Talk:X-Men (film series)/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Characters/cast table

Also, in anticipation what appears to be maybe an overhaul of the cast table too (as Brojam suggested), might I suggest "large column" headers of the "OG trilogy", "Wolverine trilogy", the "First Class"-era films, "Deadpool", and then "New Mutants" by itself, instead of listing each individual film? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. The point of this table is to summarize the characters/cast. There's already a separate article that lists them for each film individually. - Brojam (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Many of the individual series share characters, and detailed specifics are not required for a table. It'll help shorten the table down greatly. -- Alex^TW 05:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that approach for the cast table as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Compacted cast table

Character X-Men: Original films Wolverine films X-Men: Beginning films Deadpool films John Allerdyce Pyro Alexander BurtonC Aaron Stanford   Raven Darkhölme Mystique Rebecca Romijn   Jennifer Lawrence Morgan LilyYA Rebecca RomijnO   Robert "Bobby" Drake Iceman Shawn Ashmore   Shawn Ashmore   Jean Grey Phoenix / Dark Phoenix Famke Janssen Haley RammY Famke Janssen Famke JanssenC Sophie Turner   James Howlett / Logan Wolverine / Weapon X Hugh Jackman Hugh Jackman Troye SivanY Hugh Jackman   Jubilation Lee Jubilee Katrina FlorenceC Kea WongC   Lana Condor   Erik Lehnsherr Magneto Ian McKellen Brett MorrisY Ian McKellenUC Ian McKellen Michael Fassbender Bill MilnerY   Moira MacTaggert Olivia Williams   Rose Byrne   Marie Rogue Anna Paquin   Anna Paquin   Peter Maximoff Quicksilver   Evan Peters   Henry "Hank" McCoy Beast Steve BacicC Kelsey Grammer   Nicholas Hoult Kelsey GrammerOUC   Ororo Munroe Storm Halle Berry   Halle Berry Alexandra Shipp   Psylocke Meiling Melançon   Olivia Munn   Kitty Pryde Sumela KayC Katie StuartC Ellen Page   Ellen Page   Piotr "Peter" Rasputin Colossus Donald MackinnonC Daniel Cudmore   Daniel Cudmore Stefan KapičićV William Stryker II Brian Cox Brad LoreeY Danny Huston Josh Helman Brian CoxAO   Alexander "Alex" Summers Havok   Lucas Till   Scott Summers Cyclops James Marsden Tim Pocock James MarsdenC Tye Sheridan   Kurt Wagner Nightcrawler Alan Cumming   Kodi Smit-McPhee   Wade Wilson Deadpool / Weapon XI   Ryan Reynolds Scott Adkins   Ryan Reynolds Charles Xavier Professor X Patrick Stewart Patrick StewartUC Patrick Stewart James McAvoy Laurence BelcherYA   References

How's this? I didn't include The New Mutants for now, as the column is currently completely empty. All 42 references preserved. Not sure on the original/prequel X-Men film headers. -- Alex^TW 14:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

X-Men: Days of Future Past isn't a prequel film.Hotwiki (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It is both a prequel and sequel film, but it makes more sense to list is as a sequel of First Class than to list it as part of the original movies. -- Alex^TW 07:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

But it isn't a prequel when you have a person from the future basically going to the past, makes the past the "present". It wasn't just telling a story that happened in the past. Plus majority of the cast came from the main cast and they weren't set in the past. Definitely not a prequel. Just merge the prequels with films featuring the original cast, so defining Days of Future Past won't be an issue to others.Hotwiki (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It was suggested to use "large column" headers of the "OG trilogy", "Wolverine trilogy", the "First Class"-era films, "Deadpool", which is what I've done. DOFP is more of a "First Class"-era film. I would definitely oppose merging all 7, due to the number of different cast that play the same characters. Separating them into these two options shows these changes. -- Alex^TW 08:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree; I don't think grouping all 7 X-Men films is the best way to go. Also agree that DOFP does not belong in the "X-Men original films", but having it under "X-Men prequel films" is a bit weird (Though I'm not completely opposed to it). What about changing that header to something else. Maybe "X-Men reboot films"? Also, the "Films" header row is completely unnecessary, as is the horizontal bars between actors playing the same character. You should also add a note mentioning why some actors are in {{small}}. - Brojam (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I could agree with reboot, though they're not a reboot in the traditional sense of the word, they do remain a prequel, DOFP was just both. Removed the rows header. The small names are minor roles, I think. Not 100% sure, I didn't add them, they're just from the current table. -- Alex^TW 08:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether you like or not, they are X-Men films. And why do need to separate those films just because they didn't have the same cast for all seven films??? Wolverine films didn't have the same supporting cast for each Wolverine film. Well don't the X-Men 2000 to Dark Phoenix feature the same characters as well like Xavier, Wolverine, Erik and Mystique? And there's no reboot, Apocalypse/First Class/Days of Future Past are obviously are connected in the older films. Calling a reboot is a misinformation.Hotwiki (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

