Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man (film)

budget?

I think on the budget the most official word of mouth is that the film is a 220 budget movie. Even IMDb says it by placing (estimate) on there which I think is a wise thing to say. Perhaps we can place that there along with using quote marks on the budget as well...and then explain ourselves with a note and if there is another source that says something else than the particular source we are free to elaborate that on the note section as well. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As the adage goes, "It's better to say nothing and be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it." IMDB is quoting an unreliable source and that's fine for them but we should be better than that. We already identify that source in the article text there's no need to further display it in an infobox until we can find reliable confirmation. According to the Hollywood Reporter the budget was originally $80Milion [1] and a recent Guardian article (Don't have link handy) put the current estimate at $160 Million. both of which are more reliable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should note these sources though and all the explanations for the budget. As for the infobox I am not sure what to do. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Stuart here. All budgets are "estimates", because the studio does not provide nickel and dime level of details on how much money they spent. IMDb is not reliable in anyway, and if our most reliable sources are saying that it is something different then we go with them until either they change their figures, or a more reliable source states otherwise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This I already have figured out and agreed with...I hid the budget for those exact reasons because I felt the same way. Even still if there is more sources on budget than the one we had covered in the filming section I think a note might need to be in order on the sources statements on the budget. That still doesn't help with the infobox though. :/ Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus Bignole I already know about sources saying it differently..and was never going to use IMDb as a source. I personally want to find all these reliable sources and explain what the sources say. But I don't find it TOP importance to be totally concerned about adding it...just something that I think we might need to do. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

plot

I just watched the movie in Austria, where it was released today and the plot is severely wrong in several places. Pheldagriff (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please by all mean fix it then. It's still there it's just hidden for now. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I just signed up for wiki today to make this remark. I haven't figured out how to actually do edits and I'm not really confident enough in my memory to get it all right. Pheldagriff (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You are doing it right so far on just editing your discussion.;) But yeah I put it on the premise so far because of the concern of it's inaccuracy. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary inconsistencies

Having just seen this film (Europe), the plot summary seems to conflict with several details I saw depicted, particularly in the finale. Now, I am hesitating changing the summary because there's so many differences I can only believe that the version premiered in Japan had a rather different set of events.

For example, Ratha seems to have vanished after the bridge scene. I never saw him get killed off by the Lizard, as stated in the article. Peter discovered the Lizard's lab in the sewers under the city, not at Oscorp. Gwen is not subjugated by the Lizard - he spares her, and she gets the antidote to her father, who ultimately helps Peter fight the Lizard, having discovered his identity quite a while earlier. Peter never injects the Lizard with the antidote, he just disperses it with the Ganali Device. Gwen does not decice that she does not want to be with Peter again - rather, her father makes Peter promise not to see her so she does not face the same danger he does. And finally, Peter never finds the thug that killed his uncle, and while a mysterious figure appears in Connors' cell, he never reveals himself to be Osborn and leaves after a few cryptic remarks about Peter's father. 84.114.211.159 (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is subject to many changes when it comes to film plot that might not be right. That being said there is too many problems with that section that I couldn't let stay visible. There is also no deadline policy on Wikipedia so a plot can be absent before it's even released. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence in 'Critical reception' section

Fairly often, we will see the critical response section open with a statement saying that the film received "Generally positive" or "Generally negative" or "Mixed or average" or some combination of the above. Just as often, particularly in the cases of films that aren't clear cut one way or another (let's say scores from 30 to 79 on Rotten Tomatoes for the sake of argument), the verbiage gets changed to be more positive or negative depending on the view of the editor. Aside from culturally recognized films, either for critical success or failure, I've never seen this 'summary' sentence cited, and it sometimes does not reflect the conclusion a reasonable person would come to reading the reviews. In short, I think a lead sentence that makes a clear statement regarding the quality of the critical reception is [[2]], and thus inappropriate. I feel leading with the Rotten Tomatoes summary and consensus, along with Metacritic and it's summary, gives the reader an excellent introduction to the section, and leads into samples from a group of reviews. Keep in mind, we don't generally start the box office section with 'the film performed well' or 'the film bombed at the box office' unless there is extreme, verifiable cultural significance there. In fact, I've also been removing unqualified statements like those as well.

I make no judgements regarding the quality of this film, but I have removed the sentence in question and have had reverts. I've done this on many other articles, had one or two discussions, but this seems as good a time as any to come to a clear consensus. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't use them, I prefer to allow the percentages to speak for themselves. We are not qualified to try and apply a generalization to research data. We should be there only to report what we can show. There should be an equal number of positive and negative reviews for a film, and that RT percentage indicator should be enough for a reader to make their own conclusions. I especially do not like seeing "it was critically acclaimed". RT reports on average 150 reviews for a film. That is by no means all of the professional, or even reliable, critics out there. It usually consists of well known critics, and those well known enouh to RT staff. We cannot say that the sample size is enough to generalize back to the whole, which is why I prefer the percentage to speak for itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I was a little late because I was updating Ebert's review. But yeah I don't have a problem with that either way. Silly me, I was thinking you were referring to what's on the lead that is not necessary. Go back to your editing, nothing to see here. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I generally don't touch the summary in the article lead, though I wish I could think of a better, and more verifiable way to quickly summarize it there as well. Thank you! --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We just need to start summarizing the general consensus of what the reviews are saying, or just cite RT's summary of what the reviews say (I prefer the former, because RT does not update their consensus when more reviews come).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But they do update their rating and numbers, and I believe the consensus is only summarized after a certain number of reviews come in. I've always felt leading with RT and MC gives the reader the best ten thousand foot view, and they can read review samples after that for more detail. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That is why I stick to the numbers and let them speak for themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is something that should be discussed at the project. If people are synthesizing a response that is one thing but when reviews are very obviously positive, such as with The Avengers, it is not OR or Synth to say it received generally favorable or positive reviews. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point regarding the Avengers, but since RT reports that the reviews are positive, why bother? I think it sets a bad precedent for articles like this, or let's say films in the 30-49 or 59-70 range. I agree that a discussion is in order, and I'm game to have it on the project page.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like it if everyone involved would join this similar discussion as per DWB's suggestion.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I plan on using the Metacritic critics summaries some time. So far it's listed as "generally favorable reviews". Just thought I would note this. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I generally include that in the same paragraph as RT, and with both I start with "At" or "According to", and place the consensus/summary/rating in quotes, so the reader knows where the information is coming from. Since MC and RT both use sample data and their own methodology to calculate it, I think it's important to note where the data is coming from. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Me too. I try to let the reader's know that that's what they are saying. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Massee

