Wikipedia

Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 4

< Talk:Spider-Man 3
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Dark Spidey in topic Simbiote
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Dark question

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

How come we have to use this talk page now instead of the old archives? Dark Spidey 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The old page was archived due to 1) total length of the talk page and 2) each discussion was closed. If you feel the need to open up an old discussion, you can do that here. Remember though, this isn't a forum, but a discussion about the article and how to improve it. Veracious Rey talk↔contribs 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I wanted to rewrite the plot to spice it up a little. But people that weren't even administraters told me I couldn't stating Wiki was only an encyclopedia. But the rules say if there something you want to do to make Wiki better then BREAK them. I don't see how rewriting it would cause any harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Spidey (talk • contribs) 04:38, January 5, 2007

First off, chill out. Calm people are more coherent. Second, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines shouldn't be disregarded whenever selectively, subjective convenient. To put it simpler, you cannot use "ignore all rules to do whatever you want at any time. That would easily allow for even obvious, undisputable vandalism, which is not allowed under any circumstances. What you can do is make changes that simply don't "gel" with the current policies or guidelines as you understand them, and only with a reasonable, common sense exception to explain your changes. If you're the same GIPU who wanted to, frankly, ruin the article's plot section so it could look more like a press release, don't even think about it.
Furthermore, we don't need administrative access to revert and rebuff you. The plot section is informative and well cited. I'm almost positive any changes you make would remove data rather than simply "spice it up". BTW, for the last time, we're an encyclopedia, not your precious http://www.SuperHeroHype.com. Our plot sections need to be relevant and verifible, nothing more, nothing less. And believe me, every "official" or otherwise none compiled plot description I've ever read has been much, much less. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't apply to policy, only guidelines. Policy is the Wiki is an encyclopedia and not a promotional source for films. "Spicying up" plots is indirectly promoting a film. Plots need to be bland, because Wiki is not a substitution, nor a promotion site, for watching the film. Bignole 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the above editors. While a synopsis at ComingSoon.net may sound exciting, Wikipedia has a policy of applying a neutral point of view. While this may increase "blandness" of plot summaries, this decreases bias in word choice when writing such sections. For example, if you add "ruthless" to describe Harry Osborn, it better be obvious from his actions in the film. However, especially at this point when no one knows what the whole film's about, it's best to be as unassumptive as possible. We've tried to go with cited substance over uncited style, and I think the approach adheres to the policies and serves as a neutral placeholder for a full plot summary when the film comes out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 09:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It was ComingSoon? My bad. No offense to any of those sites, but they all start to look, read and sound the same after a while. I was actually close to saying IGN.com, but I knew that was wrong. Anyway, I like our plot best because of the details. Since saying that alone didn't get the point across when you were a GIPU, Dark, let me be crystal clear.


Let's take the first fricken line. A run-on sentence or comma splice, easily. "blockbuster adventures"? What? Are these fucking rollercoaster rides? 3-D or some shiz? Then there's the totally over dramatic and unnecessarily punny "web of secrets, vengeance, love, and forgiveness". Who needs that? The film's not even out yet, and already they're describing it like a reviewer. (BTW, I don't think much of reviewers for actually learning something about a movie, either. The plot, especially, is often referred to in (coy) ways that only make sense to those who've seen it.) "forgiveness", in particular, seems speculative. Then there's the utterly unverifiable—as in, "they're talking out of their asses"-style BS—"that will transport worldwide audiences to thrilling new heights". For god's sake, that's just biased whoring. Whether we like it or not, the movie could suck. Wikipedia won't be the one prematurely complimenting it.

Next half, the actual story. (Yep. They take a whole line to whorishly preface actual storyline details in a supposed "plot summary".) "In Spider-Man 3" is redundant. How many times does the film need to be introduced to the reader? (Perhaps yet another sign the above prefacing is unneeded and actually worsens this already crappy "summary".)

"based on the legendary Marvel Comics series," eh? Oh yeah. We need to give prompts like that. And hey, who cares if that's no even a plot detail, but that kind of kiss ass mombo should be, if anywhere, in the article's intro. Then there's finally the actual story, as they describe it. Yes, the wait is over, and it only took three or two some odd comma splices!

"Peter Parker has finally managed to strike a balance between his devotion to M.J. and his duties as a superhero." Same old, same old, but let's start to compare. "Peter Parker basks in the spotlight with his public success as his superhero alter ego, Spider-Man.[3]" Oh snaps! The first line and we're already being more informative to the reader. The protagonist getting cozy with their love interest in the beginning is a given. Spider-Man actually getting props, without having as long a career as he's had in the comics? Yeah, that's something to say.

Next, "But there is a storm brewing on the horizon." "But" as the beginning of a sentence isn't so good, and why does the reader need that whole sentence? What does it offer, information-wise? Now, you might just think this is that "spiciness" you love. "They're just inticiing the reader to go on!" you say? As X, Erik, Biggy, Rey and I have stated, this is the kind of bad, uninformative writing that continues through the whole suckass summary, bringing it down.

"When his suit suddenly changes, turning jet-black and enhancing his powers, it transforms Peter as well, bringing out the dark, vengeful side of his personality that he is struggling to control." Now, what does this actually freaking tell us? Yeah, Peter's more powerful. We all got that. Yeah, he's angry. Sure. But how did his suit suddenly "change"? Was it dropped in a vat of chemicals? Did it become a martyr trying to save some punk kid from a nuclear blast? Was it bitten by a vampire? Seriously!

Compare that to, "He plans to propose to Mary Jane Watson." Oh, oh, oh, oh! I'll say right now that your beloved plot summary doesn't even mention that. In fact, let's go a little further, continuing through our plot. "When the police tell Parker and his aunt that new evidence shows Sandman as being responsible for killing Uncle Ben, Parker goes after the alleged perpetrator personally.[4]" Dayum! I hope your summary gives that kind of context!