How about we just merge all the films into one giant column? They all have different cast, it doesn't matter, it's all part of the same universe. Or not. DOFP acts more of a sequel to FC than anything else, so it belongs in the FC-era films. It's not part of the original trilogy. Unless others agree to merge the 7 films into one, more editors are agreeing to have two separate headers. They are clearly two different eras. -- Alex^TW 01:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Dofp acts a sequel to First Class but it isn't a prequel. The "prequel films" description you used is misleading and shouldn't be used. And whether it is the original cast or the younger versions, those are X-Men films. Hotwiki (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Then suggest another header. -- Alex^TW 03:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I won't. Like I've said, all seven films should be under the same category. They share the same recurring characters - Wolverine, Cyclops, Phoenix, Storm, Rogue, Iceman, Colossus, Nightcrawler, Shadowcat, Psylocke, Beast, Mystique, Magneto and Professor X to name a few. And one of the seven films even starred both cast. Saying that Dofp is more of a First Class film is subjective, when the actor that got the top billing and the most screentime is part of the original cast. All seven films should be under the same category.Hotwiki (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Then you're the only editor suggesting this, so your opinion has been noted. Cheers. Anyone else got further comments, or shall I move the table over to the article? -- Alex^TW 03:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You should wait for more responses like from a handful of editors before making a major change to the article.Hotwiki (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Recall the part where I asked if Anyone else got further comments? That's why I haven't made the change yet, to wait for other's opinions, not because of one person opposing every major change to this article. -- Alex^TW 04:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Days of Future Past should definitely be in the "First Class" column, but there may need to be further discussion on what that column is called. Perhaps we should just go with an "Original Timeline" and "New Timeline" sort of thing? I also think that the table should only include characters that are listed in at least two columns, otherwise it doesn't make much sense why we are dividing them like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Old and new timeline sound so fan-site-ish which Wikipedia isn't. Just merge them in 1 column, its not like there would be more after Dark Phoenix is released anyway. It would also save more space.Hotwiki (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

We just need to come up with something that is reflected in sources and common names. And you don't know what is going to happen in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

One idea could be to use the home media releases for inspiration. The first three were originally released as "X-Men Trilogy", the next three as "X-Men: Beginnings Trilogy". -- Alex^TW 00:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If those are official titles for home media releases, then they seem like a pretty good guide for us to use. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So, "X-Men: Original films" and "X-Men: Beginning films"? -- Alex^TW 02:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm good with that. - Brojam (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hotwiki, the CONSENSUS is clear that they're not going to be merged into one column, that is clear. Going from the dozen-odd columns to the four suggested, that's saving space. Going from four to three, no. If you have any suggestions that go with the consensus, go for it, else stop beating the DEADHORSE. -- Alex^TW 00:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Are there any further comments on this discussion? -- Alex^TW 11:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Cast table dispute