I find it obvious that Michael Massee that is in this film at one point. But the problem is no reliable source...and I really think Webb and the others want to to keep this at wraps. Also there is speculation going that he is Norman Osborn when the most reliable (which isn't reliable enough for Wikipedia) websites say the name of who the actor portrayed is David Lowell. So please dig up sources in the future if you can and figure this out. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your earlier point in the edit summary. It's going to be a pain to do so, but I say keep him out of the article for now. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The official end-credits list Massee as "Man in the Shadows". --Tenebrae (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Then that's how we should name it too. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

Plot section

NOTE: IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILER.

The plot that some anonymous IP added was filled with errors and extremely poor spelling and grammar, and was way over word count. Here is a 690-word alternative from someone who has seen the movie twice now at preview screenings. (The film was already released in Japan, so I presume it's non-native-English speakers who provided the plot that was in the article.) Those who have seen it, let's make edits to it here, please, so that everything is accurate and properly written before it goes into an encyclopedia. Please keep in mind there's only a 10-word margin. If you add more than 10 words, remove the equivalent number of words over 10.

Draft of plot

A young Peter Parker is playing hide-and-seek with his scientist father when he discovers his father's study has been broken into. His alarmed father, Richard, gathers up some hidden documents, and Peter's parents take him to the home of his Aunt May and Uncle Ben then mysteriously depart. Years later, a teenage Peter attends Midtown Science High School, where he's bullied Flash Thompson and has caught the eye of Gwen Stacy. At home, Peter finds Richard's hidden papers, and learns his father worked with fellow scientist Dr. Dr. Curt Connors at Oscorp. Faking his way into Oscorp as one of a group of Connors' high-school interns, Peter sneaks into a locked lab where extremely strong "biocable" is being created from genetically modified spiders, one of which bites him. On the subway ride home, he finds, to his shock, strange spider-like abilities manifesting themselves.

After studying Richard's papers, he visits the one-armed Dr. Connors at home, reveals he's Richard Parker's son, and gives Connors his father's "decay rate algorithm", the missing piece in Connors' experiments on regenerating limbs. Connors' is being pressured by his superior, Dr. Ratha, who needs Connors to devise a cure for the dying, unseen head of Oscorp, Norman Osborn.

In school, attempting revenge on Flash, Peter gets in trouble, forcing Uncle Ben to switch a work shift in order to meet with the principal; he tells Peter to pick up May tonight for him. After learning more about his new powers, he meets Dr. Connors at Oscorp, and, ignoring a call from Ben sees the limb-regeneration formula work on a laboratory mouse. When Peter returns home, Ben scolds him for having neglected to pick up May. Peter storms off, and when Ben goes looking for him, Ben confronts a thief who has just robbed a deli Peter was in. As Ben and the thief wrestle over a gun, Ben is killed before Peter's eyes and the murderer escapes.

Shortly afterward, using a police sketch of the killer. Peter uses his new abilities to hunt criminals matching the killer's description. After a fall lands him inside an abandoned gym, a luchador wrestling poster inspires him to create a mask. Later, he adds a Spandex suit for mobility and inadvertently becomes a folk hero. He accepts a dinner invitation from Gwen and meets her family, including her father, police captain George Stacy. After dinner, Peter and Gwen go to her apartment building's roof, where he shows her he is the masked vigilante, and they kiss.

Ratha says Connors must begin human trials immediately if Osborn is to survive. Connors refuses to rush the drug-testing procedure and put innocent subjects at risk. Ratha fires Connors and says he will secretly test Connors' serum at a Veterans Administration hospital under the guise of flu shots. Desperate, Conners tries the formula on himself, and after passing out and awakening finds his missing arm has regenerated. Learning Ratha is on his way to the VA hospital, Connors, whose skin is growing scaly and green, goes to intercept Ratha. By the time he gets to the traffic-jammed Williamsburgh Bridge, Connors has become a superhumanly strong hybrid of lizard and man, tossing cars, including Ratha's, over the side. Peter, now calling himself Spider-Man, saves each fallen car with the biocable "web" he fires from mechanical devices on his wrists.

Spider-Man confronts the Lizard in the sewers, barely escaping alive, and the Lizard learns Spider-Man's real identity and attacks Peter at school. The Lizard then develops a plan to make all humans lizard-like, starting with the release of a chemical cloud from Oscorp's tower. The police hunt both Spider-Man and the Lizard, with Captain Stacy learning Spider-Man's real identity. Spider-Man eventually disperses an antidote cloud instead, restoring Connors and some earlier victims to normalcy, but not before the Lizard kills Stacy. Before he dies, Stacy makes Peter promise to keep Gwen safe by staying away from her. Peter initially does so, then decides he will see her after all.

In a scene during the end credits, Connors, in a prison cell, appears to speak with a man he knows, who moments later is no longer there.

