Talk:X2 (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Release Date question

What was the release date for the film in the U.S.? The fact that it's an American movie but that the article only has the U.K. release date is a little strange. Kakashi-sensei 22:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added the USA release date. Sort of interesting that it was released a week later in the USA than the UK. --NormanEinstein 00:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I removed the LoganandMarie.com Gallery link. From their FAQ: Q: When will the gallery and media pages be up again? A: Well, the mutation process didn't cover those pages and that's why they seized to exist *sniffles* Such are the dangers of a mutant's life. Or in other words: different owner - different content. Clint 13:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

To correct a couple of entries, 1. You state that Lady Deathstrike used to be a Wolverine love interest. Nope, never happened, she's always been one of Wolverine's enemies. 2. The sentence about Magneto and Prof X's accent ends in "having British accents.". This should be change to state "having the received pronunciation British accent." (Only a small number of British people actually talk like that, most of us speak sensibly)! --86.15.128.97 22:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

User talk:152.163.100.68, which is the IP address of repeat vandals, reverted the correction a factual inaccuracy. The film's title, as the entry itself states, is X2, not X2": X-Men United — a promotional and marketing phrase akin to another famous non-title Die Hard 2: Die Harder.

Accents

magneto doesn't exactly speak with an english accent. I'm not familiar enough with McKellan's work to know if he's just weak at accents, and is attempting a full-on american one here, but it definiteley is twinged with american. I think it's too bold to say that both Xavier and Magneto speak with "english" accents tho. Noticing this rather general peice of trivia in the article (general to the trilogy i mean), made me wonder if it wasn't time to create a page for themes/characters/ whatever that run through the films, and then have individual articles focussing on each of the films. The articles are getting mighty long...Amo 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of stuff should be removed, because it's completely useless in regards to an encyclopedia article, or is redundant. The plot summary can stand to be summarized even more, as well. WesleyDodds 23:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the plot summary, it doesn't explain how Magneto escaped his plastic prison, which seems to be a vital aspect to the film. Thunderforge 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about Iceman in the 2nd X-Men Movie

  • In the 2nd X-Men movie, why didn't Bobby Drake save the day at the end instead of Jean Grey?

Couldn't he have just frozen the entire water mass of Alkali Lake, instead of having Jean Grey try to push back the water psionically? This would have stopped the potential flood problem immediately. Thoughts? Smeelgova 05:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

    • As I recall, in the movies, Iceman's freezing ability was only demonstrated to work really efficiently with still bodies of water (the coffee in the cup in X2, the fountain in TLS). Considering the volume of water that was pouring out of the breach of the dam, and the speed at which it was moving, I don't know that Iceman could've effectively dealt with enough water to prevent the X-jet from being destroyed. Even if he could've started freezing the water, the water that was moving behind it probably would have just washed over and around that which he was freezing and wiped them out, or it could've pushed the frozen water right over them like a steamroller. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, I think there was a moment of dialogue where someone (I think Prof X) said that she was blocking their power. Tommyt 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That was after Jean had left the jet; I think Smeelgova is asking why he didn't go out before Jean. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia item

Can someone with a copy of Silence of the Lambs confirm whether the classical piece playing just before Magento's escape is the same that plays before Dr. Lecter makes his escape? Seems a not-coincidental parallel with the same music playing before a mealtime break from prison. EEMeltonIV 03:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Music sounded the same to me (Mozart?). --Michael C. Price talk 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And what an incredible escape that was! Gives me the chills every time I watch it! Tommyt 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, my favourite scene! --Michael C. Price talk 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

missing scene?

During my trip to China and Japan in 2003, I watched X2 several times on the plane, as I had nothing better to do, lol. However, I never saw the scene where Storm creates the tornadoes. Was that scene removed from certain versions of the film? If so, should we mention this in the article? --Ixfd64 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can actually cite that the Chinese/Japanese versions of X2 are indeed missing that scene, we shouldn't even mention it (as it would be speculation). Also, it may have been a airplane-specific edit of the film so that people didn't touch-down and have the movie end ten minutes before the climax (again, can't say that unless it's verified, although even if it is true in the case, it would still be pretty non-notable and unremarkable). EVula 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that it was the English version. Also, transpacific flights are fairly long, so I don't think that time constraints were an issue. --Ixfd64 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that would have been a plane specific edit of that film. In the commentary for "Speed", the director talks about how one of the last scenes with a plane exploding was edited out of the plane cut of the film. All scenes that involve something that might cause distress or fear while passengers are on an aircraft are edited out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.211 (talk • contribs)
I've never heard of scenes being removed from in-flight versions of films, but your logic certainly makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up! --Ixfd64 12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate X-Men