Whoever said that every change to the cast table needs to be discussed in the talk page first, most especially Minor edits. You are displaying Wikipedia: OWN here. I didn't even merge the original trilogy and beginning (awful title by the way) films. I just put them under the same colspan of X-Men films so the word X-Men didn't need to be repeated twice. Stop owning this article, you don't own it. Take your own advice.Hotwiki (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Because you already suggested the merging of the columns, and it was rejected by multiple editors. Noting that, and then continuing with it (even in a different manner, it was still merging them under a "X-Men films" header) after the table was implemented, I'd suggest that you be very careful of WP:BOOMERANG. Irrelevant if it's awful - that's what the Home Media uses, and that's what the WP:CONSENSUS agreed on. -- Alex^TW 06:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No what I suggested was "merge All X-Men films in 1 column" that wouldn't mention labels like original trilogy and whatever coinphrase for the films that had the younger versions. Putting the original trilogy and beginning films under the X-Men films column is different as they are still separated into two categories. Anyway, you don't own the article to be making rules and dictate things. Not every edit needs to be discussed in the talk page and have to be approved by you.Hotwiki (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The contributing editors disagreed to any sort of merge. You then went ahead with a merge of an undiscussed format. Your recent WP:BOLD edit was reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. -- Alex^TW 07:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hotwiki, you can't ignore consensus and then accuse other editors of OWNy behaviour. We had a discussion, an outcome was agreed upon, and Alex is upholding that. I know it can be tough when you have put a lot of work into an article and then others show up and change it, but saying they think they OWN it just proves that it is you who is the one that has OWNy issues here. Just be careful with what you say and do. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree with the current format, as the films are getting too lengthy as far as a simple chart goes. A similar format has been used by the MCU for their vast library of films, and the X-Men films (which now have a finite lifetime {given that Disney bought out 20th Century Fox} now...) need better organization. With a condensed format it is easier to read and less 'over-the-top'. On another note I have changed Psylocke to include her birth name - given that in X2, when Mystique scans through Stryker's database of mutants, Elizabeth Braddock is listed. We all know who she is and it's within the film franchise's continuity. Why would we not include this, is the better question.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see what the debate is about now. The X-Men films most certainly do not belong in one column as they are separate trilogies and, in all reality, different timelines. The cast list would get super messy should the X-Men films be moved to one column. Definitely disagree with merging the X-Men movie columns. Furthermore this debate all comes back to the fact that this is not just a film series, but is a film franchise.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Screenshot that X2 Elizabeth Braddock reference to prove it. Evenif it was the case, it was never used when Mei Melancon and Olivia Munn played the character.Hotwiki (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Cast inclusions

I am taking this suggestion to the talk page since edits are always so snail-paced on this article. The chart has changed so that the films don't take up so much space. Given the summarized nature of the format, wouldn't it prove productive/constructive to include characters who are in multiple films (see MCU's similar chart)? In that case we would include characters who are in 2 or more films, and/or two or more "columns"...I began doing just that when editor got upset. Let the discussion begin...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Because you always ignore everything and do it things as if you're the only editor here. We mentioned before that you cannot use comicbookmovie.com as a reference and you still ignored that, only for two editors to revert you, the other day. Now, you are including characters that have only appeared in two films, when there's a note in the editing box NOT to include them and its written in the section twice not to include those characters! You are only bringing this up now in the talk page when I called you out! You have also removed the references as well because you claim that the cast members are now " common knowledge" and that the references eat up too much space. When clearly that wasn't an issue before to other editors. So are we gonna remove references now in the cast section in the films article because you claim that its common knowledge. Never mind those people who don't know anything about the subject? Its Wikipedia 101, to back up information with a reliable source. Your edits are disruptive. - Hotwiki (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Page's Title...AGAIN

I don't know if anyone has seen the SDCC teaser for a Season 2 trailer of The Gifted or not, but in it the introduction states "from the Marvel 'X-Men Universe'"... this is a running defining term with producers and those involved in the studio. Given the fact that WP:COMMONNAME - eventually this page should reflect this. As has been stated a thousand times before "X-Men (film series)" doesn't work as the installments are no longer just a film series. "X-Men (franchise)" doesn't work because of the 'all-inclusive' connotations of 'franchise'. "X-Men (film franchise)" could work, or more appropriately since it's been called the X-Men Universe so often, maybe that's a more accurate choice(?). Just a thought I had when watching the trailer teaser, which can be viewed here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again. Also how many times should it be mentioned to you that comicbookmovie.com shouldn't be used in Wikipedia as a reference? That so called "name" is irrelevant to the films as they don't use the term. Also didn't you message me that this franchise won't last long anymore because of the Disney merger? If you have been following the news, Doj already approved the deal and Comcast is no longer bidding. Its even more inappropriate to be doing a title change most especially editors here have agreed to not move this twice to your suggested name/s. Hotwiki (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

recent moves

So this should be moved back to where it was, namely X-Men (film series), before the recent bold move. I don't see any naming convention support for "(film franchise)" as a diambiguator and the article has been happily sitting at "(film series)" for ages now, so WP:STATUSQUO applies. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be moved back to its original title! TheHotwiki (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent text size added just for style

