Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The synopsis

Listen, I know, and you know, it ain't coming form Jameson. A. It says in the novelization that it comes from a meteorite. B. There is a movie photo that shows a meteorite crashing to Earth. C If it had Jameson bringing an alien life force, it would have space scenes. these would have to be lengthy and high budget. People would know about them. this is a major plot point, not a very minor one like Superman D. There's been novelizations and movie story books which have come out, and confirmed that it was a meteorite. E The Faq which was right about many plot points, said it came from a meteorite. E. The only "evidence" that it came from Jameson(who isn't even cast in the film to my knowledge) is some Empire preview, which itself was not based on anything, and flies in the face of a tidal wave of actual evidence. As if the picture of the meteorite, which was in the movie storybook saying that's where the symbiote comes from. And which is described in the novelization, all official sources, is secondary to something that was in Empire magazine, which they wrote because it's the same exact story as the spiderman cartoon.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drsmoo (talkcontribs) 05:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Here is what is important, novelizations are not considered reliable sources for films. They are notorious for providing different information than what is shown in a film. Empire, though probably wrong, is the only reliable source we have that says anything of the sort about where the symbiote comes from. I recently read an MSNBC article that stated the Jameson information, but they could have been using EMPIRE as a source. Regardless, stop changing the synopsis based on the novel. We didn't do that for Superman Returns and we aren't doing that here. If that was the case then we'd have to change every film plot that had a novelization adapted from it, because they are not word for word translations of the films. The authors are given a script and told what they can and cannot do, and from there they write it in their own way. They may ditch everything completely, or stick straight to the script and notes that they are provided. The point being is that novelizations are not reliable in stating what happens in a film. Either find a reliable source that debunks EMPIRE, or deal with it until May 4 (or 1st if you live in Japan) when the film comes out and we can update the synopsis to a plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, pay attention to any sources you do find, if you actually look. Make sure they aren't citing the book as their source. There are too many places that end up citing unreliable information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Bignole; /FILM showed the photo in question, but mentioned that Empire magazine said that John Jameson will bring it back. You can't synthesize the photo and the novelization and the movie storybook to determine the plot -- the film itself is supposed to be the reference, but in absence of the film, media coverage (especially what Empire got) is acceptable. There's no hidden agenda here; it may seem "obvious" to Spidey fans that this is how the symbiote really shows up, but when one considers what happened to Superman Returns, this kind of personal assumption cannot be made. Don't worry, if the film does show that the symbiote arrives in the park via meteorite, that information will be reflected. In the meantime, adapted literature of the film can't be relied upon. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 11:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So, can you give me an example of a significant plot point(on par with the symbiote origin) that is different in a novelization, AND a movie storybook. As well as explain how it's possible that what would obviously be a major big budget space scene would be kept completely hidden? Drsmoo 15:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't, because the film isn't out yet. Believe us, if we found citations addressing the film that said the symbiote would land via meteorite, we'd gladly update that more recent information. And I can't answer the rest of your questions, because it's just speculation. We haven't seen all the film's scenes. The best thing that can be done right now is to find a citation addressing the film that explains the symbiote's origins. Not a literal adaptation of the film, but an interview with cast or crew or something along these lines. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Other than a quick glimpse here or there (and not including toy busts), they've kept Venom's look a pretty good secret. They've only shown people what they want to show, and none of the in film footage is clear enough, or close enough to have a definitive idea of what he looks like. We have a general idea that he looks the way he should, but we have no idea of his mass compared to Peter's. It isn't as hard as you think to keep certain aspects of a film out of the press. Lucas does it all the time with Star Wars. As for differences between book and film. I've cited many times that big plot point in Superman Returns of Jason being Superman's kid, and how the novel change all those "allusions" to his bloodline, and made him legitimately Richard's son. In Friday the 13th novelizations, more specifically "Jason Lives", Jason's father Elias was only included in the novel, but not the film. He was intended to be in the film, but they opted not to include him, but the author of the novel did include him. So again, it's very common for authors to change facts, or be forced to change facts, because of either artist license or the producers of the film don't want every spoiler released to the public before the film