Which came first "Return to Weapon X" in Ultimate X-Men or X2? I ask becasue the Stryker in X2 is like a fusion of Stryker from God Loves Man Kills and Ultimate Col. John Wraith from the "Return to Weapon X" Bushido Brown 05:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't this be at "X2: X-Men United"? That seems to be the official name, and even what 20th Century Fox calls it. The only person calling it just "X2" was the director. TJ Spyke 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Starting the process. Master Deusoma 20:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support move. Seems to be the most proper name. Consistent with other movie titling. 205.157.110.11 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Correct name of the movie. The only person who says the movie is just called "X2" is the director, every other official source calls it "X2: X-Men United". TJ Spyke 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to full name. Dekimasuが... 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Name again

IMDb has its title at "X2" and lists "X-Men 2: X-Men United" as a "promotional title." RottenTomatoes as the "X-Men United" though. But all of the video games start with X2, i.e. X2: Wolverine's Revenge. So this just isn't about "only the director used it"; other things used it too. The questions is whether the "common name" or the official name takes precedent. Hbdragon88 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the "full" title is redundant, as it's pretty clear that the "X" stands for "X-Men", so you've got "X-Men 2: X-Men United". Not too bad, but still, just sayin'.--SeizureDog 21:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it the way it is now! It's seems very obvious that the film can be referred to as X2 whilst still retaining it's identity. As was mentioned in the Vandalism section, other films have had sub-titles without their place in their own chronology being disputed or confused... _> MonstaPro:Talk 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

Here are the production notes. Bizzarely, this was promotion for X3, but it was never fixed. Alientraveller (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wildroot (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Move back to X2

Rechecking my copy of the DVD, and the onscreen title is X2. The movie's official title as listed with the Motion Picture Academy of America is also X2.
I know fans like the longer title -- I do, too -- but just as Die Hard 2 is not Die Hard 2: Die Harder, we can't just call a movie whatever we like. We have to go by the official title, and note the marketing titles in the text. --Tenebrae 05:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The X-Men United title is biased too: no English-speaking nation apart from the US called it that. Alientraveller 09:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unknown Mutant

Who is the mutant that is seen watching TV in the middle of the night? He says that he "never sleeps" and is seen changing the channel by merely blinking. I've seen no mention of him, and I do not immediately recognize his powers. Kitaro53085 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

i seem to recall an him being incorperated into Grant morrison run on New X-men however i could be wrong also i seem to remeber some speculation on him being douglock around the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.229.135 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mutantgroup.jpg

Image:Mutantgroup.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alkali Lake - in the Rockies? Um, no....

This is more of a trivia bleat than anything else, but might warrant a mention on Alkali Lake, British Columnbia, which is the map location the screenwriters/scriptwriters drew on for the plot device concerning alkaloids.....the "funny" part is that the scxript says that Alkali Lake is in the Rocky Mountains. It's not even in the Coast Mountains, and is a long way in fact from the nearest mountain; it's out on teh Cariboo Plateau. Just always amused me when I hear it in the movie - "there's a place called Alkali Lake in the Canadian Rockies" etc - and the rub is the incredible mountain scenery/lake that's produced as the location; alkali lakes don't generally occur where there's lots of fresh water, but never mind.....just a curiosity, not sure if it's relevant to this page but just a heads-up about the real place; the only article on it at the moment is the Alkali Lake Indian Band, the government of the First Nations people who live there; the community article is about more than the band government, that's why there'll be two, in case anyone's wondering (other than wondering what this has to do with X2).Skookum1 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mutant Files

Should this even be in the article? To me it sound more live a "trivial homage to the comics" type of thing. Wildroot (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

Congratulations. I believe that the article passes all the GA criteria at this time. After some copy editing, I have decided to pass the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikki311 (talk • contribs)

Make up

Who was the make up artist?69.209.199.91 (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deathstrike

