Jump to content

Talk:Spider-Man 3

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Punkpop101 (talk | contribs) at 06:09, 7 May 2007 (→‎Answer please ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFilm B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. May 2005 to August 2006
  2. September 2006 to October 2006
  3. November 2006 to December 2006
  4. January 2007 to March 2007
  5. April 2007

Please read: Message to new editors

As with any other article on Wikipedia, Spider-Man 3 should have a high standard of attribution. When you include new information about the film, the information needs to be verifiable by other editors. To do this, include where you got the information from by citing accordingly. (My recommendation is to use the Cite news or the Cite web template for citing your source.) Also, the citation must be an attributable source. Ideally, the best information comes from those who are from the studio and not anonymous — the director, the producers, the screenwriters, the cast, and so forth. Sources of information that do not count as reliable sources include blogs, scooper reports, forums, etc. If you are unsure about whether or not to include certain information, just ask about it on the talk page, and we will help you determine if it's worthy of inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) -


Relevant info

Citations

  • ""Spider-Man 3" Web ticket sales top predecessor". Reuters. 2007-04-23. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Single long paragraph about the VFX used to create Sandman.
Talks about how the film was originally meant to be about Peter/Mary Jane/Harry and the new character Sandman. Also talks about hesitation to introduce Gwen Stacy. Mentions how Arad convinced Raimi to put in Venom, but we have that covered already.
Article about the preparation that Franco did for his action scenes.
Some analysis about the lead-up to the film's release. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early reviews

Early, positive review of Spider-Man 3.

*Richard Roeper (2007-05-02). "Spidey spins shaky web". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2007-05-04. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - Definitely need to include Richard Roeper when we are done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

*"Boffo Asian opening for 'Spider-Man 3'". MSNBC. May 1, 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - Spider-Man 3 breaks opening day records in the Asian market (includes Hong Kong, South Korea and others).

Wanted to include this, but wasn't sure if this was too promotional and trivial? Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. I'm not sure. If it's breaking records, then I say we can include as part of the "impact" of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've included the information. Considering that this film will likely break a lot of box office records in the US and abroad, it might be relevant to include all the preliminary factors that drove Spider-Man 3 toward the top. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section

Since the film is now in the public scope, the Synopsis section can be expanded into a Plot section. To best write the plot summary for this section, please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot, which provides guidelines established by consensus. For example, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot." Please be succinct whenever possible, because film articles' focuses should be on real-world context and not a textual substitution for watching the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

Just remember, the people in the United States haven't seen the movie yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.173 (talk • contribs) 10:47, May 1, 2007 (UTC)

Then follow us and don't read the page (or atleast the plot section) until after May 4.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome job on the Plot section guys! I read it like an idiot, and I hate myself now.--GTAGeek123 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been averting my eyes from that section. I'm focusing on making sure nothing erroneous is placed in the rest of the article, like Production and so forth. I'll worry about tidying up the Plot section after I see the film myself. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Take it from me, I read it and I regret it totally. --GTAGeek123 00:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job - Not going to read it then till friday :-p --81.159.70.223 19:06, 2 May 2007 (GMT)

Yeah, that's smart. I read it too cause I thought I would enjoy the movie more if I was knowing whats going on better. I also regret it. Somehow the person that wrote it manages to make it sound horrible and yet still makes it stick in your head at the same time.*Sigh... Link's Awakening 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, but hey, I'd like to suggest that we conclude the discussion here. Per guidelines, the talk page of an article is supposed to be for discussing how to improve the article. You could probably find a lot of threads for general discussion at IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to post this, but that's not exactly how Venom / the symbiote is defeated.

Spider-Man 4

I think a Spider-Man 4 page should be made, or at least considered. Yahho! Movies said that there would be one through an interview with someone affiliated with the movie. Yahoo! Movies also rarely posts rumors, so this could mean something. I know this is only one source, but a Spider-Man 4 page should at least be considered if not created. If you want proof of this, go to Yahoo! Movies, go to Upcoming Films, and then click on Greg's Previews, and the movie should be listed there, or it should be one of the main headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.184 (talk • contribs) 21:38, May 1, 2007 (UTC)

