Talk:The Spectacular Spider-Man (TV series)

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

Dwight Schultz?[edit]

Dwight Schultz's wiki article lists him as having a part in this show, but he isn't mentioned on this article or the talk page. So does he have a part in this show or is it just a mistake in his page? 84.31.80.180 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumored Cast???[edit]

this is to all who contributed to the newly added rumored cast section, where exactly are all those rumored?? i'm guessing that you were not told by a little birdie, so please cite your sources.. --PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 15:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change[edit]

Can anyone change the name of the article to "Spectacular Spider-Man"? The name change has been recently announced. Thanks.

Done.--Venomaru 2.0 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks.--GamerSlyRatchet

Concept work[edit]

Some put down that some concept work for Peter, MJ, Spidey, and Gwen have been shown. Is there a link to verify this?

There is, I'll track it down again.--156.34.94.43 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and Title[edit]

A few questions: 1. Is this cast posted for real? And did they change the title from Amazing to Spectacular? We need references on this.

The Amazing Spider-Man title was tentative, it has indeed been changed to Spectacular. Probably for the simple reason that it rolls off of the tongue a bit easier. As for the cast list, I can't vouch for that. --156.34.69.102 06:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the cast, Josh Keaton confirmed that he will be voicing Spider-man, it says on his website. Zidane4028 03:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- Now that the first episode has been shown at WonderCon, can you please stop wrongly correcting the cast updates?? --CrzyJen (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poster[edit]

What happened to the poster that was on here?

The Spectacular Spider-Man to The Spectacular Spider-Man Animated Series[edit]

  • So is the title The Spectacular Spider-Man? Because on the poster it says The Spectacular Spider-Man Animated Series.

Doc Connors[edit]

I think it's important to note that Doc Connors will be a recurring ally, so his human form should be listed under allies while lizard should be listed under villains. Thoughts? --Vinnyvinny2 00:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? The only references I have seen list Doc Connors/Lizard as appearing in the show. If there is a reference that says that Doc Connors will be a recurring ally (like he was in the 90s TV show) then I agree that he should be included under 'Supporting characters' but that would have to be a separate reference than the current one that exists because that does not support Vinnyvinny2's claim. Freak104 01:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have no proof that he will be an ally, but the link that already attached to the Lizard says that Connors, not the Lizard, will appear in multiple episodes. He's always been an ally to Peter when not in his lizard form, so I think that's good enough, but I'll wait for a reply before I do anything. --Vinnyvinny2 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would wait, because part of the Lizard character has always been that he was a friend before he was an enemy. I don't think it should be re-added. What do other people think? Freak104 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doc Conners is most definitely a recurring ally to Peter in the show and should be listed as such. There are no hard sources other than what I've seen with my own eyes, so it's up to you on how you want to deal with that info. --CrzyJen (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of episodes already?[edit]

There's already an episodes article on here. 1, it's too early, and 2, no episodes have even been announced. That page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.71.165 (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I meant to put the links up earlier, but I forgot. Anyways, since it is confirmed, there's no need to get rid of the page. --Vinnyvinny2 01:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Spidey promo1.jpg[edit]

Image:Spidey promo1.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Lee/Ned Leeds[edit]

I can't say I have ever heard of Ned Lee as a character and its possible that he is something of new character to the show, but I can't help but notice how similar his name is to former Spidey Reporter Ned Leeds (Husband to Betty Brant and casualty of the Hobgoblin storyline). Is this the character they mean?99.225.201.49 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, and that's why if you click on the name, it takes to the Ned Leeds page. It's the same character. He still works at the Bugle. Greg Weisman changed to name to add more diversity to the cast. He's Korean now. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odio a los idiotas que borran imagenes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.42.89 (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two seasons of 13 episodes?[edit]