Why does the article say Wolverine killed her when the X-Men: The Official Game showed that she somehow survived (and don't give me the bull crap of video games not being canonical)? Emperor001 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Because's it's not canonical, so sorry if you think that's bullcrap, but that was Singer's intent and what happens on-screen: she died and sank like a stone. Alientraveller (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
But the video game was clearly designed to show what happened in between the 2 films. What exactly is Wikipedia's policy when a character is shown killed in one media but then shown to survive in another (for example: the audiance is led to believe that character a died in movie a but in the sequel, it turns out that the character survived)? Besides, Brian Singer doesn't own the series. He didn't even direct the 3rd movie. Besides, sometimes a writer will plan for something to happen but then create an excuse to undo it. In the Spider-man comics, they at one point killed Aunt May, regretted it, and then said it was really a Green Goblin copy and that she was really alive. Same here. They saw more use for her and brought her back. Emperor001 (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Just checked the video game's article. It's canon. Emperor001 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
She's dead, and the video game is expanded media. In this case, it's more like New Avengers/Transformers, which doesn't necessarily exist in the rest of IDW's TF universe. The fact, this is a summary of the film: she died. The video game chose to resurrect her, but there's a good reason she wasn't in TLS. Alientraveller (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
But what exactly is the Wikipedia policy when someone dies in one movie but then revealed to have survived in a sequel? Emperor001 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Sequel as in another movie, and not a video game? Well check out what was done for Venom in Spider-Man 3. It simply says "Peter throws a pumpkin bomb at the symbiote just as Eddie attempts to rebond with it." It's basically left ambigious, although it's implied that he died in the film. I recommend something similar here; leave it ambigious. Assuming it's been confirmed that she's not really dead, which I haven't heard. Anakinjmt (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
That's why at one point, I changed killed to defeated. He definitley defeated her but it's arguable as whether or not she really died. Besides, who said a video game couldn't be a sequel? Emperor001 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, considering the game was a tie-in, and not a sequel, that pretty much rules it out. And, again, has it been confirmed she's still alive? Has their been reports of the character being in another film? I'm aware the actress signed a contract for two films, but that doesn't mean she'll actually be used (for example, Billy Dee Williams signed a two-film contract to play Harvey Dent, because he thought he'd get to play Two-Face in a later film but never did) or that it will be the same character (which as unlikely as that may be is still possible) or that it will be in a film that takes place later than X2 (it could be the Wolverine or Magneto film, which both take place before the first film). If there's no official word that she will appear in a film which takes place after X2, then it should remain "killed." Anakinjmt (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the game's article, it appears to be canonical with the films which means that she is indeed still alive. Granted, it is possible that she did die but was brought back to life by unknown means. Either way, the game makes her death questionable so the article should read that she was defeated rather than killed. This makes the point needed while at the same time, allowing for the possibility that she's alive. Emperor001 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will change the word killed to defeated. Saying that she died is POV to the viewpoint that the game is non-canon. Saying defeated can mean that she died or that she was simply disabled and thus, is non-POV. Both viewpoints can agree on this statement. Emperor001 (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but I object, on the basis that there is a dispute of whether or not the game is considered "canon" and if there is a verifiable source saying that Deathstrike will appear in a film that takes place after X2 that is not a flashback (like the opening scene in Last Stand was a flashback). Changing it to be ambigious is fine if there is a confirmation that she is. And just because it's in the game doesn't mean it's canon. The 24 Game claims to be canon but as a 24 fan, there are things that are inconsistent with what we know to be canon in the six seasons released so far. And the Alias game claims to be in canon with the Alias show, but there are parts that are not. So even if there was a claim that the game is canon, I'd still hesitate changing it to "defeated." Also, we should not change something in this article based on another article, as Wikipedia is not a verifiable source. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
But you're still being POV to the idea that it's not canon. Leaving it at the defeated isn't POV at all. Emperor001 (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Respectively, you're being POV that it IS canon. There is no verifiable proof that the game IS canon, which means that the game, like the Batman Begins game, should be treated as non-canon. And there is no verifiable proof that Deathstrike will be back in a film that takes place after X2 that is not in a flashback. That's the whole point. Without any of that, it is more precise to say "killed." The burden of proof falls on you to prove the game is canon OR that Deathstrike will be back in a film that takes place after X2 that is not a flashback. It doesn't fall on us. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Defeated isn't POV. It's just leaving the possibility open. Emperor001 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
But your whole point of defeated leaving the possibility open because of the game is POV. It seriously sounds like you think Deathstrike is still alive, when all the canon facts say she's dead. Saying "defeated" when there isn't an ambiguity is suggesting that the game is canon, which there is no evidence of that being true. Therefore, it's your opinion that the game is canon or possibly canon, therefore leaving the possibility open and the suggestion of "defeated." Look, the facts are clear: she's dead. She died in the movie, which is canon. The fact that she's alive in the game bears no merit to the film article because it is non canon like the films are. Therefore, the most objective answer is "killed." Saying "defeated" is not objective, because it hints at the opinion of the game being canon, which is NPOV and I might add OR because we are trying to put undue weight on the game.
We need more people's opinions on the matter; therefore I am bringing this to the attention of WikiProject Comics in an attempt to get a complete census from people rather than a simple back-and-forth between two people. Anakinjmt (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of the views have valid points. However, I have to side with Emperor001 on this. X-Men: The Official Game is designed to be a tie-in with X3 and also bridges the gap of events taking place between the end of X2 and the beginning of X3. Now, the game is based on properties owned by Marvel Comics featuring interpretations of those properties based upon films made by 20th Century Fox. That means, that Marvel ultimately has to sign off and say "Yeah, it's ok to do this in this particular way" or "Yeah, it's fine to bring this character into the mix". Deathstrike's death in X2 isn't confirmed, though I'll grant that it's easy to watch the film and believe the character to be dead. If the game is considered to be an expansion/tie-in of the X-Men Movieverse, and Deathstrike makes an appearance in the game, then I don't think the article should list Deathstrike as being killed during the fight at the end of the film.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I just had a thought. The article simply says that he kills her whereas with Jean, it says that she let the water fall on top of him. What is I changed it to say that Wolverine pumps her full of adamantium. Then people who want to believe that she's dead have their assumption and video game lovers can still believe that she survived. Emperor001 (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll respond quickly, as I have class in ten minutes. I don't think just because Marvel signs off on something makes it canon. DC signed off on the Batman Begins game, and yet, as far as I'm aware, no one is trying to make that canon with BB and Dark Knight. It simply means they licensed the use of characters to the developer and gave them some restrictions on what they could and could not do with their characters. Tie-in games with movies happen all the time. The Superman Returns game is a tie-in to the film, and you fight Brainiac in that game, and yet that game is not considered canon. The Spider-Man film games all have their continuity and take the films and add them to their canon, but that doesn't work both ways, as the films do not consider the games canon (especially when the games differ from the films, like the Spider-Man 2 game Peter never stopped being Spider-Man, which did happen in the film). A game that would be considered canon with the films would be Enter the Matrix, as that told the story leading up to and partway through Reloaded. They specifically stated the game was canon, something I've not heard about the offical X-Men game, which is ultimately I think what this is all about: is the game canon? If it is, I have zero problem putting in "defeated" as that leaves it ambigious. But, if there is a dispute of whether or not it is canon, I feel we must act like the game never existed and go with what we know from the film: that Deathstrike was killed. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
But like I said, what if we actually say how he defeats/kills her. Currently, the article reads: "Wolverine and Deathstrike begin fighting, but it ends with Wolverine killing her." I would now like to change it to say: "Wolverine and Deathstrike begin fighting, but it ends with Wolverine pumping her full of liquid adamantium." This would give readers the immpression made in the movie that she was killed and video game players can still call the game canon as the article would simply reflect what definitley happened in the movie. Emperor001 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but players of the game CAN'T call it canon. I do think we need a bit more detail of how he kills her, but without any sort of proof the game is canon I'm really not a fan of leaving it ambigious. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
So can I make the change since it would leave the same impression that the film itself did? Emperor001 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I can live with that, although I caution you to not do that because you think the game is canon when there's no evidence that it is canon. That's doing the "right" thing for the wrong reason (if there is a "right" thing when it comes to putting in edits). Anakinjmt (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Just made the change. This is actually similiar to Sabretooth. He was presumed dead by many until the video game, but the article simply says that he was blown out of the statue. Emperor001 (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, but same thing with Sabretooth: Don't act like the game is canon without proof that it is canon. Using tie-in games is a very tricky thing because most of the time they are not canon. I caution you in the future not to just see that someone is still alive in a game based off a movie and assume that character is truly still alive then. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
But may I point out that most tie-in games are of the movies themselves and changes have to be made to make the game better and more playable. This game bridges the two-films and isn't like the examples you cited earlier. Emperor001 (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(Heading left) Yes, changes are made to tie-in games to make them more playable. And, from what I understand, the game you're talking about is a type of tie-in game. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but this particular tie-in is designed to bridge 2 films as opposed to taking place during a film's timeline as most games do. Emperor001 (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Still doesn't answer the canon question of if it truly is canon. I'm sure if the game was meant to be canon there would be a mention of it in some interview with a developer or publisher. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Film Title