"Under the influence of the suit, Peter becomes overconfident and starts to neglect the people who care about him most." Lame. Just...lame...and redundant! "As Spider-Man, he battles Sandman and his former friend Harry Osborn.[5] During this time, astronaut John Jameson brings an "alien life force" back to Earth with him.[6]" Oh yeah! Some actual context! Debate this all you want, it's cited. "The force forms a symbiotic relationship with Peter's costume, influencing his behavior for the worse." That's it. Just one statement covers it. "influencing his behavior for the worse". No muss, no fuss and no redundancy.

"Forced to choose between the seductive power of the new suit and the compassionate hero he used to be, Peter must overcome his personal demons as two of the most-feared villains yet, Sandman and Venom, gather unparalleled power and a thirst for retribution to threaten Peter and everyone he loves." A suckass end to a suckass summary. Notice how they just basically namedrop Sandy and Venom, while making no mention of Harry.

Finally, "As a result, Spider-Man has to fight the villain within, until he finally tears the symbiote from his body.[7] After parting from Spider-Man, the symbiote finds a new host in Eddie Brock Junior, and the resulting merger creates Venom.[8]" Oh wow! Even more context! And here, from the comingsoon summary, I thought "Venom" and his origin weren't" directly fucking tied to the symbiote and Spidey. Thanks, ComingSoon.com!

Honestly, man, maybe you'll just have to tell me again. Why the hell do you like what comingsoon says so much? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that in his own, inimitable style, (and i won't imitate it because I don't want the inciv block he's risking), He's completely summarized everything we've been explaining to Dark Spidey for over a month, both durign his GIPU time and with his account. Again, I caution that I believe DS to be a troll, and not just a neophyte troll, but a calculated exercise in ridiculous behaviors, specifically designed to elicit the nerve-snapping responses Ace has just given him. Regrettably, no Admins have been willing to examine any aspect of this, despite my placing requests for help on numerous Admin help request pages, so I suspect that when the Troll snaps his trap and nails someone, THEN we'll get an Admin here, one who will instead block us, leaving DS free to run amok on the page. I thus agian caution all regular editors of the page to be EXTREMELY careful. That said, I could't have said it better than Ace. ThuranX 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Chill out? Wtf? My post was in no way giving the impression that it was loud or filled with anger. Please do not make false accusations about my posts like that again. Secondly, I never said I liked ComingSoon.net, I just liked their description. Thirdly, 10 different people have told me the answer in 10 different ways. Lastly, Thuranx, stop being such a jacka$$. Your posts are provoking. If I am what you consider a troll, then surely you are no different. Dark Spidey 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's enough. For the last time, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not naming calling. Take it somewhere else, Dark. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Poster problem?

Latest comment: 17 years ago34 comments13 people in discussion

Is the problem with my computer, or is the lead poster photo in this article screwed up? When I load the article page, I get a standard red x. I've tried to make it work, but not sure how. I assumed the problem lied with the page itself. Someone tell me if I'm crazy! Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a large moving .gif file resized for the page, viewing problems can easily arise. However, the problem itself is not likely a problem with the image or your computer so much as the way they're working together. I'd say it's more likely an isolated issue, especially when you consider that the advertage viewer would probably be quick to come here with a subject like "FIX YOUR STPUD IMAGE!@" or some such. Still, if you're using a PC as your "red x" referece implies, it could be something more. I've checked the image and the file history hasn't been changed since October of last year. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the problem, as it's currently doing the same for me. If you click the image it should still be viewable. Bignole 00:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, Bignole. Glad I'm not crazy afterall. Oh well, I suppose it'll get worked out. Thanks for the response fellas. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Sorry if I couldn't be more help. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It did it to me for a while a few days ago, and I mentioned it to Bignole. Now it's fine again. I suspect it has to do with the filling and resultant autodumping of my cache. try dumping your cache? ThuranX 04:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I dumped my cache a few times, and it still isn't loading on the page. Like Bignole said, I don't see the darn thing until I click it. Weird. Any other suggestions? Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm curious as to how many people cannot actually see the image in the article (not on the image page itself), just the article. Anonymous users need not vote, as we cannot verify if you are one person or many. Bignole 13:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

YES/NO

Yesterday, I tried something... I dumped the cache on Firefox, my browser of choice, and then came back, couldn't see it, then went to the image's page, saw it there, returned to this page, and saw it fine. ThuranX 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cleared my history, cookies, temp files...go back to the picture..it's still 'X' for me. Bignole 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Diddo. Did all of the above, restarted my computer... still nothing. Perhaps the current file could be removed, and a new gif of the same image could be uploaded. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 22:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Update. I left a message on the talk page of DrBat, who uploaded the image, asking if he had any suggestions. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review

I noticed that when I jumped on FireFox it looked as if there wasn't a picture there at all, no "X", just a caption. Bignole 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with the current image; I think it's better, as it shows Spider-Man, and not just his logo.
Anyway, I didn't make the image; I made a request to User:HowardBerry, because he had made other lenticular images. It had worked ok before, so I don't know why it's different now. Maybe it has to be at it's original size? --DrBat 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, tried that - with no luck. Anyway, thanks for the response. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Temp poster change

Hey all, I took it upon myself to change the poster, temporarily or permanently, until we can figure out what's going on with the lenticular image. I'll keep experimenting with the other one, trying to get it to work. It's obvious from the other user responses that we have a problem. Better a different image than a broken one. I'm just being bold here. I've tried three different computers, and none display the image properly. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 03:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Yeah I like the poster actually It's better than the Lenticular poster, just get a better version of it. Pho3nix-