--Tenebrae (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope we are in a nice start because according to the feedback readers are in demand of the plot already. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it opens in just over three hours at East Coast midnight shows. If anyone wants to insert the plot above, I certainly am not objecting at this juncture. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw the film last night. I made one change: As I remember, Peter doesn't tell Gwen he is Spiderman, he ropes her in, so it's obvious. Apart from that, this looks good to me. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've done the replacement. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

IGN

I am debating in my mind on the use of IGN on the review. IMO the critics we should use are the top critics or critics entered on Metacritic...and neither of them qualifies IGN. IGN is normally video game reception department anyways. If we would use a different negative site which one would make the best substitute though? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We have an embarrassent of riches to choose from, with some of the widely read and influential critics in the world. When we have the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Time, Newsday, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, Salon and the Chicago Sun-Times, to name just a few prominent consumer periodicals, and trades like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Film Journal, I'm sure we can do without IGN. Although I'd like to see, say, three reviews by such comics specialty sites as CBR, Comics Bulletin, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just it. IGN is already listed on here and I think we need a better replacement. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

I have real concerns about including James Berardinelli of Reelviews among the critics. He's just a self-published film blogger, no different than a hundred guys doing that, and having him in the same paragraph as The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post seems odd. From what his bio at Rotten Tomatoes suggests, he's not a professional film critic but works in technology and does reviewing on the side. Surely, with all the multitude of professional magazine, newspaper, webzine and broadcast critics, we can find someone more appropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I will see about that. Maybe tomorrow. He appeared as a top critic, a Metacritic critic and had his own article. That seemed like enough in my personal opinion for him to be added. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, on first glance the "top critic" star seems to mean something. But he's a top critic and the longtime, highly respected veteran Pete Hammond of Boxoffice is not, nor the well-regarded Joshua Rothkopf of Time Out New York? Something's not right there. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's one that you might prefer with if you can understand what he is trying to get across. If you want to add it you can for it's late where I am at. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So Tenebrae. Is The New Yorker a better replacement? Or do you think we can come across with something better? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Lane in The New Yorker is pretty snarky, in a bad way, but he's certainly a major critic. Might not be bad to get out of New York, though, where we already have a couple of critics weighing in, and to look at, say, The Miami Herald, the Los Angeles Times, the Minneapolis Star Tribune or Denver's Rocky Mountain News, just to throw out a few names. We might also look at mixed review in Film Journal International, another major trade, since the critic is a former comics writer.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I try to follow the essay that top critics are mostly reliable. But I have no doubt that the sites you are mentioning are reliable too. But the question is what is the most notable or most constructive review to use to be decided to add over other negative review? That can certainly be debatable. I am sure you did you're research on reviews right? By the way I checked the last one you mentioned. That was mostly positive more than negative. Why don't you link an actual article you might prefer? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed negative reviews on The McClatchy Company, Slate (magazine), Minneapolis Star Tribune (as you have mentioned). Boston Globe and The Austin Chronicle were REALLY negative. Which one do you prefer? I am letting you pick.  ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

RT's top critics as stated above are usually a safe bet for choosing notable reviews. Also in the cases where the number reviews might be slanted to one side, you could flesh out the reviews on the weaker side or limit the number of reviews on the stronger side to give the section equal weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just out of concern, are you implying that it doesn't have equal right? Or are you just using a suggestion? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just something to consider as reviews are added/replaced.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I definitely tried to make it neutral but there seems to less negative reviews that Rotten Tomatoes counts as top critics and that Metacritic also adds. That's how I determined notability in the inclusion. Also definitetly adding the really notable critics (like Roger Ebert) which a lot seemed to be positive was a must. So I would say it's in a neutral point of view but if you don't you can be honest. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think JH and others who worked on the Critical-reaction section did an exceptional job of finding solid, explanatory quotes that say specifically why a critic liked or disliked something, which fleshes out the movie and gives a fuller, richer context. I usually love to be part of the Critical-reaction process, but because of a busy spate of work I couldn't really contribute here — and, boy, was I ever unnecessary! Bravo to all my colleagues! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Cast

If it's of any use, here are the official cast credits

Spider-Man/Peter Parker Andrew Garfield - Gwen Stacy Emma Stone - The Lizard/Dr. Curt Connors Rhys Ifans - Captain Stacy Denis Leary - Uncle Ben Martin Sheen - Aunt May Sally Field - Rajit Ratha Irrfan Khan - Richard Parker Campbell Scott - Mary Parker Embeth Davidtz - Flash Thompson Chris Zylka - Peter Parker (Age 4) Max Charles - Jack's Father C. Thomas Howell - Jack Jake Ryan Keiffer - Helen Stacy Kari Coleman - Store Clerk Michael Barra - Cash Register Thief Leif Gantvoort - Gordon Andy Pessoa - Missy Kallenback Hannah Marks - Hot Girl Kelsey Chow - Mr. Cramer Kevin McCorkle - Physics Nerds Andy Gladbach, Ring Hendricks-Tellefsen - Miss Ritter Barbara Eve Harris - School Librarian Stan Lee - Nicky's Girlfriend Danielle Burgio - Nicky Tom Waite - Car Thief Keith Campbell - Car Thief Cop Steve DeCastro - Receptionist Jill Flint - OsCorp Intern Mark Daugherty - Rodrigo Guevara Milton Gonzalez - Howard Stacy Skyler Gisondo - Phillip Stacy Charlie DePew - Simon Stacy Jacob Rodier - Construction Worker Vincent Laresca - Taxi Driver Damien Lemon - Police Officer with Sketch Ty Upshaw = Police Officer James Chen - Officer (SWAT) Alexander Bedria - Sheila (Subway) Tia Texada - Subway Guy Jay Caputo - Newscaster (News Chopper) John Burke - Principal Terry Bozeman - Second Girl (Subway) Jennifer Lyons - Man in the Shadows Michael Massee - Ariel Amber Stevens

--Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Needs Rewrite: Mostly Quotes

This article is very, very well sourced. And it looks to be shaping up to a great article. But, it is mostly composed of quotes. If you look at any featured article on Wikipedia, it is composed of some small quoting, but mostly well-sourced summarizing. This needs to be done here, it is pretty much all quote after quote. Webb felt, Garfield stated. Followed by eighty quotes. Quotes in the cast section are fine, as that it the best way to get the actors' statements regarding characters, but the film features way too many under the Production section. The themes and analysis section is tricky, and maybe best not to exist because its so difficult to do right. I'm not sure, but that section, should it stay, needs some maintenance. Please give thoughts. 75.87.109.34 (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A theme section having "he said, she said" seems fine judging by American Beauty (film). As for development section, it would be nice having it not saying the "he said, she said" on there but you got to get in to consideration that newer films get their sources by interviews on the web more so than older films probably citing books. See Thor (film) and Captain America: The First Avenger. You can even write it in you're special way if you think it's too much of a bother. I tried to best to get rid of quotes in the past and we have less now then we had but even still newer constructive information keeps compiling in where I am not sure how to describe it but other people know how to word it better. Where is it most unnecessary to you and I probably can figure out how to rephrase it? I wouldn't mind, it's liking warming up for a good article/featured article nomination anyway. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again by reading more of it I strongly advise you to read American Beauty (film) (FA). Seems to have quite a bit of quotes when necessary. Just let me know when the quotes are unnecessary on this article. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To expand on JH's comments: It's true that many quotes ca give a he-said-she-said feel. But in the case of comic-book movies, which have more rabid fan-followings and younger, less critically sophisticated editors than editors of general movie articles, the quoting is often necessary — not in every instance here, I'm sure, and more paraphrasing can certainly be done.