Why is the subtitle to the film "X-Men United" only referred to as a USA Promotional title when Bryan Singer himself refers this to be the ACTUAL title? IMDb doesn't have all the RIGHT facts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.65.67 (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Where? The title is X2. Alientraveller (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
On the DVD commentary, Bryan Singer clearly states that he added the subtitle to the film, "X-Men United," and states why he did this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.65.67 (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I am wrong, I know the film was referred to as X-Men 2 over in the UK, but I am going to attempt to find the specific point on the DVD commentary where Singer addresses this, just to clear things up. It's been a while since I listened to it, but I know that he addresses the film's title in one way or another.
Because this is an American film, maybe we should change the article to X2: X-Men United. Makes sense, seeing as how this is the film's native country. Wildroot (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree. It's an American film, and the American title is the original title. Other counties change it for their uses, but nevertheless the original title is "X2: X-Men United." Other countries changed the title for their theatrical releases and DVDs, but the original title still has the subtitle regardless. There's also a change for the UK as "X-Men 2" but yet for some weird reason Alientraveller continues to believe the film's actual title is "X2." This is simply not true. Singer titled it with the subtitles, "X2: X-Men United."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.70.108 (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is the DVD Bryan Singer commentary quote verbatim, it's said during the scene where Magneto saves the X-Jet from crashing in the forest. "...Magneto saving the X-Men. But only for his own, selfish reasons. It's the reason I accepted the tagline, 'X-Men United,' because they are united with Magneto, but it's an unholy alliance. And I felt that if it was too much on the nose, that it would be...kind of...boring, but the fact is it has some...rhetorical implication." Boom. That quote right there coupled with the fact that a film's original title is the one from which country the film was made should inspire the consideration of the changing of the title of this article.
Why has this fact been ignored? This person is right; the origin country of a film is the country in which the title is the original title. Therefore, the film title should rightly be changed to the American title of the film - that is its' original title. Not to mention the Bryan Singer Commentary on the DVD that states he added the sub-title because the X-Men are "united" with Magneto. That should prove right there that the title includes the sub-title. Why has Wikipedia ignored all this? The REAL title is X2: X-Men United. Wikipedia is WRONG on this one. Viperpulse (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Viperpulse