You have to prove fair use with such things, and "low resolution" is an important one. Bignole 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I know, the image isn't that great. I looked a few places, couldn't find a good one. I'm busy for a while after today. Maybe you guys can look one up, or just remove the current version. Whatever you think. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It's fine. It's just small. It shouldn't be actual size. Bignole 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Good news- I had some extra time today, and found a better version of the poster: [1] I re-uploaded on the main page. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use means small. Wiki-newbie 19:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The new poster that you uploaded is 750x1113. If you look at the licensing for the film poster, it says, "It is believed that the use of scaled-down, low-resolution images of film posters..." A good example is Image:Shooter poster.jpg, a poster image I uploaded that is only slightly bigger than its actual display in the article. Also, I added a colon to the image you posted, since images shouldn't be visible outside of the article. The colon turns the image into a visitable link instead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Now I understand. I took care of it, and thanks for the heads-up. Just when I think I know what I'm doing... Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. :) Just one more tip -- you could have saved the image, adjusted it on your computer, and re-upload it under the same file name. Wikipedia will ask if you want to upload over the existing version, so you can say yes. Just something to know for the future. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • "Spider-Man 3 First Look Appearing in Theaters". SuperHeroHype.com. 2006-12-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • "New Spider-Man 3 TV Spot!". ComingSoon.net. 2007-01-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Sideshow Collectibles (2007-01-05). "Sideshow Making Spider-Man 3 Collectibles". SuperHeroHype.com. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (could replace broken link in article)
  • Mike Cotton (2007-01-06). "THE WIZARD Q&A: SAM RAIMI". Wizard Entertainment. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • "Spider-Man 3 Fight Scene Revealed". IGN. 2007-01-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • "Medicom's Spider-Man 3 Venom Figure". ComingSoon.net. 2007-01-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • "Venom Is Revealed!". Empire. 2007-01-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (repost of above with re-hosted Venom images)
Some citations that I don't think are in the article... mostly promotion and merchandise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Action figures

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems the new, SM3 action figs were removed from the sideshow site. "Looking for our Spider-man 3 Collectibles? Not to worry! We will be posting our Spider-man 3 Products back online for pre-sell soon. Thank you for your patience!" In the meantime, I've replaced the citation with one from Erik's grab bag. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Hasbro is launching their line of Spider-Man 3 toys on March 24. drewdewd 01:02, 17 March 2007

New Goblin Image

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I uploaded an image I found on the Official Site. Perhaps it can be used in the article somewhere? 200px

Kalas Grengar 09:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As we're no longer using villain specific sections, we have to be sparing with images. We could put it in the "promotional" section, but I'm not sure it's important enough. Also, it should probably be cropped a bit on the left. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll wait until the film is out, when the plot summary is rather big. Wiki-newbie 12:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a promo shot rather than a screenshot, so if we did use this in the future, the licensing should be corrected. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I decided to place the image in the Hary Osborn article's "film" section. It's better than those crappy trailer stills and give a good idea of how he'll actually look. I did upload and overwrite the original with a cropped version. Look good, I think. Oh, and I fixed the licensing. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Official Synopsis Help

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Hey, I'm new at editing on Wiki and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. But Sony's Spider-Man 3 site has been revamped and now includes an official synopsis of the plot, which I'll post here:

Peter Parker has finally managed to strike a balance between his devotion to M.J. and his duties as a superhero. But there is a storm brewing on the horizon. When his suit suddenly changes, turning jet-black and enhancing his powers, it transforms Peter as well, bringing out the dark, vengeful side of his personality that he is struggling to control. Under the influence of the suit, Peter becomes overconfident and starts to neglect the people who care about him most. Forced to choose between the seductive power of the new suit and the compassionate hero he used to be, Peter must overcome his personal demons as two of the most-feared villains yet, Sandman and Venom, gather unparalleled power and a thirst for retribution to threaten Peter and everyone he loves.

I didn't know exactly where in the article it fits in, but I think it should definately be in there somewhere since this is Sony's official synopsis. If anyone could help find that a nice home on the Spider-Man 3 Wiki page, I'd appreciate it much. (Articat730 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

The official synopsis was used to help structure the Plot section, but if you look at the section as it is now, the synopsis already exists in a re-worded fashion, and has been expanded upon with further information from further citations and trailers. Copying and pasting that synopsis word for word might be a copyright issue, so I think the current section is suitable for describing the film at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah. In reference to my above review, I apologize to ComingSoon. It's not really their fault, in regard to this shitty synop. Oh, I'm sorry. I might appear to be random right now.
Art, that plot sucks. Beyond the copyvio issue Erik mentioned, it would be redundant to the summary we already have and a thoroughly unfit replacement. I assume you brought this up with good intent, but the answer is a resounding "NO!" Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
With that, may I say Articat, thanks for volunteering to help. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 15:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well that's all right. Like I said, I wasn't sure if it would fit or not and I'm new here and don't really know much about the rules or anything. In any event, thanks for at least checking it out! And thanks for the welcome!(Articat730 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

That plot doesn't suck, it's fantastic! Why not contact someone and see if it's a copyright issue? Dark Spidey 11:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it would be a copyvio. Further, it's plagarism. Even further, it's still NOT enyclopedic! We have explained this idea to you over and over and over, Dark Spidey. You just won't listen. ThuranX 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, it's over dramatacized (is that a word..it is for what I need it for). Wiki does not promote films, and having plots that create "drama", or "tension", or "suspense" (or anything of that sort) is indirect promotion of a film. We'd have to remove all those words that do that, and you'd be left with pretty much what we have now. Bignole 12:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Less than what we have, Biggy. Then again, we update faster and far more often. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 14:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

'Fight the villain within' sounds petty dramatacised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Spidey (talk • contribs) 06:01, January 26, 2007 Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