But WikiProject Comics experience has taught us that without being very specific and saying exactly what some source has said, that many editors will wildly misinterpret and mis-paraphrase; a more discerning editor will change this paraphrase to something in line with the quote, and almost inevitably, the first editor will begin edit-warring. We've too often found that the only way to prevent this is to use the exact quotation and say, "Leave it to the reader to interpret." Otherwise, we end up in a seemingly endless round of back-and-forth edits with often passionate young editors who have, let's say, very creative interpretive faculties. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Eventually, one has to paraphrase, otherwise the whole article would be quotes. Some quotes are less concrete than others so I doubt paraphrasing would be a problem. I have to say reading some sections with all the quoting is monotonous. I already expressed this previously, but much wasn't done. I agree paraphrasing may cause edit wars but it should not be a barrier. I doubt whether the reader will ultimately finish the article with all these quotes.

A solution could be to paraphrase but make the quote flow in the sentence. This may not always work but its a try.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is a necessity, because Wikipedia is not supposed to simply be a mirror of other sources. We're supposed to collect information and present it in a manner that is encyclopedic. Last I checked, encyclopedias do not just contain quote after quote with no paraphrasing. The reason we do source checks is to make sure that people paraphrase correctly. Just quoting everything in huge chunks is not an appropriate wait to avoid inaccurate paraphrasing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again. We haven't used quotes that much like you make it appear. This article is a mix of saying things our own way and having a few quotes. Just like the FA I pointed out earlier. None of these seem to be saying how the source says it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the longest ones that is put is.  :"Sam Raimi's virtuoso rendering of Spider-Man is a humbling precedent to follow and build upon. The first three films are beloved for good reason. But I think the Spider-Man mythology transcends not only generations but directors as well. I am signing on not to 'take over' from Sam. That would be impossible. Not to mention arrogant. I'm here because there's an opportunity for ideas, stories, and histories that will add a new dimension, canvas, and creative voice to Spider-Man." This used to be put as a quote box of some kind but then had to appear in the article. Same with a few of the filming sections mention of the RED Epic cameras. But it still sounds important and perhaps it could be rewritten somehow? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

sources to use

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/the-amazing-spider-man-end-credits-scene_n_1649791.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 Possible for the theme section
• http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1689030/amazing-spider-man-lizard-curt-connors.jhtml Possible for development

Box Office:

• or http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3480&p=.htm

NEW:

• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/spider-man-sony-imageworks-348037

Theatrical poster

I have been forced to protect File:The Amazing Spider-Man theatrical poster.jpeg because of the excessive edit warring, with different versions of the poster being uploaded and reuploaded. This is not acceptable. There seems to be a legitimate dispute here, and so the options should be discussed, and, ideally, we should be able to reach a consensus on which version of the image is used. Until then, please leave it as it is- this does not imply any kind of endorsement of the current image. Any attempt to continue the edit war, perhaps by uploading images separately, can and will result in blocks. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that it is protected.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Please discuss which one is better here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The new poster is not more recognized than The OLD POSTER. I get what you mean with ratingsUser:Pleasant1623. BUT you see old poster all over the place in website like Rottentomatoes.com,boxofficemojo.com, amctheathes.com, regmovies.com, etc and in movie theaters why BECAUSE its the more recognized. YOU said i want to see the whole costume it shouldnt be what you want it should be what no one wants NeoBatfreak . That i say put the old poster back because it more recognized. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a point, the teaser poster is spread over sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo, but if a theatrical release poster arrives, we have to leave the teaser poster and use that. It doesn't matter that it's recognized or not recognized, it arrived very late that's why the teaser poster is still in that sites.--Plea$ant 1623 07:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Pleasant1623 J Milburn That not the teaser poster. There were 3 teaser posters,a red poster with Spider-man logo, a close up poster of the backside of the suit with Spider-man logo and peter in the shadows with the Spider-man logo being the his shadow. The new poster that you uploaded wasn't even a poster at first it was released on 6/2/2012 http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/NerdyGeek/news/?a=60875 , http://themovieblog.com/2012/this-the-amazing-spider-man-poster-swings-in and then they made into a poster. The offical theatrical poster was released on 4/16/2012 http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=58007April When starting promotion movies they released teaser posters about a year before movie's release not 2-3 weeks before the movie release. Then the offical theatrical poster and offical theatrical banner poster of the movie is released a couple of months before the released of the movie not 2-3 weeks before the movie's release. How can can the movie tv spots be released before the offical theatrical poster? It doesn't make scene. Please change the poster back the offical theatrical poster. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdremix540 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally disagree you by these reasons-

• Reason 1 = The first two teaser posters were actually used for the Comic-Con launch because I can't found it anywhere now.
• Reason 2 = I found the poster on collider.com, which is a reliable source.
• Reason 3 = The new poster has the release date, rating, release formats and studio credits and it was very different from the sources you provided.
• Reason 4 = The source you provided is wrong.
• Reason 5 = Then I fixed the source and I founded that it was a fansite.

--Plea$ant 1623 14:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Pleasant1623 J Milburn * Yea it a fansite but i guess you never bother to look at the poster. The yahoo movie tag on it. Which it a very reliable source. If you go the amazing spider-man yahoo movie page your poster isn't even there. If you want better source there all over the internet like http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/04/these-new-posters-from-the-amazing-spider-man-give-us-a-darker-look-at-the-web-slinger or http://www.movieweb.com/news/two-the-amazing-spider-man-posters and yes there a official theatrical poster poster with logo, rating on it from your reliable source collider.com http://collider.com/marc-webb-spider-man-interview/177808/ . Also if you click on the poster it's said "final poster" which means final offical theatrical poster. Wow, after the release of the film, after all of the promotional still, tv spot, posters Colombia and Marvel have release collider.com would still that poster over your poster. Well that because it the offical theatrical poster.