(MULTIPLE EDIT CONFLICTS)As we have discussed previously in edit summaries, and here in Talk, WP:CRYSTAL is in effect. Until we have some real material to work with, such as signings of contracts, or public announcements of negotiations and so on by interested parties, all else is probably rumor. we don't deal in that. ThuranX 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the director and the cast have yet to renew their contract for a fourth film, it would be too soon to create a film article for a film that may not even take place. Ideally, a film article should be created when a director, the cast, and a production start date are established. What we've heard about Spider-Man 4 is nowhere near that stage. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It was just a thought. Oh, I know I don't have an account, but I have a right to edit. You don't need to say that this statement is unsigned every time I make an entry. Besides, anyone can edit Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.184 (talk • contribs) 21:46, May 1, 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to type four tildes (~) after a comment so you can leave your signature and the date that you wrote it. That way, we know who said the comment, and when. Give it a try. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Spider-Man 4 page does sound like a good idea. In the page, there could be information on what cast members and people involved in the first 3 have said about future films, since after all future Spider-Man films have been confirmed. GTAGeek123 03:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does NOT sound like a good idea. It's Crystal ball ... ing (awkward, I know...). Any comments about a sequel, made during the promotional period of this film, should be included in THIS article, in a Sequel section. Should a movie fail to generate a sequel, despite promotional interview comments, we simply state 'Sequel - Although durig promotional interviews, Star X, starlet Y, and Producer's gofer C said A,(cite 1)B,(cite 2) and 3(cite 3) about a sequel, None has been made.' We don't need a page for something that would not be out till 2010. Wait and be patient. We are NOT a rumor mill, and should not strive for it. It's nearly inevitable that after 3 (successful, I hope) films, the stars and the public, and the critics, and reviewers, will talk about a sequel. I've heard some great rumors already about the vulture and lizard, but I'm not looking to add them. Once we see action towards a sequel, undertaken by persons in the positions to make such actions, we can report it. Finally, there's been NO 'confirmation' of future sequels. We have seen statements of INTENT. 'We want to make 6 films' type stuff. We have not seen 'We have inked a 6 picture deal' or 'we have just inked a contract for three more installments'. Confirmation is contracts and deliberate public statements by say, the board, and intent is 'I'd love to do seven more installments as Aunt May's downstairs neighbor, cause I need to pay the rent'. This distinction is hard to keep in mind, in light of the sheer volume of rumoring out there, but we should. ThuranX 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, just like the previous editors have stated. If you really think that just because a studio says "we are going to make a movie" that we should created a page for that movie, because they obviously cannot be wrong..then I beg you to read Canceled Superman films. This article is the epitome of proof that just because a studio says they are going to make a movie, that it doesn't really mean that it WILL happen. No production start date (and that means more than just "late 2009", because that's nothing more than saying "yeah, I'd like to have John Glover play so-n-so". It's a wish, not a contract) should be a clear indication that nothing is set in stone, and an article shouldn't be created based on hearsay.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ThuranX and Bignole are right. There's been many projects that got stuck or are still stuck in development hell. Batman Triumphant, Battle Angel, Mortal Kombat: Devastation, Ender's Game, Captain America, Clash of the Titans, The Giver, Hot Wheels, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Shazam!, et cetera. Three films that got articles created but ran into the same wall of development hell are Halo and The Hobbit. The sequel to Superman Returns is similarly delayed, with the director doing another project first. Usually, and I do mean usually, production will take place when there is a director, a cast, and a production start date. Sometimes even with this set up, factors interfere and put the project back in development hell. With Spider-Man 4, it's way too premature to determine if a film will even be made, especially based on the lack of contracts with anyone that's been involved with the trilogy. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yall do have a pointGTAGeek123 21:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes

With 47 reviews, it seems appropriate to include the rating now. If anyone wants to write out some critical commentary for the film to go in the "Critical reaction" subsection, that would be greatly appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the "PG-13" rating into the "Critical Reaction" subsection. I hope you all dont mind... -GTAGeek123 22:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we covered this already. To include only the US rating is biased toward the US, and the English Wikipedia is not American-focused. And if we include all the film ratings from all the countries without any encyclopedic reasoning, then it's indiscriminate information. There's nothing notable about the rating, which has been unchanged throughout the film series. Would you mind removing your change? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 3, International Poster.jpg isn't an official movie poster

Image:Spider-Man_3,_International_Poster.jpg - This isn't an official movie poster. It doesn't have production information or studio logos on the bottom. I've never seen poster anywhere other than as promotional art and a backdrop for interviews.

Image:Spider-Man_3_theatrical_poster.jpg - This is an official theatrical poster that's used everywhere. Please use this poster in the infobox, or find another one with production information or studio logos on it.