The summary claims that 'So far there are commitments to two seasons of 13 episodes each.'. However, the reference just points out that the commitment went from 13 to 26, and doesn't say that it will be over two seasons. Has there been any word that it will be two seasons? -Joltman (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's animation, they work in seasons of 13 episodes each. The commitment to 26 episodes, means that they were contracted for a second season. I edited it to the correct phrasing. Of course, I also tried to correct the casting errors (like Daran Norris as the Tinkerer... which is flat out WRONG, it's actually my good friend Thom Adcox) and Vinny keeps changing it back. I just work on the show, what the heck do I know? --CrzyJen (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I keep changing it and I'm sure that Mr. Adcox will portray a great Tinkerer, but you just don't understand how wikipedia works. If you're so fired up about this, release an official statement that says that and I will be more than happy to correct it. Other wise, it's original research. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I just work here. Although, I've added some of the production staff (which I plan to complete) and corrected the show titles and filled in the blanks, you only seem to care about the voice actors. --CrzyJen (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the titles too in case you didn't notice and I plan to remove all of the production staff since is trivia and it's unsourced anyways. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't. You need to go back and number the episodes wrong again, then remove the episode titles that haven't been announced yet. The show airs next weekend, do the credits from those two episodes count on the verifiability scale, or does it have to be tossed on some backwards website in order to count as legit? Let me know what I need to do so I can make sure that these hard working people get the proper credit for their work instead of being snubbed by the internet. Thanks! --CrzyJen (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Production staff is "trivia"? Since why? If that is trivia, why isn't the voice cast also trivia? I work in the film industry (though not on this show) and I know that the production staff is every bit as important as the cast. Without them, you have no show. Without the cast, you have no show. These people bust their butts all over the place to put this out, show some respect. --Greg Bishansky (talk)
Respect given. That doesn't change wikipedia rules. What makes one member of the cast more important that the other. What's going to stop us from listed all 236 of the production crew for the show. It get unruly and unsightly for an encyclopedia page. As much as I respect the production staff, I'm not going to give up the organization of the page to show respect. Also, I grew tired of changing the episode titles becuase it took too long. I'd rather just leave it until we get the right reference, even though it's against Wikipedia rules. Anyways, thanks for your understanding and I hope you enjoy the premiere as much as I do! --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So organization is more important than facts? Very well then, I will remove the voice cast after you remove the crew. That should keep it clean and streamlined for you. I've very much enjoyed the premiere already, I think you'll be impressed with it. It's very well done. --CrzyJen (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a list of facts. (See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.) So yes, organization is more important than facts. And you don't have to tell me I'll be impressed with it. This is Greg Weisman. Of course I'll be impressed by it! --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I overlooked something but nowhere on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does it say "Wikipedia is not a list of facts." I couldn't even find that statement in the revision history. However, I was able to find this line on the subject: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts." --Irc goliath (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not... a repository of links" That's exactly what I feel like this page is. I've never seen any other page so obsessed with links to other outdated web sites in my life. I think the local deletionist should re-read what he's preaching here. --CrzyJen (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like that's EXACTLY what wikipedia is. A list of facts. As IRC Goliath just said, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts." The crew list are facts. The information CrzyJen has posted are facts. Vinny, you lost this one. Be grateful there is someone who's actually working on the series who cares enough to take time off her busy schedule to make sure wikipedia is updated with accurate and comprehensive info. --Greg Bishansky (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel bombarded more than grateful. You two seem to be hell-bent on an argument so I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and just let you win. I don't come to wikipedia for arguments. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, personally, are a great example of everything that's horribly, horribly wrong with Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy threatening me with some stupid Wiki policy on personal attacks in return while utterly ignoring the real issue here. In conclusion, enjoy your studio apartment and the balance of your miserable life. (I feel compelled to add that no, you moron, that isn't a death threat). 66.75.52.157 (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not a death threat. You specifically pointed out that I would be living life in you final sentence. How could I have possibly misconstrued that as a death threat? --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What to include?[edit]

