIZING your words does not porve anything and is completely silly. Find a source that says he didn't die from the movie, or the creators, or anything. Do not use comic books as an argument. Although the films have basis in the comics, the film makers only take what they want and have shown considerable creative license throughout this film to change stories as they see fit (sebastian shaws origins and powers, weakening of magneto by only showing his magnetic abilities, making havok not be cyclopse's younger brother, changing mistiques origins, changing azazel's origins, etc). Therefore, you can only talk about Darwin's appearance in the movie, as he appears in the movie. His body is completely destroyed, every character said he is dead. The creators have said nothing about him being alive. Find a source that says his powers follow like the books and he is alive, then you have an argument. Unless you have some other argument beyond the comics, do not wast time arguingOdoital25 (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

1) Although many aspects of the characters change, mostly due to trying to fit them into a single time and place, mutant powers are the one thing that the filmmakers have been trying to preserve (unless certain powers would require lengthy explanation or would not fit the plot well). 2) Capitalization is for emphasis that does not come across easily in short hand written language. And attacking my format in the discussion section is childish. I didn't go around pointing out your spelling mistake. 3) Do I really need to point out all the X-Men movie characters who died, and EVERYONE said they were dead, and only to be resurrected later? Jean Grey, Xavier, Deadpool, etc. Not to mention dozens of other Marvel movies. Your insistence that such resurrections must be explicitly said by cast or filmmaker is ridiculous. 4) You are confusing an objective appearance with your own "interpretive" appearance. To those of us who know who Darwin is, and familiar with a VERY common style of cinematography, it "appeared" as though Darwin would survive. He had plenty of time to adapt. And the flash of light and immediate cut to the next scene was classic "to be continued". 5) All that said, I am happy with the way the wiki section is currently written, it includes the word "apparent", which is appropriate and does not convey POV. But more importantly, it no longer includes the speculation of "did not have enough time to adapt". We have reached a good compromise with that. Joeviocoe (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, its about his appearance in, using your silly capitalization, A MOVIE, not the comic. So your argument for 3 is laughable. The characters they introduced in the movies that died stayed dead or were brought back in the movie. This is true. However, that had nothing to do with anything that happened in the comics. Xavier never transfered his escence to another body. Deadpool never reached around to find his decapitated head. Further, one is ridiculous. One is just as ridiculous. If I actually spent time on each mutant, I could show only some have powers remotely similar to their comicbook appearance. Further, I could also still tear each one apart if I really wanted. Therefore, Darwin could not have powers like his comic book counterpart. This is about his movie appearance, not his comic, so anything to do with his comic book character is still irrelevent. And 4, um, lol, that is without a doubt the biggest, most convoluted, and pathetic argument I have ever heard. This movie wasn't just done for those who know Darwin, or know comics, it was also done for regular people. Therefore, they had no reason to follow mainstream continuity. The entire movie series has neither follow contiuity of the comics, or the powers of the character in anything but a general degree. Therefore, anything that happens in the comics is irrelevant to the movies. And fans keep using the comics to add information about his MOVIE appearance. The only reason I even put apparent is because too many fans who can't be objective keep ruining the article with fanish speculation. Odoital25 (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

His appearance in the movie is just that, his MOVIE appearance. That section was NOT comprehensive. The only reason apparently was in there was because it was the only way fans like yourself wouldn't keep adding the ridiciulous details about his comic book appearance. Also, read your ridiculous argument from before, you were ok with the apparently before. However, I've kept removing the fannish details that have been added repeatedly by different users then all of the sudden you want to remove the apparently. Seems odd to me. If you keep this ridiculous argument up I will go for third party intervention and request protection be put on the page.

If we cannot have a consensus, then please put this article up for 3rd Party intervention. The "Film" section should either include ALL sides of the story, or be deleted completely! You seem to want to own that section and remove any other input. I have changed "killing him", to "causing him to explode moments later". Because that is the only undisputed FACT. "Killing him", or "death" are subjective opinions. Joeviocoe (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It is about his movie appearance. Not his comic appearance so no it shouldn't include all facts. Its established in comics he's virtually imortall. Not in the films.

Response to third opinion request:

Normally it isn't necessary to provide a reference for things that are obvious, but given the circumstances it isn't obvious whether Darwin actually died or not, so all that can be done is to describe what is seen in the movie, and leave any other speculation out. If an analysis of the situation by a reliable source was available, then that could be commented upon, as for example "Dr. John D. Expert noted that the character may not be actually dead since the explosion is something the character is known to survive", but without such a source we are not in any position to argue so, for it constitutes original research. Authors are free to do whatever they want with their works, so it could be that a character dies and then they appear unscathed in the next movie/book, sometimes without a proper explanation, just because they felt like it. It's fair game for them, and we as WP editors have no say on the matter—— frankie (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Your right. I should of saw that. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Darwin (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930153640/http://www.uncannyxmen.net/db/article/showquestion.asp?faq=11&fldAuto=297 to http://www.uncannyxmen.net/db/article/showquestion.asp?faq=11&fldAuto=297
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620204641/http://www.reelz.com/movie-news/10439/edi-gathegi-discusses-his-x-men-first-class-character-and-the-difference-between-x-men-and-twilight-fans/ to http://www.reelz.com/movie-news/10439/edi-gathegi-discusses-his-x-men-first-class-character-and-the-difference-between-x-men-and-twilight-fans/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)