New Dylan Baker interview

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

{{cite news | last = Elliott | first = Sean | title = Exclusive: DYLAN BAKER TALKS THE LIZARD FOR SPIDER-MAN'S NEXT SEQUEL Actor also tells iF MAGAZINE that his wife is playing Mrs. Stacy in SPIDER-MAN 3 | publisher = iFMagazine | date = 2007-01-21 | url = http://www.ifmagazine.com/new.asp?article=4055 | accessdate = 2007-01-22}

Wanted to bring this to other editor's attention first. Is Becky Ann Baker playing Mrs Stacy worth anything, and is his chat on the Lizard idle speculation or worth being in the article? Wiki-newbie 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...she pretty much doesn't exist in the comic world, so I'm not sure about that. About the Lizard, right now it's speculation. I think he was hinting that if Raimi does another film that Raimi might have all but guaranteed that Baker would have a much larger role than previously, but I don't think there was any confirmation of another film or the Lizard. Bignole 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's notable to mention that Baker's wife was cast in the film as Captain Stacy's wife. If we had a trivia section, we could've thrown it in there. :) In the meantime, though... I don't know if and how it could be worked into Production. The Lizard information is also interesting, but unconfirmed. We can save the citation to indicate an early mention of the Lizard when/if Spider-Man 4 comes around. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Article links

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey. Ace here. Would it make more sense if we linked directly to the "film" sections of character articles? It would definitely be a service in the case of Eddie and Harry, who both stray from the norm in their portrayals. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be best for the linking, instead of linking to just the generic page. Bignole 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"New" Goblin?

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The printed Premiere article identified Harry Osborn's villainous persona as "NEW GOBLIN" in caps, so I had assumed that it was the title "New Goblin". However, the online version identified the character as "Harry Osborn's new Goblin". Is there another way we can address this adequately? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Grant used the term "New Goblin", and not new "Goblin". Bignole 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok. That takes care of it. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The name is also used on the movie site. I was a bit iify about it at first, but it seems to have caught on...mostly. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Imagery

Hate to be one of "these people"... but any chance we can use a shot of the New Goblin in the article? (It's print-screened from the official site, so it's a promo shot.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

eh...I'm not really digging the size, or all that space around him. It's unfornate, too. Everyone else has a close-up of sorts and he gets stuck with that crummy action shot. Feh. We need something less...constipated. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad example?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This is kind of minor but, is the Spider-Man film series article setting a bad example by using a "cameos" section? While I'd like all four articles to be distinct, this may seem contradictory. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the attempted edit to create a Cameos subsection on this SM3 article? I'm not sure how the film series article stands out from the individual film articles -- each film has been a separate production, so it's not like LOTR. I don't know how the film series article could be distinct, since it's really based on information from other articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, they're similar, but not exactly the same. I'm just wondering if I should remove the "cameo" subsection from the cast list on that article, as you guys have with this one. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What differentiates the film series article from the individual film articles? From my perspective, the article should have the boiled-down elements of all the films. I think that the Cameo subsection should be excluded in its entirety, as it belongs to the more fleshed-out individual articles. For the series article, I would suggesting summarizing each film even more succinctly, and perhaps trimming down the Cast section as well to the major, major players. People like John Jameson, Dr. Connors, and the Daily Bugle staff should be excluded from this kind of overview. Just some suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding Ghost Rider trailer?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should information saying a third trailer will be released with Ghost Rider be added to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Spidey (talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC). Dark Spidey 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've actually reverted to a version including this omment, because it's worth addressing on two points. One, if you can cite it with a reliable source, yes Dark Spidey. Two, I welcooem this positive, article improving sentiment and hope to see much more of it, DS. ThuranX 01:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

International release dates

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ever thought of adding international release dates? Dark Spidey 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be too listy to add all the release dates that are shown on the official site. I inserted a sub-link in External links to lead to the release dates on the official site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Young

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on Spidey there. Wiki-newbie 16:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"We decided that we were going retain three of his themes: 1) The Spider-man heroic theme. 2.) The Green Goblin theme, for Harry Osbourne, the son of the original Green Goblin who takes over his Father's role. 3.) And finally, what is identified as the "Fate" theme from the second movie. All the themes for the new characters in this third movie, I am doing. Sandman, Venom, the black goo has a theme, the black suited Spider-Man, the new romantic theme, a whole bunch of new themes." —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Wiki-newbie 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to correct something.

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I saw the recent preview for Spiderman 3 and i noticed that in the preview they did not say that the sandman guy killed his uncle, but they said that the sandman character killed his FATHER and not his UNCLE BEN. I think this should be reviewed and corrected.--Lynx Austin 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct... can you explain the context in which "father" was mentioned? Uncle Ben was like a father to Peter, so there might be some implied wording. All signs that I've seen point to Sandman killing Uncle Ben (allegedly); that's the whole point of the story arc. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I heard "uncle".  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do) 
The preview definitely says Sandman killed Uncle Ben. Kafziel Talk 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the preview, and it definately saide UNCLE.Teeple12 02:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New info added to Promotions

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Superhero Hype has posted news about new previews and trailers. I have added this to the promotion section along with when they will debut. Dark Spidey 08:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the attempted contribution, but you need to cite your information so it's verifiable by editors and readers alike. In addition, the Heroes clip was already mentioned in the last paragraph of Promotion. Someone removed your uncited information, but I've re-added the second trailer information with the citation from SuperHeroHype.com. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reception

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The name of that section is inappropriate I think. I changed it to Release. What do you think? Berserkerz Crit 13:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, the section will be based on how the film is received (so the when and where would be included as well). I don't really care either way, but I don't want it to turn into a list of extraneous release information such as every release date of every country in which the film is being released. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Venom Image

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Recently, this image was uploaded to the article by a fairly new user, but was reverted rather quickly. I realize that the subject had been discussed before, but that discussion has since been archived, and a lot of new contributors don't know that the subject was discussed and decided long before this new crop of users started contributing. The reason given in the edit summary for the revert was that certain editors were waiting for an image with which to compare the images of Venom as they appear in different media (TAS and the comics). I have a couple of questions about this:

  1. What does the image of Venom in other media have to do with the article regarding the film, Spider-Man 3?
  2. Obviously, the aforementioned comparison would have to have been from outside sources, so as to avoid the problems of synthesis OR, right?
  3. If such a picture for comparison is forthcoming, is it not prudent to have a picture for the article that is being viewed (at least) daily as the premiere date looms, and interest increases? The picture reverted was properly tagged, and is viewable in a number of different media (fair use, at least), and it displays an image of Venom that is both noteworthy and interesting, and not just eye candy.