What should be included on this site? Right now there are a brief summary (with references to other shows?? yeah, that can go), random quotes from the producers, an episode list, cast list and crew. In the future, there will be issues with the Villain hook ups (due to the fact that some of the origins/names are changing) and more voice cast, episodes and crew to add in. I think if it's organized correctly, then all should look fine. --CrzyJen (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over other TV shows on Wikipedia, I note that it's common practice to put the cast and crew in the sidebar. I also notice a recurring structure in most TV shows and I think it would serve as a good foundation for this page as well.
  • Overview of the Show
[Table of Contents]
  • Plot
  • Characters
Main Characters
Villians
  • Episodes
  • Influences
Steve Ditko
Art and animation style (fluidity and Asian influences)
  • Media
  • Reception
See Avatar: The Last Airbender as an example. --Irc goliath (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My hope is to eventually split the episodes and characters into their own articles when it begins to get to large for the main page. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does this mean? Example? --CrzyJen (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that outline would be a great starting template. --CrzyJen (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great template, change Main Characters to Supporting Characters and give the crew a section also, and it'll be perfect. The cast would likely be included with their characters. --Greg Bishansky (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template looks nice. Hopefully it translates well on the other side. And eventually I would like to at least split off the episodes like List of The Batman episodes. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks really nice. --CrzyJen (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect Ratio[edit]

Did anyone else think it looked kinda squished? Like they put it together in widescreen then compressed it for regular TV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely. I've seen the episodes several times in edits, but the version on my regular TV at home definitely seems squashed. I'll be asking about that today. --CrzyJen (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity[edit]

The article says that "According to writer Greg Weisman the timeline of the original Spider-Man story-arcs, which the series is based on...," but the series seems to have its own continuity, since in the original Spider-Man, Peter Parker didn't know Gwen Stacy, Harry Osborn, or Eddie Brock in high school. 4.167.229.92 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regular Cast?[edit]

I don't think it's wise to put a section called "Regular Cast" up. The people who are in EVERY episode is far too long and includes heroes and villains. --CrzyJen (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate IDs[edit]

The editors that wrote the cast list made a lot of assumptions about characters' alternate identities (eg. Felicia Hardy being Black Cat). Given that we now know that, for example, Herman Shulz is NOT the Shocker, I went about removing the unsourced assumptions. However, somebody has reverted my edits.

I also think it's inappropriate to have separate "supporting" and "villain" lists - some of the characters listed may not become villains in the show (such as Sin-Eater - methinks his story arc would be much too horrific for a kids show, a story I have no interest in spoiling here due to its overwhelming excellence), and likewise some of the supporting characters may yet become villains. (Where would you list JJJ anyway?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultipleTom (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes are just as unsourced. Although your theory is sound, Felicia is Black Cat and not all your edits were reverted. (not that they are accurate, just that I understand your point of removing them). If you want to remove Tricia as Felicia, then go right ahead.
I FULLY agree with you that the separate "Supporting" and "Villain" lists are just not going to work here. Doc Connors is both a friend and a villain. JJJ is a good man, but a greedy one, does that make him a villain? Not really. Stan Carter will remain a supporting character as long as the show is on as kids programming. How would you suggest changing this to work better for this show? --CrzyJen (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I totally saw this coming. I'm not even going to try and do something about the unsourced voice actors. I'll just take your word for it. However, I will create a separate character page and separate it by "Starring" and "Recurring". --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My "changes"? I don't need to source the removal of unsourced information!!! I thought that was pretty obvious. Given that the episodes involving (for example!) Black Cat haven't aired yet, I think it's worth not being presumptive about it. For all anyone knows, these characters might not have their IDs revealed at all, someone different might voice the alternate ID character... for all you know, Gwen Stacy is the Black Cat!! MultipleTom (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the supporting/villain thing... the best way to do it is to just not categorise them beyond separating regulars and guests (the regulars at this point ought to be limited to the characters that appear in the title sequence). Returning to Black Cat again (such a useful example), she's spent a lot of her fictional life as a villain - no reason to assume she won't be one on this show too. MultipleTom (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you missed the part where I agreed with you... although the temper tantrum is cute. I think you should use even more exclamation points, that was the best part. --CrzyJen (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That argument would be so good if she didn't work for the show. Not that using herself as a source is exactly by wikipedia guidelines, it is reliable, albeit against the rules. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't realise you worked for the show. While, indeed, it's not good practice to use yourself as the source, if it's accurate information you're adding to the article (which would be verifiable at a later date) that isn't spoilery, then it would obviously enhance the article overall.MultipleTom (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Herman Schultz is the shocker.Montana is just using the shockers out fit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shocker_%28comics%29#Shocker_I .--Lbrun12415 23:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venom[edit]