ConsoleZ 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed fair use images. Alientraveller 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the solution: Imp Awards. It has the information that the current image lacks. It has the production information and studio logos on it. If this isn't acceptable, I don't know what is. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I uploaded the newer version with the production info on it. Regardless of whether it stays or goes, at least it has satisfied one portion of the argument.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also applied a tag so that an Admin will come and delete the old image that doesn't have anything but the title card on it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SWEET!

ConsoleZ 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "newer version", I meant the one that Erik found with the prod. info on it...just if there was any uncertainty about what I was referring to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing credits

Ok, I have to assume that IMDb has listed the credits from the film. For the writing credits, these are shown:

Sam Raimi (screenplay) &
Ivan Raimi (screenplay) and
Alvin Sargent (screenplay)

Sam Raimi story &
Ivan Raimi screen story

Stan Lee (Marvel comic book) and
Steve Ditko (Marvel comic book)

How can we best display these writing credits on the Infobox Film template without taking up so much space? Any ideas? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ignore the "story" part, since it's still the Raimi brothers, and just have Lee and Ditko listed as "characters".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me, as "screenplay" would be the more overall term. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect plot line

Template:Spoilers When spidey throws the Pumkin Bomb and kills Eddie, who is trying to save Venom. Venom is already a independent creature. And venom DOES die in the xplosion, at least for the plotline. Spidey does NOT fight Venom after Eddie's death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vissermatt (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I already removed that erroneous inserted plot a while ago. I don't see it now. Berserkerz Crit 16:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Importance Scale

I think we should rate this article on the Importance scale. What do you all think? -GTAGeek123 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually established by an appropriate wikiproject. I suggest posting to th film and comics wikiprojects and asking for such. ThuranX 03:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Error

UNder the marketing section, it is said

"Sideshow Collectibles produced collectibles, which Medicom Toy Corporation distributed.[57]"

the link clearly says that Sideshow is distributing Medicom product. The article has it backwards.

Casval 07:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

To let people know, I removed the "Venom"s and "Sandman"s because they really weren't used in the film. "Venom", just like "New Goblin" was something in the credits, and not something that either of the characters were actually called. Marko didn't go by "Sandman", and Peter never called him that either, plus Jameson never ran stories about the character. It seems best to just refer to them by the names they use in the film, instead of ones tacked on the credits, even though we know that is who they are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the movie Sandman is refered to as such. It happens in the big climax, something like "The sandman has thwarted all attempts by the police..." But you are right about venom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.198.72.75 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
My point is that Sandman was only mentioned by that newscaster, and never in like the Bugle office with Jameson thinking of names, or newspapers going out with his name. That was something thrown in at the last second for the film's climax. Marko, in that fictional reality, wasn't even aware of the name in the extent that it had just been given to him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sandman should remain Sandman but agree with the change from Venom to Brock. Mykll42 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would only have any depth if you include the part that says the newsbroadcaster calls him Sandman. Any use of the name before the construction site fight would be inaccurate. It would be like going back to the plot of Spider-Man 1 and saying that the carjacker didn't kill Uncle Ben. Yes, we know he didn't now, but we didn't then and articles shouldn't retcon themselves. Or, I saw someone change the name from "carjacker" to "Denise Carradine". That was name he was given in Part 3, but not in Part 1. We aren't about retconning continuity in the article plots, that's for the film makers to do. Including the bit about the newscaster referring to Marko as Sandman is extraneous since no one else, other than someone watching tv, actually heard the name in the film. I could see adding it in the "cast" section, but not the plot. It doesn't add anything to the plot itself, just like why the info about Gwen isn't there, because her presence in the film is so limit. She barely registered as any type of wall in the Peter/MJ relationship that it isn't worth the space to mention her.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least it should be mentioned that both these character are based on existing concepts.

perfectblue 11:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of reviews to integrate

This is the review page from Yahoo! Movies, including all of the major film reviewers across the country. The current average grade is a B-. Most feel the movie was packed with too many story lines, while the main characters were underdeveloped. A couple of the reviews are downright scathing...  Veracious Rey  talk  02:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations about music

About the musical score. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the accompanying soundtrack. I'll place this on the soundtrack article as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Goblin or Hobgoblin?

I've seen on some websites and on the tv show The Soup, that Harry was in fact the Hobgoblin, not the New Goblin. Can anyone cite where he was the New Goblin?