As the article is live to the reading public while it undergoes 'renovation,' and not like an exhibit closed to the public while being set up, it seems reasonable to allow a properly tagged image that is specific to the subject matter to be allowed ("Pertinence and encyclopedicity" from WP:IMAGE). I look forward to getting your opinions on this matter.Arcayne 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If we allowed every "properly tagged" image to be included on this article we'd have something that looked like [THIS. Just inserting an image into an article, eveny properly tagged, doesn't mean it serves are purpose to the article. What is the purpose of the image? We have an image for the special effects of the film (Sandman/Spidey), we have an image for Topher Grace, and a promotional image of Topher becoming Venom. It seems to me that the image of Venom, which is really only recognizable because of the eyes and a few faint teeth, is only there for eye candy. In the image link you provided, it even says that it must be of sufficient notability. The concept of having an image of Venom is notable, but that specific selection is not. The fact that it's clear is irrelevant to the fact that it doesn't really show anything. It would be like having a picture of Peter just arriving home in his Spidey suit. The concept is notable, just not the selection. The comparisons would be simply the creators explaining why they did something a certain way. For instances, Raimi explained why he changed the webbing to organic in the original Spider-Man. That's something that's rather notable, because it's apart of the character, just like the look of Venom is part of that character. We need a good picture of Venom, yes, but good as in something that actually shows him and not just a quick, partial glimpse of his face.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Dear God, I just saw your link...LOL! That's too many images, to be sure, but I don't think that is what I am advocating here. I am suggesting that the image in question be used until something better is found, and replaced with that image. The article is 'live' as we speak, not in a holding pattern until some future date when it is exposed to the viewing public.
The fact remains that Raimi has not explained the way he chose to illumate the difference in representations of Venom yet, or supplied imagery to accomplish that. It may yet come, but until then, something should be there. The image of Topher Grace as Eddie Brock is good, and the promo of Brock's face being covered in the goo is passable, but as we have no images of Venom as of yet, this one as being easily recognizable as that of Venom (not talking about clarity of the image), should remain until there is something more in keeping with what you were looking for. As it is, the image does tell us something of how Raimi was interpreting the symbiote (although we cannot, of course, offer comments about that); it appears never to be at rest, even when covering Brock/Venom.
The purpose of the image uploaded by the user was to represent the alien-ness of Venom (the ropy goo, the too-wide mouth full of creep-o-matic teeth), and be a visual touchstone of how Raimi is choosing to represent Venom in the film. I see your point about selection, but as there are no images of Venom in the article, it seems appropriate to have one.Arcayne 14:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Until a better image of Brock-as-Venom becomes available, I've reinstated the image released to the live article.Arcayne 23:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to revisit this topic. Having it reverted, referring to a discussion long since archived is uncool. Please inform me as to how the image in dispute doesn't belong.Arcayne 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
We've covered this ssue more than once before, and I support BigNole's assertions above, which summarize the extant archive reasons. There's no need to 'revisit' an issue which comes up again and again every few days. Until a high quality, clear, fair use image of Venom is released which will sufficiently demonstrate the differnce in his appearance from Spiderman's and which will actively improve the page is made available, blurry screencaps will NOT suffice, and should NOT be included. As has been stated before, there WILL be good promo shots as the movie approaches. We will use them at that point. ThuranX 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If the recent Venom image was included, this would make for three Venom-related images -- Brock, Brock transforming into Venom, and Venom himself. The editors of the article discussed that the article should have a minimal approach on images leading up to the film's release. This approach was to restrict passing editors from freely adding images to "illustrate" the article, despite failures to license the images properly or follow up with fair use rationales. Film articles are not going to be able to use freely-licensed images most of the time, so image usage should be selective. They can't be "eye candy" but instead add stronger value to the article. Topher Grace's Eddie Brock is a new character in this film series and will apparently serve as Parker's foil, as the text says, hence the image to present him. Sandman is another new character to illustrate, and the current image fits with the mention of using Baxter Humby for the punch-through shot. Since we want to keep images at a minimum in this article, we've usually congregated on this talk page to discuss expansion and/or replacement. If further images are to be added, then there should be context to support it. Obviously, the Plot section is too small right now to attempt illustrating key scenes from the film, and the Production section doesn't go into a lot of depth about the specific characters to be properly illustrated. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The editor we are all discussing this with has said, on my talk page, that he isn't going to bother reading the archives. He's not interested in building a consensus, despite what he says. I'm done arguing with another bad faith editor who can't be bothered to try to edit wikipedia with any sense of decency, even after being referred to them repeatedly. Instead he demands we all jump through his hoops. How can a page ever hoep to improve when every editor who comes to a page expects to get the personal treatment of having his question REanswered time after time after time? Someone else can deal with this. It's ridiculous. ThuranX 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC) And for the record: Here are FOUR sections in just the LAST archive about this type of stuff: Talk:Spider-Man_3/Archive_3#The_.22leaked_pic.22, Talk:Spider-Man_3/Archive_3#New_images, Talk:Spider-Man_3/Archive_3#The_Venom_Picture, Talk:Spider-Man_3/Archive_3#Venom_pic_okay_now.3F. The consensus was basically, WAIT FOR A GOOD CLEAR FAIR USE IMAGE. Don't bother me anymore about this. No matter how many times we go through this, it keeps coming up. And this editor's reply was simply this: "Clearly, I am not going to take the time hunt back through archives" [2]... ThuranX 06:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've summarized to Arcayne the reasoning for our actions. I think he was initially under the impression that we were trying to own the article. Arcayne, if you don't want to review the archives, we have not been drones in reverting casual editors' images. We have discussed images ranging from Venom in the Comic-Con footage, the new teaser poster, and screen shots from the theatrical trailer. Fair use images can't be added because it "goes without saying" that the image is significant to the film article. The existing images are meant to fit the current context of the article. They are highly likely not going to be there forever; more production detail will come out, and the appropriate fair use images can be paired up with them. What's the significance of showing Venom as opposed to the New Goblin or full-fledged Sandman, other than recency in NBC's exclusive and temporary footage? The article's supposed to be encyclopedic, not a showcase. In addition, while articles should be dynamic, the fair use image policy limits the dynamic nature of image usage to the content that exists in the article at that point in time. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Erik explained it to me, and I appreciate that it was done with his usual polite nature. ThuranX, if you are in fact bothered by editor and contributors continually adding in pictures that don't meet the fair use criteria you desire, perhaps you should not archive data that is going to consistently be referred to. The post I sent to you was not saying that I wasn't seeking concensus, and anyone reading either any of the posts I've made, or the response to your Talk page, I wasn't demanding anything. If all you took from that conversation was my reticence at reading back over almost 2 years worth of archives, then perhaps you might be served by reading it again. Concensus is not a static thing in Wikipedia, and to suggest that a decision made anywhere from 2 years to two weeks ago is binding now is simply absurd. I appreciate your concern that everyone seems to be messing up your edits, but that is the very first rule of Wikipedia; if you are not prepared to have people edit your work, then WP may not be for you.
In addition, I would like to ask you to please act a bit more civilly (WP:CIVIL) towards me, as I have not been uncivil or "demanding" to you. I am not asking anyone to "jump through hoops;" I have not been uncivil in my posts to you, and I think it unreasonable to ask you to endeavor to be more polite to me, especially since I have asked before. I also said in the post to your Talk page (which you thoughtfully linked) that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. I think the same applies to smooth editing, wouldn't you agree?Arcayne 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The image is nice and all, but still not a representation of how the character will look, ultimately and normally. It's, in essence, the equilivent of Harry in the gas chamber or Sandman reforming in the wisk. The veiny, wavey, tangled, vine-like look is part of the character's tranformation. Compare to the way the symbiote looks when bonding—not bonded—to Peter, then compare to its relaxed post-bond state. For one, it's smooth and resumables the film's regular Spider-Man costume. Venom isn't Tangela. Wait for a better image. Not in terms of graphical or resolution quality, but something that won't be replace in four months. Heck, remove the one of the symbiote bonding to Eddie (Topher Grace) from last year, too. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. :)Arcayne 08:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While browsing Flickr, I found this new picture of Venom strangling Spiderman with his web in the construction site scene, here: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=420858636&size=o RS085, March 17th,2007.