On EP 12 and 13 it was stated on the wb and spoilers.com that spiderman gets his back suit and on Ep 13 he fight eddie brok aka Venom.--Lbrun12415 23:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a link and I'll be more than happy to put it up. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0708/29/index.htm ,--Lbrun12415 03:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That link only confirms his appearances, not which episode. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"By last episode" means sometime before the season ends. It does not necessarily mean the final episode. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnyvinny2 (talk • contribs)

That is an assumption, which constitutes original research.--Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References to other Spider-Man continuums[edit]

I just noticed it, but during the 3 Symbiote Spider-Man episodes Symbiote Spider-Man's look changes from the Spider-Man 3 version to the mainstream version. Also... "Black is the new red and blue"... Black Cat says that to Symbiote Spider-Man in Spider-Man: Web of Shadows as well as episode 10 of Spectacular Spider-Man. Funny conicidence? I think not. 75.157.107.206 (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foswell, Tombstone and the Big Man[edit]

Just because Foswell was the Big Man in the comics doesn't mean anything at all, as nothing has indicated that Foswell is anything more than a reporter for the Bugle. The Big Man is clearly Tombstone; the credits even list him as such. Arguing that its anything otherwise when the series hasn't even hinted at it is original research.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tombstone does say something along the lines of "This Big Man, if he even exists..." which is quite confusing, but may point to the fact that Tombstone is just a figurehead for the actual Big Man. This is most likely not the case, but I'm throwing it out there. Michael Podgorski (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is purposely an air of doubt. Tombstone says, "The Big Man, who ever he may be..." and Foswell says, "If there is a Big Man out there, his name isn't Lincoln." The evidence points to Lincoln, but the show is purposely leaving it open to interpretation and it would qualify as original research to assume that Lincoln is the Big Man just as much as it would to assume Foswell is the Big Man. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me then why the credits list Big Man and Tombstone as the same person? Also, its not as if Wilson Fisk never denied being the Kingpin...--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using Fisk's denial and adapting it to this show is original research and the credits may just be a way of throwing us off. It what's we're supposed to believe. I'm not saying I'm right. I just saying there is discrepancy and we should not assume one way or the other. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tombstone has the same exact voice as the Big Man on the phone. Its the same actor (excluding the first episode of course). Unless you want to argue that it wasn't the Big Man on the phone to begin with. Also, arguing that the credits are trying to throw us off is original research as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting Tombstone has always been on the phone as the voice of the Big Man, but the orders still come from Foswell. He's the real Big Man (That's just my guess. I don't actually want to put that in the article) We have a fairly equal amount of sources denying it as we do confirming it. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spectacular Spider-Man episodes[edit]

Should the episode list be split into a different article considering that a second season has been confirmed? RC-0722 247.5/1 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. Someone with the time and will to do it should get on it. --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it. Just give me a few. RC-0722 247.5/1 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observations[edit]

The title of the series is The Spectacular Spider-man Animated Series, which makes it different from the comic book title and therefore makes the title of this article inacurate and its (TV series) clarification useless.

I know aunt May doesn't appear in the oppening credits as Peter, Jonah, Gwen, Mary Jane and Harry, but is she not credited as supporting cast?