Like someone said recently, there's no justification for it. The other sections have the complete title in the same text size, so why should one paragraph implement inconsistent text sizes for the title of the films? Its just for personal style and it doesn't improve the articoe in any way. TheHotwiki (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Update on X-Men films

Producer Lauren Shuler Donner gave an update about the state of the X-Men films. Essentially Dark Phoenix and New Mutants (which could be released on Hulu) will be the last two X-Men films under Fox. The decision whether to continue with any of the other films in development will be up to Disney and Feige. [1] [2] Might be good to add this info somewhere in the article. - Brojam (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Brojam: good point. In fact, the sub-section should be re-titled as 'Cancelled films' as I did last night. At this point none of the films are going forward, as they were prior to the Disney merger. Should they be repurposed into the MCU, we could include that information as well. Regardless, the current state of these films are zilch. The article should reflect as much.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thats nothing but an educated guess, in your part. When Fox officially announced that certain films are canceled, then they will be removed from the article. Wait also for the official announcement for the reboot.TheHotwiki (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft articles (2017)

 Requesting immediate archiving...

Draft for X-Force

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the X-Force film at Draft:X-Force (film) until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft for Deadpool 3

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Deadpool 3 at Draft:Deadpool 3 until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft for Gambit

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the Gambit film at Draft:Gambit (upcoming film) until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft for the untitled X-23 film

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the untitled X-23 film at Draft:Untitled X-23 film until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Reboot / Marvel Cinematic Universe

This article is for the fox's series of X-Men films. This isn't similar to Spider-Man in film and Fantastic Four in film. So until this gets moved to X-Men in film, leave out the MCU reboot or future films that aren't connected to the established Fox's X-Men film series. There's an article for the MCU, so post mcu reboot info there, not here. TheHotwiki (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Current Distribution

I have not clear the status of the distribution of the next, the lasts, Fox's X-Men films. The source about Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributor have already take the control of this, is not completely accurate with what know 'til now, like the presentation on the CinemaCon.

Have a questions, the 20th Century Fox distributor has been closed? Has been merger with Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributor? Really the Dark Phoenix and The New Mutants will be distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures? It seems is not the case. For Fox, are still coming releases in its slate [3].

As I see, there's not enough information about it.

Thoughts? @Cardei012597: I should appreciate your opinion.OscarFercho (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ever since Disney bought any major company, they always distributed their later films. For example, with Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Marvel, they have distributed every later film produced by the companies. With other references, it is possible to find concrete evidence of Fox films being distributed by Disney. The Disney / Fox deal, having officially been completed on March 20, will see this happen, same as when they bought Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Marvel. If we find more references, I would not have any problems listing future Fox films as "distributed by Disney". I'm sure that after the first Fox film is released post-deal, it will reveal more references and proof. Cardei012597 (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There have also been interviews with Bob Iger and Kevin Feige, where they discuss the X-Men, Deadpool, and the Fantastic 4 finally being under the Disney umbrella. Heck, there was a funny post from Ryan Reynolds, on the date of the deal finally completed, of Deadpool on a school bus going to Disney. Obviously, the Disney / Fox deal changes everything, being the most hotly debated Hollywood deal in decades, in regards to a larger control and influence on the industry. Future Fox films will be distributed by Disney, Disney owns 20th Century Fox. We just need more references. Cardei012597 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Disney even stated in an interview that the upcoming slate of Fox films will keep their release dates. Just look at Fox as just a new asset of Disney, Fox continues to PRODUCE their films until the end of time, but Disney distributes. The same situation of Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Marvel. Cardei012597 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. I have clear that, but in the case of Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, Pixar, they no had its own distribution, this was trough associations, with Paramount, Fox and Disney, repectively, but Fox is its own distributor. I agree with we need wait to know more about this. Really thank you.OscarFercho (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Cardei012597 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Now that it's officially going to be rebooted for the MCU

