Talk:X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Archive(s)

• 30 May 2006 — 14 June 2007

Suggestions

As I don't want to edit conflict in this article revival, I'll just put down some thoughts on shaping up the article:

1. The lead section should be revised so it's clear to someone not familiar with X-Men what the film is about, especially in relation to the existing film trilogy.
2. Is it alright for X-Men to be in the "followed by" section? I assume these attributes are for chronology within the films' universe.
3. Do we need a sentence about the composer? I know we try to avoid citations within the infobox, but the sentence feels too added on.
4. Is the rumor about Schreiber being Sabretooth completely unsubstantiated? Not worth a mention?

Comments are welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The norm on what films follow what is for an out-of-universe perspective. Only the Star Wars really get away with the episodic sequence. And yeah, the Sabretooth thing is just CHUD. Alientraveller (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I mistook the setup for an original film and its sequel to be reflective of the in-universe continuity. I guess I understand why Star Wars has that exception, but it seems inconsistent. So change it back to The Last Stand? I'm just concerned that the lack of clarity will cause some edit warring about the nature of the "followed by" and "preceded by" attributes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would've thought that it would make more sense being in chronological order, seeing as it's about Wolverine's early days and therefore having no mention of the X-Men franchise (as if it's happened). Besides, it's not like X-Men Origins: Magneto will be displayed as being preceded by this film. Actually that's made me think... should the films even be considered as sequels or predecessors? I mean, they are their kinda standalone/seemingly unrelated to the events of the X-Men films, if you follow its principle arc, and if the claims that the X-Men Origins will contain x amount more films - well, it's just confuse things down the line. -- Harish - 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Sabretooth

Isn't Liev Schreiber playing Sabretooth in this movie and not a young version of William Stryker. It says so on the Sabretooth and Liuev Schreiber page that it has been confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiem (talk • contribs)

According to unreliable sources. Alientraveller (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)