The episodes can be kept here while it is a short list, but prventing it to grow would be a mistake. I won't be editing, thore were only some tips I thought you could use.--20-dude (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the proposal to move this article to The Spectacular Spider-Man Animated Series‎ was Not Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm just leaving a note here to explain my recent reversing the move to the title The Spectacular Spider-Man Animated Series‎. While the official website certainly has a graphic to the effect that "Animated Series" is a part of the title, most people who learn of the series will have the title The Spectacular Spider-Man put in front of them. As such, I think it's better to retain the parenthetical qualifier. --Sugarbutty 20:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website? Forget about that, have you actually watched the series? The title "The Spectacular Spider-Man Animated Series‎" is right there (!) in the title card. As such, I think the producers sort of know the title of their own series a little better, haha. It' be like calling the Ninja Turtles the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or not naming the Power Rangers article the... whatever they are called. That's not how wikipedia article titles work (besides, you also have to consider parenthetical qualifiers difficult searching the article by adding one more step) Revert your revert, please.--20-dude (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and as you can see here wikipedia (which looks clueless in contrast) is the only one just calling it "The Spectacular Spider-man" with a disambiguation parenthesis, and looks quite clueless in contrast.--20-dude (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel's website calls it The Spectacular Spider-Man. (Link). That's also how it appears in CW4Kids' online schedule and TiVo's programming guide.--Nohansen (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... like in between two humongus banners calling it The Spectacular Spider-man Animated Series, didn't you check your own link?

Same as in here and all the trailers. And even the freakin Toyline.

Same as the [www.CW4kids.com], which doesn't show "Animated Series" in the first logo, but does in the entry. Marvel does exactly what I propose, calling it TSSAS once an the top and then using the casual version each time the title is repeated in the article. But perhaps you're rght Wikipedia should get to rename whatever Wikipedia wants as long as their editors agree, after all whose opinion counts the mosts Wikipedis or the creators?--20-dude (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVILITY. And in the title of the article "Animated Series" is absent. I'm pretty certain that Marvel.com trumps all other .com's on this subject. Later in the article where they state when the show is going to premier, "Animated Series" is absent. You would think that when saying when a show will premier, that they would use the full title. "Animated Series" is absent from the TVguides as well. I do believe it is absent from the trailers as well. It is also absent from TVguide.com. Just because unoffical sites call it "The Spectacular Spider-Man: Animated Series" does not mean that Wikipedia should. We deal with facts and verifiability. Not popularity. Rau's Speak Page 02:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I missed the uncivility, failed to see it, sorry, relax, though, there is no bad blood)--20-dude (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CW4Kids' official press release on June 13 calls the series The Spectacular Spider-Man. You can read it at Comic Book Resources (Link) or Toonzone (Link).--Nohansen (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HAve we provided enough proof that it doesn't have Animated Series in the title? That it is simply an "Also Known As..". Rau's Speak Page 05:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have. But let me provide one more, just in case. From Superhero Hype! (Link), and I quote: "The Spectacular Spider-Man is the official title of the super hero's new animated series coming to the Kids' WB! on The CW..."--Nohansen (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry you'll realize you're wrong over time. I'm not saying nobody is calling it just "The Spectacular Spider-man", it is a fear statement and your POV is still logical to me. But read my comment again, I'm saying it is the official title, official as in it is the logo appearing in the series and all related merchandise (I have only seen one logo with Animated Series erased on the links you provided and the ones I researched), not as in Bugs Bunny is officially named Bugs or as in the bunny named Bugs. You se how in those cases of secondary sources (you do realize most reporters are not precisely good when taking names, don't you) is all about wording, but a printed logo being used over and over, and over the shorter title by original source is what matters. "Also Known As... The Spectacular Spider-man". Think of Animated Series as the last name, the thing that help us between the first and the current President of the US, you wouldn’t use (current President) when he already kinda decided to use Bush as his own disambiguation, who know what I mean? why using an artificial disambiguation when the creators already gave you the real deal? There is also the researchability (is that a word?) issue, any article without parenthesis is easier to get to.--20-dude (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the logo doesn't make it part of the official title. Outlaw Star's logo reads "Outlaw Star: Future Hero, Next Generation", after all. And you don't have to worry about how easy or difficult it is to reach this article: The Spectacular Spider-Man has a hatnote that points readers here, and The Spectacular Spider-Man Animated Series is a redirect.--Nohansen (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles series is "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles TMNT". That's not the name of the series or the article though. And I honestly have no idea what most of what you said means, but I'll try anyway. The current US President uses his full name as the article title. To my knowledge, all presidents use their names for article titles. And any reporter that is bad at taking names is a bad reporter. Bugs Bunny is his full name, why would his article be called different? And saying "you'll realize your wrong over time" is insulting, and therefore uncivil. Rau's Speak Page 23:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, "you'll realize your wrong over time", is just my personal pronostic, no less no more, just that. The nonsense I said was just an analogy about disambiguation. I know what those characters are publically called and that they are addressed correctly at Wikipedia. The point is that a) we shouldn't be the bad reporters that are bad at taking names and b) I could understand not mentioning "Animated Series" but not when we're going to replace it with (TV series), the producers already choose their own disambiguation (in another analogy, just as George Bush Senior chosed to "disambiguate" himself from his son by not naming him also Herbert like himself). Wikipedia is using "(TV series)" to disambiguate the show from the comic book title, the producers are using "Animated Series", let's suppose A.S. is not part of the title... it is still the oficial disambiguation the producers chose, therefore, we most use it istead of making one up. We most be good repoters getting the names, last names and oficial disambiguations right.--20-dude (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can there be an official disambiguation? Isn't it entirely up to the writer how it is dignified as itself and not as another? A disambiguation is simply a distinction of one thing from another. Names are different. The disambiguation between the GWBushes are defined not by their middle names but by one being Senior and the other being Junior. My father and his father were disambiguated by this. Rau's Speak Page 08:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're ALSO (not instead) disambiguated by Sr. and Jr. You wrote: Isn't it entirely up to the writer how it is dignified as itself and not as another?. Exactly. And yes, in this case (TSSAS) there IS an official disambiguation. TSSAS is how the producers chosed to dignified the series as itself... Don't take me wrong, if there was no "(TV series)" disambiguation, I probabbly wouldn't be complaining (after all, it is kind of a long thing to write). I consider inventing with parenthesis OK as long as there is no disambiguation already created by the author. Ps: I'm not familiar, but in the case of the ninja turtles, being already oter items sharing the title and TMNT being the disambiguation used by the producers, I'd stick with it instead of inventing one. --20-dude (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You took what I said out of context. The writer I was referring to was us. The Wikipedian's that are editing. You seemed to ignore the first thing I wrote in my reply. Can there be an official disambiguation? I say that there can't be. I provide my rational above. Rau's Speak Page 22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete cast listing?[edit]