John 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the ending credits of the actual film. Or the citation that we have in the article already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I never thought to look. Ha And I never pay attention to the ending credits. John 21:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane information

I believe we should include more information about MJ in the plot line, as the plot mentions nothing about MJ being dropped from Broadway, the crane accident that Spider-Man saved Gwen from, or the 'special kiss' between Spider-Man and Gwen. Any objections? I would add this in but I wanted to see if anyone else agreed first. Dannpm 22:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's mostly extraneous details. The entire Gwen arc is so small that it's barely noticeble in the film itself. Here being dropped doesn't play on the main events of the story, because she never tells Peter. Peter's ego and disregard for anything that happens to her period is what pushes her to Harry (which we have in the plot). Brevity is the key for plots. Wiki isn't a substitution for watching the film, and this film has so many minor storylines going on that it would just inflate the plot too much to include such miniscule detail about each character. This is also where there isn't mention of Marko's dying daughter. It's only shown in passing at the beginning, and quickly mentioned at the very end of the film, only to never actually be resolved. It could be something that could be added to the production section, where we have information that discusses how they wanted Marko to be more of a sympathetic villain. We could provide info that shows what they did to accomplish it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the kiss that Spidey and Gwen had, did ruin and inevitably cancel the proposal. John 22:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point about brevity and not being a substitution I was making. The plot reflects that Peter's attitude pushes Mary Jane toward Harry, and we only say that he makes a plan to marry her, not that he actually tries. What happens to disrupt his attempt specifically should be left for the reader to actually go watch the movie and find out. It's a minor detail that was just a compounding event in the separation of the two characters. There's also the part where she comes to him to give her support and he blows up at her, and the fact that he's trying to constantly compare his Spider-Man life to her Broadway career.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Change

I had to add stuff to the plot because there was a gap in the time line, and events that were completely seperate, were combined. It's a bit over the word count - 750 - but that's not amazingly bad compared to innacurate information (it was in the high 600s before). I added Mary Jane breaking up with Peter (very important!), context to Peter hitting MJ, and Peter discovering that Harry was the goblin. I also fixed some grammar and removed some extras that weren't needed.danielfolsom 04:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's extraneous information. Read why in the section above. We've already discussed that brevity is the key. We don't need details, because Wiki isn't a substitution for watching the film. First, MJ breaking up with Peter isn't important, because it was only meant to lure Peter to Harry. We covered that, let people go watch the movie and see how Harry lured Peter to him. The plot as it is is not inaccurate, it's basic plot points. Peter didn't hit MJ, he threw her to the ground. If he'd hit her I think she would have been in actual pain considering his super strength.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of key details - there was an innacuracy that had to be fixeddanielfolsom 04:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain what is inaccurate?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is inaccurate. Just because it doesn't contain the level of detail that you want doesn't make it inaccurate. It makes it to the point, basic information. That is what the plot is supposed to be. We don't need to know that Capt. Stacy is Gwen's father, that's covered in the CAST section. We don't need to know why they are honoring Spider-Man, only that they are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<blickquote>

I can try - but my internet connection is going painfully slow, so hopefully I can actually save this page. Ok, I'm just going to give one quick example, cause honestly, again, I'm not about to do all this and find out my things frozen up.

The black suit transforms Peter's personality, making him more violent and spiteful, evidenced by his seemingly lethal attack on Marko after a battle in a subway tunnel. He also exposes a new photographer at the Daily Bugle, Eddie Brock, Jr., as a fraud while stealing the woman he idolizes, Gwen Stacy. This shift in his personality begins to alienate Mary Jane, and she finds solace in Harry Osborn. Harry soon recovers from his amnesia and lures Peter to his mansion to kill him. In the end, Peter throws a pumpkin bomb at him, which explodes and scars Harry's face.

Peter alienated MJ and she broke up with him before he dated Gwen. You said that it couldn't be mentioned that harry broke them up - but that's a key element to the plot, as it sets up Peter's major change (because of that he attacks harry so viciously, he also wouldn't have hit mary jane if it wasn't for that, since he wouldn't have been at the restaurant, then he wouldn't have let go of the costume ...