Concept art

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Any way we could incorporate some of these images into the article? WikiNew 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they meet fair use rationale. They were provided to AICN by an anonymous benefactor ("Amy Pascal"?), so I don't know where these images fall in terms of being available to public. There's some nice production shots, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We haven't had much discussion on how Venom was bought to the screen, so could this be used to show he isn't a CG creature? WikiNew 16:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome images, but even the provider says that Sony might snatch them up, so that probably means they aren't legal. I'd wait to see if someone like SHH says that they are officially released or just leaked images. I wish we could use them, but if we know they aren't official then we can't use them, and the submitter pretty much says they aren't when he makes the comment about Sony possibly taking them off the site (which says it's probably just a matter of time before they find it).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Dang didn't get to see it. It's already gone. Berserkerz Crit 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you are.

WikiNew 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They've been taken down at Sony's request (Probably a legal department 'request'). As such, they are clearly NOT fair use in any fashion, and should neither be uploaded to wikipedia at all, nor included by link in the article. ThuranX 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New Venom Image

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

http://www.dvdrama.com/imagescrit/H_spider_man_3_46.jpg

Could this be in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalas Grengar (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure of the authenticity, or copyright of the image.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it looks like a promotional image, and that's how it could be copyrighted. I found it here.

http://www.dvdrama.com/galerie/spider_man_3_/

And I'm pretty sure it's authenic, why the heck else would it be released? Kalas Grengar 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because if it was promotional then it would be released everywhere, and you'd see it on their official website. I think it's probably authentic, but just not legal. Also, I noticed a shot in there that basically confirms the symbiote is from space, there's a meteoroid landing next to Peter's bike.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bignole. The image isn't legal, and isn't supposed to be out. Doesn't belong on the page. ThuranX 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well now hopefully we should be able to change the synopsis to get rid of the lie that Jameson brings it back. Why else would there be a comet in that shot!? Wether it's legal or not, it proves the symbiote origin. Dark Spidey 03:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not citable, not proof, not nothing. And I'm genuinely sick and tired of you hitting multiple sections to 'brag' about being 'right' and how we 'should believe you now'. You need to go read all those essays and policies that we have been encouraging you to read for over six months, bot hwhen you were using an IP, and since you got your account. Go read them already, so you can contribute in a positive and constructive way. Thank You. Again. ThuranX 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof of symbiote comet origin!