Do we really need to have the entire cast listed on this page? It's a bit too long, and it's completely unnecessary since the cast is documented on the characters page anyway. Plus most animated series' that I've looked up don't have a similar listing. I am going to delete it unless someone can voice a significant objection. The full crew list is also somewhat questionable Jbetteridge (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to keep it. Not if it is also on the characters page. Rau's Speak Page 22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good suggestion but someone needs to check that all the character pages have been updated to include a SSM reference. GoonersWCCF (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a page devoted to SSM characters, so that shouldn't be necessary. Jbetteridge (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnage[edit]

There has been no reference to Carnage being lined up for the show so could all those people who keep adding a reference to the character please stop doing so unless they have some sort of citation. GoonersWCCF (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has undone the official close of the move discussion[edit]

Per this edit, User:Rau_J removed my close of the official move discussion. If you accept his action, then you guys are on your own regarding the move. It has already been delisted from WP:Requested moves per my close. Move discussions that have been running more than five days can be closed by any administrator. I don't understand his claim that the discussion 'is still ongoing' since it was opened on June 14 and the last comment was on June 20, i.e. five days ago. EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repoened it because I felt that we were still discussing the matter. Five days is not a long time, not long enough for a discussion to become dead. There may be outside factors preventing others from commenting. I feel that we should come to a consensus, whether it has a result or consensus is to agree to disagree. If other editors do not feel the same way, then I apologize. Rau's Speak Page 06:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British release date[edit]

Does anyone know when this series is coming out in Britain? Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Bottomlivefan95[reply]

Unfortunately there isn't any information on this at the moment. I'm also from the UK so I've been keeping an eye out. GoonersWCCF (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, cheers for replying. Hardly anyone replies to my comments! Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've enjoyed this so far & I wish it was released in the UK on screen & on DVD

The show has been broadcast on NickToons and is now available on iTunes in the UK. As yet there is no DVD release information. GoonersWCCF (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season Two[edit]

Please note that the characters are listed in a particular order due to the citations used i.e. characters referred to in a citation are grouped together. GoonersWCCF (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britain being misssed out[edit]

Is the series even going to come to britain? Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameos[edit]

Jiam123 added a reference to Stan Lee appearing in the series and I've moved it to the character page. If anyone can take pictures of the other cameos then that would be nice. GoonersWCCF (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD[edit]

Do not add Disney XD until the show officially ars on that channel Matthew Cantrell (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production Company?[edit]

is this done by Marvel Animation?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3[edit]

Hey Guys I found a leaked on season 3.