Is there a title card or credit block that refers to it as "X2: X-Men United"? Because surely what it says on screen in the film is the actual title. This is the only one I've ever seen: http://movietitlecards.tumblr.com/post/6186306835/x2-2003-bryan-singer Plus, I believe Singer's quote proves the opposite to what others are claiming. He calls it "the tagline X-Men United". A tagline is a promotional phrase -- "in space no one can hear you scream", etc -- not part of the title. Badblokebob (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you need a title card? So I guess "Van Helsing" has no title, since there is no title card in that film? That makes absolutely zero sense logically. A film's title card does not always show its' full title, and that is well-known. You are also taking Singer's quote out of context. Here are some Amazon references showing the real title of the film in accordance with its' country of origin (below). This, coupled with the above reasons of the director himself stating the actual film's title and the fact that it's titled this in its' own country (United States film), therefore bearing the original title, should be cause enough to change the title. Besides, at some earlier point, you guys had it listed as "X-Men 2," the UK title, which totally contradicts the rules you are making up now. If not changed, I'm submitting an RM.Amazon Link 1 Amazon Link 2 Amazon Link 3 Wufan10304 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Cast: Alan Cumming

"Cumming ...is fluent in the German language" is not true. In Reference No. 10 Alan Cumming stated "the challenge was speaking in German, which is very, you know: I don't´read...I can get by in a restaurant in German." That´s all, there is no statement about his ability to speak fluent! By the way: Every native speaker can tell, that the pronunciation is really bad and in some parts has not much to do with the real german language. It sounds just like german for foreigners. --93.133.235.109 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