Latest comment: 17 years ago24 comments7 people in discussion

I finally have proof!

http://www.dvdrama.com/galerie/spider_man_3_/48/H/

That's a shot from Spider-Man 3. That's Peter's moped bike. That's the comet with the symbiote on it. Do you believe me NOW? Dark Spidey 03:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is that even I'm assuming that the meteroid is the symbiote. I mean it's the logical assumption, but it's still an assumption because I don't think the foreign site gives it a caption, let alone would that caption be "reliable". For all we know Jameson does "bring it", but unknowingly and it just vacates his ship before he lands. I highly doubt that, and I'm pretty sure that it just fell on its own, but I can't put that in because it's my opinion. Though, at least we know where he picks it up, those are the woods that he and MJ are making out at while in his webbing. Notice the second helmet? Again, that's my assumption, based on the images, and not reliable sourcing.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me)  04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As we've said for months, DS. No cares about you being 'right'. We care about Citation. That image is NOT citable. Further, we aren't interested in your conjecture about the movie based on half a dozen stolen images. We care about legitimate citation. ThuranX 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say in this post "Look! I'm right!" you told me to try and find proof, that's exactly what I've done. How is that not legitimate? It's obviously an image from Spider-Man 3, and there's no other explanation for having a meteorite in the shot, why else would it be there? To look pretty? You took the word of Empire magazine when it didn't even state how it knew this. The origin was kept under tight wraps. If Empire did know (which they don't) then they wouldn't be able to say. Spider-Man 3 comes out two days here in my country before it does in the States. When I have seen the movie on the first night, I will come onto this website and make the correct changes. By the way, those 'woods' are Central Park.Dark Spidey 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. Adjusting plots for inaccuracies, when the films are released, is fine (be warned not to make the plot overly long, 600-700 words, if you attempt to write the whole thing). The thing is that Wikipedia isn't about "truth" it's about verifiability with reliable sources. Empire is reliable, a foreign website that uses illegal leaked images...eh..not so much. The point is, we can't verify, with no actual source or text, what the meteroid is or how it even comes to land there in the first place. You know what it is, I know what it is, but we can't put that in Wikipedia on the basis of common sense.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me)  04:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Those pictures are legal, you can see it here: http://www.dvdrama.com/galerie/spider_man_3_/ Wiki needs to re-think it's rules Dark Spidey 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaand we're back. It's clear that despite your time away, you still never bothered to read any of wikipedia's policies. THe sources aren't legal. they'er not publicly released by the production company. End of story. ThuranX 11:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
They must have taken the Venom pic down anyway, cause I don't see it anywhere on the above links. I'm sure when the third trailer is released online, that will provide a decent pic. Remember Dark Spidey, patience is a virtue.  Veracious Rey  T  C  20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless it's the WonderCon trailer where all you really see is that same old ground closeup of his mouth opening and later his hand grabbing Spidey's head.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
True.  Veracious Rey  T  C  02:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Some recent stills from the film were released and one is a picture of a small meteor crashing in a park (possibly central park), suggesting that the alien symbiote may come from said meteor, rather than John Jameson bringing it back with him. What do you guys think? Is there somewhere in the article that could use this information? drewdewd 07:30, 16 March 2007

If you mean using the image, then no. I haven't seen any reliable site actually post the images, only a link to where you might find the images (which are quickly removed once Sony finds them). As for the information, we'd be assuming that Jameson wasn't involved. The only information we have is that EMPIRE, which is considered a reliable source, regardless of whether they are right (verifiability/reliability over truth) is that Jameson brings it to Earth, which he could very well do still, since we are only seeing a small scene from the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Did you NOT read the very section you posted in? Please read this section and the few above it. Thank you. ThuranX 02:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did in fact NOT read the section. I read the whole page wrong to be honest. I assumed the article at the top was the most recent, or something. I found my post and then felt kinda stupid. Again, sorry. drewdewd 07:30, 16 March 2007

I'm a huge Spidey fan, but have not touched this article as the ones who have been doing so are working wonders with this article. I would like to add one teensy thing though. The new trailer at Comcast(the final trailer to be released before S3 comes out in May) shows a clip of the meteor striking in the woods. Is that verifiable enough? Valaqil 15:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Only the fact that it's "alien" in origin, which we have. It doesn't show anything but a buring object falling. It doesn't show if it's a meteoroid (rock based object) with the symbiote inside, or just the symbiote itself falling. It also doesn't show where it falls from. For all we know it falls off a shuttle, thus Jameson would have brought it back with him. I'm not trying to deny that it probably just fell from the sky, just that we have to go with what our reliable source says. Unless you can find a reliable source that debunks the current one, which would be like an interview with someone explaining the origins.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I won't link them here, since they are fora, and therefore unreliable, but the novelization is currently available, and many posters have said that it proves this. I'm probably going to take a look at the first few pages just to get this straight. Valaqil 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The novels ready already? That's cool, but we can't use that as a source for the film. Novelizations generally take some liberties with films. Superman Returns had different elements than the novel. In the novel, Jason IS Richard's son, not Superman's.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
In the last two Spider-Man novelizations, they were mostly accurate with only a couple of things missing from the movie. Jason being Superman's son was supposed to be only revealed in movie. PureSoldier 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You can't compare previous entries to every entry, especially something so delicate as the symbiote's origin, which they have chosen not to overtly reveal. The novelization could be 100% correct, but that doesn't make it any reliable when compared to a film that hasn't been released yet and so verification cannot be made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. PureSoldier 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