I personlly feel it would be best to move it to X-Men (Fox franchise) and add in the Fox stuff like the two TV series.★Trekker (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree to disagree. I suggest a move to X-Men in film so we can mention the upcoming X-Men films from Disney in this article.TheHotwiki (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

We could easily have both those types of articles. They're both notable topics.★Trekker (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The Tv shows are already mentioned in X-Men in other media along with the other Fox films. In my opinion, it is much better, if we keep this article for Films only but not necessarily with the only films that were produced by Fox. Similar to Fantastic Four in film and Spider-Man in film.TheHotwiki (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

That page covers far far far more than just the FOX works on TV and film. It's a bulletpoints list not an overarching article for the X-men content produced by FOX during their years over the franchise like this could be. And I'm not at all against an X-Men in film article, I think that would be very helpful as well.★Trekker (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with a move to X-Men (Fox franchise). This franchise, unlike the different SM and F4 series, has enough films to warrant a proper stand-alone article and doesn't need to be lumped together with the future MCU X-Men films. - Brojam (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel the same, this franchise has been with FOX for 20 years and their handeling of it should be enough for a standalone article. It's very likely that both an article on this franchise and an X-Men in film page would be helpful. Sometimes trying to cover everything on the same page is a mistake.★Trekker (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

X-Men in film should cover all films. While a Fox X-Men franchise would just cover 12 released films (plus The New Mutants) and 2 tv shows... as the abandoned Fox films already got their own article, while the abandoned Hellfire Club show is mentioned in another article. I still think a move to X-Men in film is the better option, it would be similar to the articles of Fantastic Four in film and Spider-Man in film and it would cover the history of all X-Men films (released and in the works) in a single article, and the readers won't need to go to different articles just to see the box office numbers/Rotten tomatoes/recurring characters/premise/cinema score of non X-Men films.TheHotwiki (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

While creating 2 separate articles for X-Men films... would just lead to a merge discussion especially with 1 article including 2 TV shows that weren't really connected to the Fox movies. To me they don't seem essential to be in a separate article with the Fox films. Also this request for a Fox X-Men franchise article was denied twice before. Now that the Fox franchise is finally over, why would suddenly the past editors (who opposed to a move twice) would agreed to a Fox X-Men franchise article now?TheHotwiki (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you replying to me here or Brojam? I'm a little confused by the placing of your comments here.★Trekker (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You. TheHotwiki (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, why did you cancel my question?

"X-Force and Deadpool 3 have not been canceled. Where are the confirmations? I can understand X-23, Gambit and co but I don't understand that they canceled X-Force and Deadpool 3, in my opinion they should at least these 2 films to finish in beauty (that New Mutants doesn't inspire me, and unlike other I really Limes Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix. D.C." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.185.29 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sabretooth not in recurring characters list

hopefully ive added this thought correctly :) ubernaut (talk)

Warren Worthington III / Angel and Emma Frost

After looking through the recurring characters subsection listed in the article, I was wondering if Warren Worthington III/Angel and Emma Frost were fit candidates for inclusion. Although he only physically appears X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) and X-Men: Apocalypse (2016), Angel was mentioned in Deadpool 2 (2018). In the same vein, Emma Frost appears in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) and X-Men: First Class (2011) while being mentioned in X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014). Given that the rule for a character to be included in the list is to have more than two appearances, I figured it was worth a shot to see if either of them qualified. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I apologize in advance if someone has posed this question before. Hiddenfallacies (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Legion and The Gifted

Shouldn’t we mention somewhere in this article the two shows set in the same universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:C301:9AB0:F022:4ECA:573:6BF7 (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree under the Film section should be a Television side that list the two shows. Doremon764 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Deadpool 3