X2 (film) → X2: X-Men United – Interestingly enough, there doesn't exist subtitle rules in the Manual of Style for unknown reasons, but as per the film's title in its' country of origin (the United States), and per Subtitle_(titling)#Film_and_other_media, the US title should be used as the film's original title, and not its' alternate titles in the UK (X-Men 2), Australia (X2), or anywhere else globally as those are all alternate titles, and not the original, which has the subtitle of X-Men United. Bryan Singer, the director of the film, also addresses this in the film's DVD commentary, when he says, he accepted the 'X-Men United' name when recounting that the X-Men "unite" with Magneto, the team's arch-nemesis villain. This is not a tagline, but an original and official subtitle in the series. Here is an external link showing the full title sold on DVDs in the country of origin, USA: "X2: X-Men United" on Amazon. Wufan10304 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - That's not a subtitle, because it's not onscreen. The packaging can say whatever it wants, but that doesn't make anything "official." The official title is what's onscreen and what it's copyrighted as. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Who said it had to be on screen to be an official subtitle? "Van Helsing" does not appear on screen, so does that film have no title at all? The answer is obviously no, because that is silly. Sorry, but both the second and third films have subtitles. The packaging does not "say whatever it wants," but rather, displays the original US film title, as should Wikipedia. Wufan10304 (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
You already made your argument above, and you're just repeating it now. It's well established at WP:FILM that movei articles include the actual, concrete content of the movie. We don't call it Die Hard 2: Die Harder because it's not the title of the film. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
How about Iron Man 3? On-screen it was written as "Iron Man Three" but that wasn't an issue for its Wikipedia article.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The Iron Man 3 article states that that was graphical-text stylization onscreen, just as with Sunset Boulevard, in which the copyright notice and every bit of studio material gave Iron Man 3. You'll notice I mention copyright in my first post above. And despite the spelling, the actual words "Iron Man 3/Three" appear onscreen. The words "X-Men United" never appear onscreen — just as "Die Harder" never appears onscreen with Die Hard 2. Are you saying we should change the title of the Die Hard 2 article to include, as here, a marketing tagline never used on the film itself?--Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
That's ridiculous: There's no other film called X2, so there's no need for disambiguation.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
There may only be one film called "X2" but there are many other non-film topics called X2. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing "natural" about giving an article title that lies. The film's title factually and objectively does not include the tagline "X-Men United" any more than the title of Die Hard 2 includes the tagline "Die Harder." And non-film topics called "X2" are absolutely irrelevant with an article titled "X2 (film)". -- Tenebrae (talk)

Just so we're all on the same page, here is a screenshot from the DVD. This is the onscreen title of the film. We can be accurate and encyclopedic, or we can say that the film's title is something that it factually is not. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIALNAME we do not use only official names because they are official, we can use other names as well. The proposed name is in use in the world at large as a name for this film, so fulfills being a choice. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
That's an essay — anybody can write an essay saying anything. So some anon IP is proposing that we lie and give a false title to the movie, purely because a couple of fans like the long title better. It sure doesn't need to be done for disambiguation, since it's the only film of this title. We're an encyclopedia. We need to be scrupulously accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you ever look at the incoming links for OFFICIALNAME? It's a highly cited essay by a wide variety of Wikipedians, that has existed for a very long time. Certainly doesn't look like I wrote it recently. And all the people who use it? And it's an essay based on WP:COMMONNAME which also says official names are not used because they are official. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It's an essay — it's not even a guideline. Essays exist on every part of every question just so that people can try to use them when policies and guidelines don't back them up. If all one can point to is an essay, then one has no good argument under policies and guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Take a look at MOS:FILM, which is a guideline: "The Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules AACR2 7.0B1 states: 'The chief source of information for motion pictures and videorecordings is (in this order of preference): the item itself (e.g., the title frames), its container (and container label) if the container is an integral part of the piece (e.g., a cassette).'" That should be open and shut. The film's title is X2, as per the title frames. However, assuming we want to ignore this (or like the Van Helsing example, there are no title frames), it suggests we look to the British Board of Film Classification...which also lists this film as simply X2. The British Film Institute says the same. Don't trust the Brits? That's okay, because the American Film Institute also says it's simply X2. Can we close this now? Sock (tock talk) 14:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because fancruft does not official policy/guidelines make. The way we've always handled this sort of thing is to note non-official subtitles or regional title styling in either a parenthetical next to the title in the lead or later on in prose, which ever is more appropriate for the article at hand. It helps to preserve article stability and reduce edit warring. And as a comic fan, it is, quite frankly, a little ridiculous to think this article should be an exception to that generality. It is a marketing tagline, not an official subtitle. This is evident in literally every single reliable secondary source (and even the not so reliable ones). Millahnna (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tenebrae, Sock, Millahnna... - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is official guidance on subtitles, but it's a bit buried. WP:SUBTITLE redirects to a section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) but applies to other media. It might be worthwhile to incorporate this into the MOS proper. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X2_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1076390289"