And what you point out is 2 words in parenthesis - just take that out then ... oh and could you give me a few minutes to reply now - the edit conflict really screwed me updanielfolsom 05:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was Harry that made MJ break up with Peter, which the plot states "Harry lures Peter to the mansion to kill him". You are making it out like MJ did it on her own accord and Peter acted afterward. THAT is inaccurate. Also, he shoved MJ, he didn't hit her, and it was an accident because he didn't see her. We address that he accidentally shoves her and that causes him to get rid of the costume. The circumstances of WHY he is in the Jazz bar can be seen on the screen. Plots should be summaries, not details for details. We aren't supposed to be ruining movies by giving away every detail.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - first I repeat "Gwen's father" and then I say shove instead of hit - what kind of fucking monster am I!!? And no - MJ did do it on her own accord - after she runs off from Harry and Harry regains his memory - he attacks her in the scene where she goes to pick up the phone (Peter's on the answering machine), and he says something along the lines of, 'If you want peter to live then you'll do what I say' - then while Peter is in his apartment he gets a phone call and MJ wants to meet with him - so he goes to the bridge and MJ tries to break up with him. He's stubbourn though, and she lies that she is dating someone. She walks away, glaring at harry, who is behind a tree.danielfolsom 05:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She went to hang out with Harry on her own accord, but she did not break up with Peter on her own accord, that was Harry's doing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just fucking explained it - she broke up with him - yes harry told her to, but she still did it!danielfolsom 05:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "extraneous" is hard? It's irrelevant to the basic plot point, which that HARRY lures Peter to him. We don't need to explain HOW he does it, because that is something for people to find out when they go see the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the entire film, you add a detailed scene by scene of the Peter and MJ's fight, to Harry gaining his memory back, to MJ breaking up with Peter, to Peter taking Gwen out on a date. The whole purpose of the plot is to SUMMARIZE the film, and you just laid out about 20 minutes of film just because YOU think it is important. What about the other "important" parts. Detailing Peter and Brock's vie for the staff job? It's extraneous information that is best left to the movie goers to find out for themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - because + or - 60 words = 20 minutes. The point is - your version is wrong plot wise - and I did not add Harry gaining his memmory back - that was there before, nor did i add the fight - however I have realized how I can reduce that section.danielfolsom 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When it can be reduced to be less descriptive for the principle of "not a substitution" then yes it is a lot of words. You can summarize that Harry manipulates MJ into breaking up with Peter, which causes Peter to go after Harry. The scene in the Jazz restaurant in irrelevant beyound Peter shoving MJ. It's minute.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DanielFolsom, Looking at your edit summaries, and your increasingly hostile replies here, I'd like to suggest that you take a break from this article. You're falling over the line into incivility. Your sarcasms aren't helping. Bignole has been quite clear as to why each and every scene in the film does not require a sentence in the summary.wwe aren't a substitute for seeing the film, nad we shouldn't be so detailed as to need the entire article to have a spoiler. Please leave the summary in the shorter form, and stop editing in such an incivil manner. Thank you. ThuranX 06:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to temporarily ignore that based on talk convos - however the hostility was probably because i couldn't actually do anything cause my internet was going on and off randomly ... frustrating. I agree about the jazz thing - we shoud reduce that - i'm not really sure how to do the first thing though - you should probably take that.danielfolsom 06:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This " but then rushes off for loyalty to Peter" makes no sense without knowing why (i.e. that they kissed and she felt guilty and ran away). It can easily go.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easily done :-D - it's looking good to me so far (for the most part). The first sentence of the last paragraph looks kind of weird - probably my fault - I think the parenthesis I added kidna screwed it up - do you think we should just rework it -or just take out the fact that his face is scarred completely?danielfolsom 06:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. - total (and I mean from the very first version) we've reduced this by 31 words (it's now at 670) - AMAZINGNESS :-D!!!danielfolsom 06:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with these segments:

  • (a lie), leaving Peter heartbroken. - not that important. It's obviously a lie, because you established that Harry forced her to do it. Characterizing Peter's emotions is kind of OR.
  • Harry implies that Mary Jane is aware he is the Green Goblin, and Peter attacks him - First, he isn't the GG, and second you can just sum it up to say Peter fights him. He was going to anyway since he has the black suit on.
  • Peter, influenced by the symbiote, tells Harry that his dad was embarrassed by him before turning to leave - This is definitely some minute detail.
  • Now Peter has established an entirely different personality, more self confident than before - It's OR because you are expressing your opinion that it's an entirely new personality. It's not that necessary either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section 1: I agree with you on the 'a lie' part - but heartbroken I think is ok - I mean, the idea is she is the love of her life, and he was going to marry her, and he was sobbing when she left ... idk I just fail to see the problem
Section 2: But he is the green goblin - or maybe I'm just combining the comics and the movie - i know in the comics that there is the first green goblin (norman), second (harry), and then the hobgoblin (random guy) ... and I assumed it was the same here. Either way though - as I remember it, the dialogue is something like, "She doesn't know who you are" "She knows everything about me Pete" - so idk. and with the attack thing - it was obvious that he was going to attack - even without the black suit when an evil villian dates love of hereo's life - bad things happen, but I would say that him saying that set him off.
Section 3: It was minute - but it was also a huge example of how the symbiote affected Peter - but since I took out the not about harry's face being scarred- that can just be removed.danielfolsom 06:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section 4: - meh - I just moved that comment, didn't even write it - I'm more than hpapy to take that out.danielfolsom 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sect 1 - My problem is that you are interpreting his emotions. That constitutes original research. Maybe someone else would see it as just "sad" but not "heartbroken".
Sect 2 - In the comics he's GG, but in the film he's just Harry (but the credits list him as New Goblin). When it came to the film's plot, I chose to use only the names that they went by in the film, but the credits. Harry never calls himself, nor does anyone call him, New Goblin. Eddie never calls himself Venom, and the only person to say "Sandman" is a news broadcaster at the very end of the film. Even though all these names are in the ending credits.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1 - ok I gotcha - picky picky!!! :-D - how bout we just say crying (although that kinda seems ilke an insult ...)
2 - oh ok, although it does seemed like it's implied with the dialogue ... I mean should we just say supervillian?danielfolsom 06:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1 - how about "leaving Peter visibly upset" ?
2 - he isn't a super villain, he's just confused. First he hates Peter, then he doesn't (amnesia), then he does, then he doesn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that sounds great for the first one - and I already saw (and loved) what you did with the second one, great thinking!danielfolsom 07:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Evidence on Sequels

There is no evidence yet prooving that there will be any sequels, so that part of the article should be removed until further notice.70.83.177.152 12:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Kid from Queens[reply]

That's why we don't have any real information in the section, and have a link tell you to go to another page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, but there have been comments by Sam Raimi, Kirsten Dunst, and Tobey Maguire, that if a good story was presented to them(that would make them alot of money), that they would easily go for a Spider-Man 4. I saw it on a TV Guide special recently. :D -GTAGeek123 14:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments do not equal fact. When the studio begins preliminary production, then we'll start a page.  Veracious Rey  talk  20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I'd like to add a section on trivia for the bottom of the entry. Within the trivia section I'd think one prime subject for conversation is Bruce Campbell, childhood friend of Sam Rami, playing his 3rd role in the series (the friendly French maitre d’). The role of Hoffman being played by Sam Rami's brother. And anything other pertinant trivia I know is out there. If you have a great tid-bit for the trivia section could you add it here and once we get a few entries I can write up a section. Thanks.

Please read WP:AVTRIV. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on Bignole's succinct response, trivia sections are usually frowned upon for quality film articles. There are several reasons listed at the link that Bignole provided, but I'll explain them here as well. Trivia sections are usually made up of disconnected facts that would be better integrated into the article itself. For example, the section may say, "Topher Grace gained 24 pounds of muscle for the role." It's not very encyclopedic when it stands alone, but when it is embedded into the article (look under Casting), the information works better in showing how the actors prepared for their roles. It's too "easy" to drop an interesting tidbit into a trivia section. Some call it "lazy editing", but I think part of the reason why the trivia sections have been prominent in the past is that there is not usually a great deal of stewardship for future film articles, which may have led to the impression that trivia sections are appropriate. If you find any information that is relevant to the film and could possibly be included in an encyclopedic manner, feel free to integrate it into the respective portion of the article with citation. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Trivia section sounds like an awesome idea. Almost all movie articles have a Trivia section. -GTAGeek123 21:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only those that don't have a status. No FA articles have a trivia section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A trivia section is a bad idea - and is almost always frowned upon - please see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles - which is a Wikipedia guideline.danielfolsom 23:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth voice against trivia sections, per WP:AVTRIV. ThuranX 03:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer please ?

I 've seen the movie, and i liked it but i was left with a question ?What happened to Peter and Mary Jane in the end ? Why aren't they getting engaged or anything? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punkpop101 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spider-Man_3&oldid=128855308"