With conflicting sources (not saying that the film magazine was outright wrong), is there a way that we can just make it ambiguous for now? Just say for now that it came from outer space, but don't mention Jameson or meteorites. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the image just shows it landing, and we are assuming that what is landing is the symbiote. I'm positive it is, but it isn't like there is an after shot of it oozing out or something, and even if there was, there wasn't a pre-shot that showed where the thing was falling. For all we know there is some lab explosion at a genetics testing facility and it shoots into the sky and falls 10 miles away. It's a stretch, but the point is that we aren't seeing where it's falling from, and we are assuming it's falling from space.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just getting totally ridiculous...We have an IMAGE from Spider-Man 3 of the asteriod landing in Central Park, and it happens in the NOVEL. WHY are you taking the word of some stupid magazine that stated this months ago when the symbiote's origin was kept a secret and the magazine is wrong considering they didn't state any source what-so-ever, even after the magazine came out the actors wouldn't say a thing about the origin. The article has to be changed. The picture and the novelisation are a lot more citable than Empire magazine. Dark Spidey 08:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First, let's correct that. There is an image of a flaming object coming out of the sky. Please read my previous statements. We don't know if it's a meteroid, or just something that comes flying through the air. Second, also read my statements about using a novelization as a source for a film. Novelizations are generally written slightly different so as to leave something fresh for the film (e.g. Jason White IS Richard White's son in the novel, but not in the film). If you use a picture as a source, especially one that doesn't definitively identify itself, that's original research; and using a novel is just unverifiable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems like this is close to "logical conclusions" that don't constitute OR, considering what we know about the history of the symbiote, but I have to agree with  BIGNOLE  on this one. The rebuttals presented are strong enough to suggest that we wait. To quote BN's comment directly above yours, "I'm positive it is, but it isn't like there is an after shot of it oozing out or something,". I think that it is almost definitely the symbiote, but Wikipedia guidelines trump my hunches. Sorry to have revived this discussion. Valaqil 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 300 trailer

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is there any word as to when the most recently released trailer for Spider-Man 3, which was attached to the release of the movie "300" will be released onto the internet like apple.com? - RVDDP2501 14:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this new picture of Venom vs. Spiderman browsing flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=420858636&size=o

Can it be shown on the page?

No. It was one of the images snatched up by Sony when it was original released. If it's not on the official website, chances are it's not legal to show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be legal, its on the official blog, http://www.spidermanmovieblog.com/archives/2007/03/new_venom_pic_and_outdoor_art.php , so shouldn't it be ok? Teeple12 01:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That was just released on the 22nd, before that it wasn't allowed by Sony.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

300

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I changed the information about the trailer with 300. That trailer, with Venom grabbing Spidey, is there; I watched it tonight myself. On a side note, the "First Look" for Spidey 3 said there will be 1 final trailer coming out, and that you can view it on a Comcast website (not only the website, but when it comes out). I don't know how you would cite that, and I can't remember the precise wording for it to be well used, just thought I'd inform everyone so they can keep an eye out for information pertaining to that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack information

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How much do we want to cover in terms of what songs will be included on the soundtrack? If we make some mention of it, where should it belong? Here's a couple of valid citations about Snow Patrol having "Signal Fire" in the film: [3] and [4]. Not sure about the other musical artists involved, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

'The Flaming Lips' and 'The Killers' are also contributing to the soundtrack. The official blog confirms this.

Re-sourced

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I re-sourced the image I uploaded a few weeks ago.

150px|Venom choking Spidey

You can find it on the official movie blog now. It has a source, it has verification, it is authentic, and it can be put into the article. Kalas Grengar 01:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Where? Images aren't just about being legal, but they have to have a rationale for fair use. Where in the article can you attribute a rationale for that image? That is the question you have to ask yourself, because images are not eye candy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Soundtrack List of Songs

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Can be found here: http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid=29899 (Sorry. I'm a bit too lazy right now to add it in. I figure someone else can do it, and probably do it better.) Valaqil 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The link doesn't seem to work. I'll try again later in the day. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It works for me now. I've created Spider-Man 3 (soundtrack). Feel free to expand on it, and I'll create a link to that soundtrack article from the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Great job! I did notice one thing though: Apparently, "Spider-Man 3 soundtrack" and "Spider-Man 3 (soundtrack)" now exist. I copied Erik's comments to the one that already existed. My bad. I'm sorry to have created confusion. Valaqil 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I put up Spider-Man 3 (soundtrack) for speedy deletion. My suggestion is to either move Spider-Man 3 soundtrack to that article name after deletion, or move it to Spider-Man 3: The Official Soundtrack. Which one should we go with? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the website is titled after the second option, I've moved it accordingly. Let me know if this is an issue. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Simbiote

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

In the Spider Man 3 Novelization it is stated that is was not John Jameson who brought the simbiote to earth, but a meteor.-SSJ Gokan 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read previous discussions, especially ones that are only a couple sections above. Film novelizations are not sources because they can and usually do change information. Superman Returns had many differences from its own novel, most notably Jason White being Richard's child.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We'll find out for sure when we see the film, won't we? Don't worry, there's no conspiracy or cover-up here. Just a lack of reliable sources directly tied to the film, not to its novelization. If the symbiote comes to earth via meteor in the film, we'll make that correction. In addition, we know that there's a picture of a meteor impacting in the park, but it can't be absolutely verified that the symbiote came in that way. Think of it this way: If you're being introduced to the film and its franchise for the first time, it's not going to be immediately and verifiably clear what is going on in that picture. It's original research to surmise what it could be. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been a big spidey fan for a while and I know of Venoms origins. In addition, I am sorry I should have read the previous discussions before making this.-SSJ Gokan 23:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries; thank you for being civil. If the information is proved wrong, I'm sure it'll be corrected right away. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we aren't trying to deny what is probably true, just that there are no reliable sources that can debunk the only reliable source that we have right now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 is being released in my country two days before the States. So when I have seen the movie, I will make the correct changes. Dark Spidey 04:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spider-Man_3/Archive_4&oldid=1136232109"