* Oh and if you feel the poster is too big just drag the picture out of the collider.com web page not the view picture page like you did

* Another point your poster isn't the offical theatrical poster is was a promotional image foe the movie at first http://www.movieweb.com/news/the-amazing-spider-man-new-york-skyline-promo-poster if you want a more reliable source

* Also YOUR MISSING THE MAIN POINT, which is when starting promotion movies they released teaser posters about a year before movie's release not 2-3 weeks before the movie release. Then the offical theatrical poster and offical theatrical banner poster of the movie is released a couple of months before the released of the movie not 2-3 weeks before the movie's release. How can can the movie tv spots be released before the offical theatrical poster? It doesn't make scene.

* Lastly as you said the were teaser posters at Comic Con. Comic Con how more offical and reliable can you get! May Please change the poster back the offical theatrical poster. thank you Jdremix540

Good, you provided a reliable source. I think that the disputes ended, so will request unprotection for the file--Plea$ant 1623 11:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So, are we changing it back the the offical theatrical poster? It makes scene i believe after want I said. which is "when starting promotion movies they released teaser posters about a year before movie's release not 2-3 weeks before the movie release. Then the offical theatrical poster and offical theatrical banner poster of the movie is released a couple of months before the released of the movie not 2-3 weeks before the movie's release. How can can the movie tv spots be released before the offical theatrical poster? That doesn't make scene. Please change it back the the official theoretical poster thank you. The source its right collider.com http://collider.com/marc-webb-spider-man-interview/177808/ if you feel the poster is too big just drag the picture out of the collider.com web page not the view picture page Jdremix540 —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no. I will upload the poster from the source you provided and I can drag the smaller version of 290x429px.--Plea$ant 1623 17:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Has a consensus been reached, here? Are we safe to unprotect the poster? J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Pleasant1623 Are going to change the poster back to the theatrical poster? You said that you will change but it been over a day NOW! The source its right HERE collider.com http://collider.com/marc-webb-spider-man-interview/177808/ if you feel the poster is too big just drag the picture out of the collider.com web page not the view picture page Jdremix540 (talk)

Edit request on 7 July 2012

I would like to make a change in Th Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) The proper way to spell Oscorp is "Oscorp" not "OsCorp"

74.65.200.49 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. RudolfRed (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That may be so in the comics, but all the movie's press material spells it OsCorp. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Examples from the movie's official production notes:

• "As Peter discovers a mysterious briefcase that belonged to his father, he begins a quest to understand his parents’ disappearance – leading him directly to OsCorp and the lab of Dr. Curt Connors (Ifans), his father’s former partner." (p. 1)
• "...sequence of events which leads him to OsCorp and to Dr. Connors results in his being bitten." (p. 5)
• "'Peter’s discovery of his father’s briefcase is what leads him to OsCorp and to a complicated relationship with Connors,' said Ziskin." (p. 6)
• "...as well as the stark contrast between the worlds of Queens and OsCorp.'" (p. 12; J. Michael Riva quote)
• "'Cut to OsCorp, a black glass tower high above mid-town Manhattan, and inside a huge white, sterile place where cutting edge research is being conducted with no expense spared." (p. 12; J. Michael Riva quote)
• "The OsCorp lab set was built on Stage 30 at Sony Pictures Studios and was one of the largest sets created for the film. Its massive footprint occupied over 14,000 square feet of stage floor and took over twelve weeks to build." (p. 13)

...and so on throughout the 52-page document. There's even an entire page devoted to "OsCorp Fun Facts"! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Music please put this in

Coldplay are my favourite band and I couldn't help noticing that although their song Til Kingdom Come is used in the film during a montage which has Peter skateboarding and training to be Spider-man in. So could somebody please A. Edit it into the page about the film B. edit it into the page about the soundtrack or C. Put it onto the page X&Y which is the name of the album the song was first featured in. If anybody did this it would be greatly appreciated and thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.8.241 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to tackle how / if we should present this, here are the movie's songs per the official credits:

• "No Way Down"

Written by James Mercer Performed by The Shins Courtesy of Columbia Records By arrangement with Sony Music Licensing

• "Big Brat"

Written by Alexander Greenwald Performed by Phantom Planet Courtesy of Epic Records By arrangement with Sony Music Licensing

• "Bus Bus"

Written and Performed by Amy Ray Courtesy of Daemon Records

• "Til Kingdom Come"

Written by Guy Berryman, Jonathan Buckland, William Champion and Chris Martin Performed by Coldplay Courtesy of EMI Records Ltd. Under license from EMI Film & Television Music --Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why or how we should put this up. Tenebrae do you have any ideas on how it can be put up? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lizard concept art

Hi, I'd like to know if I can use this image on the article? http://www.fansshare.com/news/the-amazing-spider-man-s-the-lizard-pic/#.T_5yzVEihFI shows an unconfirmed version of the Lizard, which fans disagreed to. Pls reply me on my talk page. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Last time I saw that picture it was supposedly of the toy that was goingto come out featuring the lizard. Either way, an unused, unconfirmed version, is not going to be justified for use in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012

Norman Osborn's company is spelled "Oscorp" not "OsCorp"

71.190.212.51 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC) In conclusion, the correct way to spell Oscorp is "Oscorp" Thank you for your time.

 Done Verified and changed. Rivertorch (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 July 2012

In the film, they never said, "Oscorp's tower", they said "Oscorp Tower"

74.65.200.49 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your time.