1. Prey and Predator

2. Choice

3. Rivalry

4. Past vs. Future

5. Velocity

6. Open Season

7. Hidden Empire

8. Swindle

9. H2o

10. Trechary

11. Wolf Pack

12. Birds of Prey

13. The Last Flight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.3.206 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


When is season 3 oing to start?
Your source doesn't appear to have any concrete information especially with Greg Weisman having only mentioned the appearance of Scorpion and Hobgoblin. Checking the AskGreg website should confirm for anyone that no information has been leaked. Additionally season 3 has not been commissioned and is not in production so there is no broadcast start date. At the earliest a new season would start late 2010. GoonersWCCF (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Facts[edit]

Please ensure that any information regarding Season 3 has a solid reference before adding it. As of present there has been no mention of Carnage appearing in a new season, there is no confirmation of a 3rd season. The idea that a 3rd season would be ready by the start of 2010 is also ludicrous because it would take at least a year from the start of production before a single episode is ready to air. GoonersWCCF (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the Series[edit]

The references to other Marvel characters is relevant to the article under the "Future" heading given that it has been specifically mentioned by the producers of the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoonersWCCF (talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, Hobgoblin and Scorpion are still the ONLY characters who have been 100% confirmed for season three. Even if Greg Weisman has expressed the possibility of other characters appearing, at this point in time, the possibility of anyone beyond Hobgoblin and Scorpion actually appearing is little more than speculation which this page really shouldn't dwell on. For now, they should remain the only two mentioned. Jbetteridge (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that production of season 3 has not been commissioned the presence of Hobgoblin and Scorpion is also speculation with that reasoning. Greg Weisman has story arcs in mind for those two characters just as he does about the other Marvel characters. He has speculated about characters like Johnny Storm in the past but at the Comic Con panel he specifically mentioned having story arcs in mind for that character. It should also be noted that the section is now about the future of the show and not just about season 3. GoonersWCCF (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main Characters[edit]

It can be argued that Eddie Brock, Tombstone and Doctor Octopus are main characters in this series given their regular appearance and significant story arcs but given that all characters have more detailed biographies on the main character/villain pages I think that those on this front page should be limited. A natural choice for the brief summaries are those characters that appear in the title credits. If you don't agree then please suggest a balanced way to select the shortlist. GoonersWCCF (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that what I have suggested is effectively what has been agreed on the discussion page for the main characters. In regard to the main character and villain pages, should characters be ordered by significance or perhaps total appearances or first appearance? GoonersWCCF (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3[edit]

There is no source saying Weisman has canceled the show. There is no source PERIOD saying the show has been canceled. If you want it in, HAVE A SOURCE! Thank you. Anakinjmt (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one? dstumme (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Spectacular Spider-Man (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Spectacular Spider-Man (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Spectacular Spider-Man (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3 and then some[edit]

I stumbled across a webpage (http://remarkage.blogspot.cl/2014/07/season-3.html) dedicated to collecting all known info on what would've occurred in season 3 and beyond. All the information is properly sourced, and I believe that it is valuable enough for inclusion, as it helps the reader peer into the thought process of the show runners. And, personally, it's all very interesting. --98.115.238.96 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular Spider-man movie (2019)[edit]

Can this page get a WP:DISAMBIG to the upcoming featurette starring Dylan O'Brien?69.146.141.226 (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No such film is happening and even if it was this article should only have a link when an article is created for the film.★Trekker (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Spectacular_Spider-Man_(TV_series)&oldid=1210690832"