Why is Deadpool 3 still under Cancelled projects now that it's moving forward at Disney? 213.127.126.14 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I assume it's because Deadpool 3 as it was announced was supposed to be a continuation of Deadpool in that X-Men universe. Deadpool is being rebooted into the MCU, so it's technically a reboot and not a direct continuation.2600:1700:D8:8040:8410:E533:1184:E97A (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

X-Men in film redirect to X-Men (film series)

Should this be reworked now or should we wait until the MCU films get announced and released? I'm assuming the X-Men (film series) will be for the Fox series and the X-Men in film will be all encompassing and include both Fox and MCU films.2600:1700:D8:8040:8410:E533:1184:E97A (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I've retargeted the redirect to X-Men in other media § Film. I doubt that a standalone article is needed as of now, unless the number of X-Men films expand beyond the Fox films and the MCU like Spider-Man in film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll agree that it's not needed right now and a redirect works better for the time being. I don't know if it'll need to be as big as Spider-Man in film to be its own page since Fantastic Four in film is much smaller and has its own page. Once they start announcing MCU films I believe this conversation can be revisited. 2600:1700:D8:8040:9551:D02F:89D8:7DF0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Prequel films"

Why are they called this? The only film that really fits the description of prequel is First Class, and that's not even the first prequel of the series. Days of Future Past is a direct sequel, and Dark Phoenix is a retelling, of sorts. Calling these movies "prequels" implies their events eventually lead into the original trilogy, but they don't. The events of DoFP basically brings the prequel of First Class and the following films as their own separate continuity. Would a better descriptor be "younger X-Men films"? Or something? Calling them prequels is completely misleading, because that's not what they are. 2600:1700:4AC1:2B0:F85D:4C7B:53DB:2393 (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

But they still take place before the original trilogy. The fact that the timeline was "reset" in Days of Future Past is an WP:INUNIVERSE plot point. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

20th Century factoid

The New Mutants was the first and only film in the X-Men film series to be released under the studio's new name "20th Century Studios", so...

XSMan2016 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and? Trivialist (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Then, it's fair to swap out the old name with the new name since there's an X-Men film released under the new name.

XSMan2016 (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Only one out of the thirteen films in the series were under Studios, all the rest were after Fox, that doesn't change because the name changed afterwards. —El Millo (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Logan Standalone or Revised Timeline?

So up until about a month ago, Logan was listed as part as the revised timeline, but now it's been given its own section "standalone", however the page itself says "The events of the films are separated into two 'timelines'; the original timeline and the new timeline." But if it is standalone, shouldn't it say "three timelines"? Heck, the source right after that sentence explicitly says that it's part of the revised timeline. I haven't seen any discussions on this talk page or its archives, so why was it changed, and why does the page not make any other mention of this "standalone timeline"? The director James Mangold has also stated that it's set years after the Days of Future Past epilogue (https://www.cbr.com/james-mangold-reveals-exactly-when-logan-takes-place) which is the revised timeline. So it doesn't make much sense to say that it takes place in a timeline where DOFP doesn't exist. Also, the producer has said that the post-credits of X-Men: Apocalypse is what created X-23 (https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1628949/a-surprising-connection-between-logan-and-x-men-apocalypse-has-been-revealed) and mutants becoming less of a thing in New Mutants are all connections that indicate that Logan is part of the revised timeline, albeit very disconnected to other X-Men stuff (similar to Deadpool). And yes the X-Men series does have standalone timelines with the tv shows, but those have been explicitly placed in there, with The Gifted having the X-Men no longer exist, and Legion having a different backstory for Professor X. Sorry if it seems like I'm rambling, but just curious why we're saying that Logan is standalone, when the source listed for the timeline says it's part of revised, the director and producer say it's the same universe as other revised timeline films, and doesn't have major indications of an alternate reality like the tv shows. And even then, X-Men really doesn't have the best track record for continuity. 2600:1700:28A8:210:E891:6BD7:7C79:F4AB (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And yeah I know that the Marvel Database says that it's part of its own timeline but the X-Men wiki places it in revised, so we really shouldn't use fan wikis as an indication, especially when different ones seem to contradict each other 2600:1700:28A8:210:E891:6BD7:7C79:F4AB (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to the specific part of this article where it contradicts itself? —El Millo (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The Timeline section. It says that "The events of the films are separated into two 'timelines'; the original timeline and the new timeline." This is backed up by the source listed, which explicitly places Logan in the new timeline. However, the chart below it lists three timelines, not two. It says Logan is in a standalone timeline, when the listed source says it's in the new timeline. That's the contradiction I'm asking about.