It's not a direct quote. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

critical reception pov slant

I recently edited the critical reception area to more accurately reflect the cited reviews in the section (it was looking as if the bad reviews were being played down - a significant no no). It was reverted back, nd I was thinking some discussion is warranted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, if you look back at you're edits there was quite a few goofs you should have noticed before saving. Second the reviews are favorable according to Metacritic but it's not necessary to tell what the reviews are according to Williamsburg. (See above discussion). Third the image is there due to reflect what the critic thought about the two character's chemistry. You can summarize the negative (and positive) opinions if you want but it doesn't belong on the image caption. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear (I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you) I only have issue with the leads that assign (often arbitrary) phrases like "mostly positive" or "generally mixed". Based on a number of discussions, including the one above, this seems to be in line with consensus. I do not take any issue with the proprietary rating systems from rotten tomatoes or metacritic; so if MC says "Generally favorable", I think that's well within WP policy as long as it's quoted and attributed to a reliable source. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

See what I stated at Williamsburgland's talk page. And he removed it as WP:Wikihounding, even though the policy shows that it wasn't and even though others have the same problem with his editing of these critical reception sections. There is no WP:CONSENSUS, with regard to these articles in general, not to use "generally positive" or "generally well-received," "mixed" or "generally mixed," or "generally negative" or "negative." And that is easy to see judging by how often this topic discussion keeps coming up, and most film articles, including WP:GAs and WP:FAs, using such phrasing. It is false and a plain misreading and/or misreprensentation of the WP:Original research policy to state that these phrases are origial research/synth or POV. All of these phrases are supported by the reliable sources, and Metacritic even uses similar wording. But even when Metacritic quite clearly says "Generally favorable reviews," Williamsburgland acts as though saying "generally positive" or "positive" is unsourced/POV. That latter link is of a film (Terminator 2:Judgment Day) that received a 98% Rotten Tomatoes rating, quite clearly a well-received film, or rather a universally acclaimed film, and Williamsburgland still tampered with its reception section, adding a source that most Wikipedia film articles don't use and acting as though the phrasing "generally positive" or "positive" is even remotely controversial in that case. Quite ridiculous, really. It's not even controversial to state that a film that has received a 74% Rotten Tomatoes approval rating, like The Amazing Spider-Man, is generally well-received, especially since it's backed by Metacritic under very similar wording. I've stated before that, "Not everyone is familiar with these sites (in fact, I don't believe that most people are) and, without clarification, some of them won't know what we mean by these percentages and certainly not what we mean by 'Certified Fresh.' Even if we explain that 'Certified Fresh' means 'well-received,' they are likely to think that we mean 'The film was well-received by one website,' not realizing that the site is made up of almost every professional film critic (as far as America goes at least)." Williamsburgland needs to stop imposing his personal preference onto every film article he comes across, as though there is some widespread consensus on this issue and as though these are original research/WP:NPOV violations. There isn't and they aren't. That GA an FA reviewers, as noted, consistently elevate articles that use such phrasing is just one prime example of that. 91.224.154.100 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the love of God, leave me alone. You posted inquires on two completely separate edits I made on my talk page - the issue of wording in critical reception, and wording in an article covering anal sex. You've now followed me to this article, and have forum shopped to another editor who hasn't participated in this discussion on an unrelated article. If this isn't hounding, I don't know what is. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't originally Wikihounding and it still isn't because I'm not following you "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to [you]." Nor have I posted across mutiple talk pages about you, though I am tempted to take your editing with regard to this issue to a noticeboard of some sort if you continue to inject your ridiculous "original research/synth-violations" POV into these critical reception sections. My having followed you, which I am allowed to do, is out of concern for the quality of these articles. If we took your view to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, I'm certain that they would emphatically point out that what you consider original research isn't original research. What you did at the Terminator 2:Judgment Day article is ridiculous and you know it. I alerted that editor to this discussion because I have mentioned the case here and, in their edit summary, he or she said that he or she was interested in discussing this issue. 210.51.38.14 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we may be off on what Jack Sebastian originally talked about. I only quoted Wlliamsburgland for the part where he don't think that putting "positive, negative, mild," wasn't that necessary. Jack Sebastian put "mild" which (even though a certain source says it) I don't agree with. The reviews seem IMO favorable according to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic...and if we were to bring back what the reviews are mostly said. I think favorable would be more accurate with mild. Al though Jack Sebastian, I did not have a problem with you adding the summary of what the positive/negative critics mostly though about if that source stated that it was such. If so, you can add that back. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We may be off on what Jack Sebastian stated. But you mentioned that "it's not necessary to tell what the reviews are according to Williamsburg," and so I felt compelled to comment. 210.51.38.14 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies there to Jack. I agree with Jhenderson's edit, Jack, but I don't think that should preclude you from adding further reviews you think are representative of negative reviews... there are certainly a few of them out there. The issue with using leads like the one you had is it's technically OR, and it opens the gate for edit warring, particularly in cases like this where a film isn't clearly acclaimed or clearly hated.

Again, if you feel that negative reviews are being left out, by all means add some summaries there, or alternatively you could find reliable, notable analysis of the critical reception outside of RT or MC, but I'm guessing it doesn't exist yet. Sorry once again for getting OT up there. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just gave it a read through... I'd agree that the section is slanted. A quick check to RT reveals that top critics Laremy Legel, Dana Stevens and Roger Moore all gave negative reviews... perhaps that's a good place to start?--Williamsburgland (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A 74% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 66 "Generally favorable reviews" rating on Metacritic is clearly a generally well-received film. Do you not know that 70-something percent equates to most and is significantly more than 26 percent? 210.51.38.14 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Roger Moore one could probably be a notable inclusion definitely because it's one of the latest top critic reviews. So anyone could add that if liked. Dana Stevens one is actually on there. Keep in mind we don't have every top critic positive review either. IDK We need to add every reviewer who said he didn't like it "because it's a reboot" like Laremy Legel's review. We already added one like that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't even notice Dana, thanks for pointing it out. I agree on the reboot thing - the RT summary kind of notes that the similarity to the 2002 film is a point of contention for critics, and it's already noted. Perhaps if after the summary the section was split into a paragraph or so for positive, and then the same for negative. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to the negative reviews, which are the minority. Not to mention, most film article reception sections on Wikipedia are not formatted that way. 210.51.38.14 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed my mind about the Roger Moore inclusion This isn't one of the best sources to use even though he isn't a top critic. Had to get rid of a review by James Berardinelli with his own site because a user didn't felt that wasn't reliable enough. Also the positive is in the top while the negative is on the bottom. It was split into two paragraphs at the time but it looked like there is even more splits now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'll take a pass at a lite rewrite later on... I'll wait to see if Jack wants to do so first. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of my concern was with the seeming positive spin on the reception the movie received. Go ahead and give it a try, Williamsburgland; It would be cool to see what someone else does with it. The new kid is keeping me too awake and not as sharp as I should be to be editing. :) Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with copy editing either. But I see the article containing both positive reviews and negative reviews. It has less negative reviews but that's because there is less of those. There is still more positive reviews than how much we put in as well...and some of those are more mild than positive. So I think it's evened just fine. I always look forward to improvement though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack, depending on how new we're talking it get's better... mine's 4 months old and I'm good for 6 hours a night. Congrats, of course! Anyway I'll give it a pass tomorrow sometime. --Williamsburgland (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

