Previously Hugh Jackman's listing was deleted from Deadpool 2 (2018), however recent reexamination of rules regarding archive footage for that thread gave me the impression that this case might actually merit the listing, so I would like to elaborate on that.
Guidelines for archive footage attributes include "The Forrest Gump rule": "If archive footage is an integral part of the film's narrative, it's eligible." Example given is The Limey (1999) which uses footage from an unrelated movie with a cast member, Poor Cow (1967) as a flashback.
On the one hand, Jackman's appearance might fall under the hammer of "movielink" rule: "If someone's appearance is uncredited and covered by a movielink entry (i.e., footage from a film is recycled as a "prologue" or flashback in a sequel or subsequent film in a series) it does not qualify as "archive footage”". But on the other hand, a) Deadpool 2 (2018) is not a direct continuation as it is a sequel of a spin-off and b) footage is not recycled as a prologue or flashback, it was a time travel sequence which involved numerous alterations of the shot and insertion of new footage. I really wonder which of the two rules prevails in this case.
Guidelines for archive footage attributes include "The Forrest Gump rule": "If archive footage is an integral part of the film's narrative, it's eligible." Example given is The Limey (1999) which uses footage from an unrelated movie with a cast member, Poor Cow (1967) as a flashback.
On the one hand, Jackman's appearance might fall under the hammer of "movielink" rule: "If someone's appearance is uncredited and covered by a movielink entry (i.e., footage from a film is recycled as a "prologue" or flashback in a sequel or subsequent film in a series) it does not qualify as "archive footage”". But on the other hand, a) Deadpool 2 (2018) is not a direct continuation as it is a sequel of a spin-off and b) footage is not recycled as a prologue or flashback, it was a time travel sequence which involved numerous alterations of the shot and insertion of new footage. I really wonder which of the two rules prevails in this case.