This page originally listed Logan as part of the new timeline, which makes sense with what the article says, and the evidence I mentioned, however I don't see any reason or discussion why Logan is all of a sudden placed in its own timeline? 2600:1700:28A8:210:9D06:BB54:8E3A:40A4 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. It's now placed in the "New" timeline. —El Millo (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! 2600:1700:28A8:210:9103:52D8:C83D:3707 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Logan timeline placement

So I asked about this earlier why Logan was moved to a separate timeline, but it was moved again without bringing it up on the talk page? Again, James Mangold and Simon Kinberg have confirmed that it takes place in the new timeline. The recent change claims "Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A-Z" as the source for this placement, but the most recent one came out in 2010 so this "confirmation" isn't in any official source

It also says that Logan takes place in the universe "Earth-17315" and the other new timeline films are undesignated, which I don't think is any sort of confirmation. That's like saying "Infinity War isn't MCU because we don't have a source explicitly placing it in Earth-199999". Finally, if Logan does take place in its own timeline, why is the first half of Origins Wolverine also listed?

tldr: We don't have enough evidence to support the theory that it's a standalone timeline, and the only official information we've gotten (the director and the producer) have said it's part of the new timeline 2600:1700:28A8:210:18E4:9157:317F:D4A4 (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:X-Men (film series) drafts has been nominated for discussion

Category:X-Men (film series) drafts has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Deadpool (film series)

Per @Trailblazer101: Beginning WP:CONTENTFORK discussion in approval of Draft:Deadpool (film series) to main-space. Ma8am (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose No rationale provided. The Deadpool film series is part of the X-Men franchise, and its two films do not satisfy the criteria prescribed at WP:FILMSERIES. We do not have individual "series" pages for The Dark Knight trilogy, Spider-Man (2002 film series), or Avengers (film series) either. See WP:NOPAGE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  This includes Deadpool 3 as well, which is not strictly part of Fox's X-Men film series, but I still think it doesn't qualify. —El Millo (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Since Deadpool 3 will mean the Deadpool film series will be a part of two franchises—the 20th Century Fox X-Men franchise and the MCU from Marvel Studios—maybe Deadpool in film? HotTwoDagon (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Unnecessary. Three films and a single incarnation of the character is not enough to warrant an "in film" article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: This draft has been rejected multiple times and there is not much of a distinction that this is notable for a split, and I don't anticipate that changing anytime soon, even with a forthcoming third film. Its contents are already covered in other relevant articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Article title

This was a discussion at various times years ago when this franchise was still actively producing films, but now that it has ended and hindsight gives more clarification -- is this really the best title for the article currently? Wouldn't something along the lines of X-Men (20th Century Fox franchise) be a better title, given the fact that there is more within the franchise than just films? Secondly, the MCU is producing its own version of the X-Men. Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Better name is “X-Men (Fox Series)”; it changes one word “Film” to “Fox” and changes the meaning. Legion aired on Fx, the movies 20th Century Fox, and the Gifted on Fox produced by 20th Television. Doremon764 (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutemont! Could you open an official move discussion? 77.92.145.214 (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have always thought (film series) was an odd choice for disambiguation, considering Legion and The Gifted are part of the franchise, but X-Men (franchise) is far too ambiguous. I think X-Men (Fox franchise) is a fine name, but I am ambivalent — Fox officially calls the brand "X-Men Movies" (back then, they had a website and app), and the TV series are often overshadowed by the films in sources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Timeline

What does 1st, 2nd and past refers to in the timeline? We are talking about X-Men Origins Wolverine so what is the "2nd" of X-Men Origins Wolverine? Redjedi23 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody knows? Redjedi23 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Most likely, 1st refers to the first scenes that are set around the 1800s, while 2nd refers to the main setting of the film in the 1970s. —El Millo (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)