From a glance, the way it is presented it does look like a POV slant toward positive, but I think that has a lot to do with the structure. It appears to be all positive to start and then all negative to end. My suggestion would be to find reviews that focus on the same aspects, but from different perspectives, and then pair them so that you have a mix of pos. neg. reviews together. For example, if there pos./neg. reviews regarding the plot elements, then put them together as contrasting opinions that that might help the flow of the POV that is being talked about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

When you accuse something of a pov slant please read it more than just glance it. Even still thanks for the recommendation. It was understandable. I look forward to Williamsburgland edits on improving it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a few things I have seemed to gather from the critical reaction that hasn't been pointed point out in the article yet. The script/screenplay was considered one of the weakest parts of the movie. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's portrayal seemed to be mostly positive (especially their chemistry) while the Lizard turned out be a underwhelming villain. Webb's directing seems to be well recieved. The score was mediocre. We might need to leave room to explain these a little better. I have tried to figure out how to solve Bignole's concern but it doesn't seem to be as easy as it sounds. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, then you'd see that I did not accuse it of being a POV slant, I merely stated that I can see how it would be seen as that. I clarified that it appears that all of the positive reviews are first and then all of the negative views are last. If you're going to chastise me about something, at least be accurate about what it is that I did. That being said, it is not hard to do what I said, it merely requires that someone read the reviews thoroughly and pinpoint like content. That is what Wiki editors should be doing in the first place. I can see similar content being discussed just from skimming the section already. If I, or anyone, reads the reviews in entirety then I would imagine that you'd find even more like content. The point is that the section should be balanced, and I can see how Jack or any reader might assume that we're just fluffing the article with positive criticism, as if you don't read the last 2 paragraphs (after having read that extremely long middle paragraph) then you wouldn't even realize there were negative views in the first place. As I was saying, it isn't that I think there is a real bias, I believe that it is a structure issue with the content that is there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I can glance at it and I don't see that whatsoever. The majority of articles have positive and negative divided up while the majority reviews are normally on the top. It's still better to read it than to assume that it could be POV slant by just a mere glance. Sorry if you are offended at the fact that I implied that you accused it because I really did read your comment the way you defended your comment as such. Whether it looked like it maybe looked that way you admitted you judged it by glance and that wasn't necessary. Those last two paragraphs BTW are mostly there because there were the one of the first top critic reviews. Originally the reviews of the film mostly started with these positive so their placements don't seem unfitting at all. I still welcome any better changes to the section if it is possible. Also I can't believe you guys don't think there is enough negative reviews, I had to break the rule on adding some that aren't top critics to put negative reviews in. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at RT and there are 10 negative reviews from their "Top Critics" section, so I don't know why you would need to go outside of that section to get negative reviews. Also, starting with a bunch of positives does not mean that you shouldn't update a section and reformat it to be more balanced when negative reviews come out. I don't see anything in the first few paragraphs that provides a contrasting opinion to any of the positive reviews. The negatives all appear to be in the last 2 paragraphs. From what I've read, they all read as positive at the start.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just about all the top critic reviews are done. With the exception that some say the same old thing or that some of them are just unreliable blogs. Those I passed. The Boston Globe is the one that I added that isn't top critic. Yet it's in Metacritic as fully negative...and is only one out of two that is negative. In fact just about all the RT ones that are negative are considered mixed according to Metacritic. In other news I mixed positive/negative up a little. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My personal rule is that if it comes from a serious newspaper (like The Boston Glove) then I don't care if it's a Top Critic or not. It's a reliable news source, so it's still good. I agree with reluctance to use web blogs or other similar sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have done a few more mixing and I might just add the Detroit News and Newsday review in the future to maybe even the load. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 BIGNOLE  and Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ seem to have this well in hand. From what Im seeing, as of this second, the section seems very balanced, though the organization, I think, could be tweaked.

The movie got 74 percent on RT and a positive consensus, so I believe it makes sense and is balanced to open with positive reviews. I'm not sure about the negative Ty Burr / Boston Globe quote being at the end of a positive-review paragraph, only to be followed by Schwartzbaum and Pakrham's positive reviews. I would move those two reviews into the second graf, then begin the third graf with the Lou Lemenick "Conversely" sentence followed by Burr and the rest of the more downbeat reviews. I think the Puig / USA Today quote in the middle of all that doesn't add any new dimension to the positive comments that preceded it, except for the astute "coming of age" phrase; maybe that part of her quote could be moved? I'd suggest losing the Slate quote, since "absolutely unnecessary" doesn't say why it's "absolutely unnecessary," so it's just an opinion without the sort of supporting reasoning that gives critical insight. Hope this helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that you shouldn't be writing like: "John gave a positive review, while Jane gave a negative review". That should be irrelevant. It should flow better, and talk about what John liked/didn't like and Jane's differing opinion of the same topic. What does not make sense is to talk about everything John liked/didn't like in one paragraph and then 2 paragraphs later start talking about the same thing from someone else's perspective. Content should flow with each other, not against each other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That's one way to do it, certainly, and if done well it could work. But as a journalist I can tell you that the "he said / she said" form isn't considered the best way of organizing information or the best writing. What usually works better is to have a strong "argument" for one side, building an overall point, and then a strong "argument" for the other side. Point-by-point refutation doesn't create context. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I am sorry to interrupted here but I can't post anything on your talk page because it is protected. I need your help but I can't talk about it here. Please email me at uno1dos2tres3quatro4@gmail.com ---- This is NOT spam or whatever people call it. Please send me your email and I will explain everything. 131.239.63.5 (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Journalism and film critiquing are not the same thing. If I want to read about the new political stance on healthcare, then yes I probably would want to read it your way. If I'm just reading about what people thought about a film (and I'm not a review aggregator and just collecting reviews), then I'm going to want to see how people viewed different aspects of the film. I don't want to read 3 paragraphs praising acting, story, and say music, and then immediately follow that with 3 paragraphs panning those same topics. For me, better flow comes from taking that same information and turning it into 3 paragraphs that analyze each topic from both perspectives.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're not critiquing, but reporting what other people said, so this really is more like journalism. But, as I'd mentioned, the "he said / she said" form can work if done well. It's all in the execution. I don't have a preference as long as it's well-written and gets contextual information across.

It's worth mentioning that a 50/50 point-counterpoint would give undue weight to the negative, since the film's reviews were more generally positive and the balance of critical commentary should reflect that. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not giving undue weight to the negative by doing a 50/50 split like that. We have data that says the film was primarily viewed in a positive light. We're not here to reflect that in how we present information. We're providing a balanced view of what critics thought, while at the same time clarifying (at the start) that most critics liked the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's true — we do say upfront the film was generally reviewed in a positive light. If the content that follows doesn't reflect that, then we're providing a context that's at odds with that statement. Let's say "Movie XYZ" has a 90 percent positive-review ratio. Wouldn't a 50/50 split of critics' comments give an inaccurate representation of how the film was overall received? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, becuase we're not here to mirror another site. We're here to be neutral and balanced and provide equal (if available) coverage of both sides of an argument. We're not here to take a stand on any one side. There may be instances where it is not possible to be completely balanced, but in the case of films if there is enough positive and negative reviews then you can be balanced. When we start a section by clearly identifying that a film was primarily viewed in a positive light, we don't have to reflect that on the same percentage because that isn't what we're trying to do. We're trying to give readers a full understanding of the critical perception of a film. If I film had a 95% approval rating, would you argue that we should have 18 positive reviews and only 1 negative review (even if say 15 negative reviews exist) just so we can keep that same 95/5% split for the film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying we have to do math and find absolute statistics — just that the balance of positive and negative critics quoted roughy reflect the overall number of positive and negative, well, critics. For a film with a 95% approval rating, to be fair and use your example, I'm not sure that 18 positive quotes and 15 negative quotes provides contextual balance. In fact, I think that gives a misimpression. I know this is an extreme example, but do you see the point I'm making? Does that make sense? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

To me, that does not make sense because you're assuming that a reader will come here and read the first line that says a film has an overall approval rating of 95%, and then literally count reviews and get confused when there is an equal number of positive and negative opinions about a film. Wikipedia's purpose is here to provide information. By providing a balance of positive and negative reviews we're providing a reader with a fair sample from both sides about what was liked and not liked about a particular film. It isn't about proportions, it's about doing our duty to educate a reader thoroughly. If there are 10 positive reviews in an article and only 3 negative ones (with an option for more) then to me, that is a disservice to the reader. As, unless they go to Rotten Tomatoes and read every review, they're not being informed as to what critics are truly saying. We're already only taking a small sample from critics and just summarizing their thoughts, it doesn't make sense to try and reflect the percentage in the way you're asking. We're not here to push an agenda, just educate a reader. That is why the opening sentence detailing the actual approval rating of a film is sufficient.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think we're stepping over a line here. You're accusing anyone who disagrees with you of pushing an agenda, of not wanting to educate the reader, and of being derelict in "our duty to educate a reader thoroughly." It's impossible to have a fruitful discussion if you're going to accuse others of bad faith and of not caring about the educational purpose of this encyclopedia. It's unfair, it's inaccurate, and it's a little insulting. Also confusing, since I'm not sure what "agenda" you say I'm trying to push.

You and I have had constructive discussions in the past, so I'd like to assume that you're overstating or that you're not expressing what you really mean, and that you didn't intend to accuse me of all those things. You've worked with me enough to know me, and I'm sure you sincerely believe that I operate in good faith with the mission of this encyclopedia in mind. So why don't we step back, try to find common ground, and not give the impression that anyone who disagrees with our personal position has an agenda and is acting in bad faith. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how you took something that I said that was generalizing and interpreted it as a personal attack. I did not say that YOU were pushing an agenda, or that YOU did not want to educate readers. Please do not read personal accusations, bad faith, etc. into my generalized statement regarding what I was saying was my opinion regarding proportionalized reviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey all, sorry for volunteering a rewrite and disappearing... I'll be back to join the conversation and help however I can after the 20th; I'm trying to stay spoiler free for a little super hero flick that's coming out this week. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, the film got a 74% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 66 "Generally favorable reviews" rating on Metacritic, which equates to a generally well-received film. Despite my feeling that the percentages should be somewhat clarified any time we report critical reception information, because something like "Certified Fresh" doesn't tell us what the critics mean, anyone who knows basic math knows that 74% equates to "most." The other 26% are the minority. To try to give equal balance to an issue that is not equal would be WP:UNDUE. I agree with Tenebrae. Furthermore, because of those who hold the view that stating upfront that the film has been generally-received is somehow our own personal interpretation, despite the fact that the film received a 74% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 66 "Generally favorable reviews" rating on Metacritic, the reception section doesn't even start out saying "The film was generally well-received." And like Jhenderson777 stated, "The majority of articles have positive and negative divided up while the majority reviews are normally on the top." 210.51.38.14 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Stereoscopic 3D Specfic Critique of The Amazing Spiderman

Hello, I would like to request an external link be added to the wiki page. There is no stereoscopic 3D critique of the film, and the article below may help kickstart a topic to get information and opinion documented for the general sharing of knowledge on the art and science of Stereo 3D in film making.

Stereomatography: A review of Spider-man 3D

Thanks and Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.48.244.59 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)