arrives. This is the reasoning behind NOT including the book as a source, this is not a reasoning as to why you are wrong. I say this because no one is calling you wrong, just saying explaining why you cannot cite a film's novelization as a source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, A. there's never been a film novelization which has so differed from the source material as to omit what would surely be a major scene in the film. B. There's never been a novelization which has completely and utterly changed the origin of a major character in the film(the symbiote could be considered a character in some ways. C. However, movie magazines, have in the past been completely wrong with regards to plot points. They are in my opinion several times less reliable than a movie novelization. To say "well, a movie novelization could be wrong" makes no sense, because if an official movie novelization is not a reliable source, than how is a magzine? By what rational standard can a magazine be considered more reliable?Drsmoo 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think changing Jason White from Superman's literal kid, to Richard's kid is a major change for a novel to make. Not only that, but they changed the events that happen on the boat, they include things that were cute from the script. The reliability is because the book is "based" on the film, on a film that no one has seen yet. Magazine articles are based on interviews with the cast and crew. Now, if the "making of" book states otherwise, that is a different story. That is a book that chronicles the making of the film, and thus any information can be considered reliable. You cannot consider the novelization reliable because the author didn't write the screenplay. I'm sure there are tons of changes in the X-Men 3 novel compared to the film. The fact that things are changed means that we cannot use it as a source. You cannot say, "well nothing major was changed", because you don't know. Have you seen the film? Can you tell me that they didn't change anything from the film? I highly doubt it. You cannot pick and choose the things that get changed and say "oh, that wasn't that significant", or "this is something that's major, that isn't". It's subjective. If the novel is correct, great. That doesn't mean there will be novelizations used as reliable sources any time soon, because of the nature of what they are. If they wanted people to have a word for word, scene for scene translation then they'd hand out scripts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Bignole about the major difference between the Superman Returns film and its novelization. In addition, film magazines have editorial oversight. There's no reason to challenge them, and the article in question had a lot of coverage about the film. It wasn't two paragraphs' worth of what the film would be about. The wording was looked at, and there was no indication that Empire was referring to another kind of canon (such as the cartoon series, for example) -- just the film itself. The SlashFilm citation I showed confirms that. The novelization cannot represent the film perfectly; its goal is to serve as a tie-in. If a reliable source specifying the symbiote's origin in the film itself can be provided, then it can be used. Perhaps the Making-of book will give that information. In the meantime, the novelization cannot count because it does not directly speak for the actually-produced film, just the script that was given to the author at the time. In addition, tying the photo into the novelization argument is synthesis. Just wait it out; all the film's details will be public by its release. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 21:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, this is an interesting interview with Marv Wolfman, who wrote the novelization for Superman Returns: Wolfman explains that there are liberties taken in either direction, to add or detract material, in the novelization process. This interview reiterates his claim about liberties taken in the process. Thus, the novelization cannot serve as a basis for the film itself when it comes to referencing. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A third interview, this time with Chris Claremont, who wrote the novelization for X-men 2. He mentions the same liberties in the novelization process as Wolfman did. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 21:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The best one yet. Peter David himself, author of the Spider-Man 3 novelization, says, "Anyone who knows anything about films will tell you that you can never judge what the final movie is going to be like based upon the script." —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The logic at hand here is infantile. A novelization may be occasionally wrong, but Magazines are commonly wrong, and are FAR more inaccurate that official movie novelizations. The logic is basically, X is wrong 10 times, Y is wrong 2 times -> X>Y because Y is sometimes wrong. Ignoring the fact that X is wrong much more. It is nonsensical to say that we cant go on a novelization because they're sometimes inaccurate, when the alternative is to go on a magazine which is often(as in this case) inaccurate. Especially when the official movie novelization is corroborated by an officially released image. If the novelization based on the movie script is not trustworthy enough to be in this scholarly article, then a magazine article certainly isn't and there should be no synopsis until the film is released. Drsmoo 23:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a problem with using film magazines as citations for the film articles on which I've worked. Not sure why you're trashing prominent magazines as reliable sources. I've provided links explaining why the novelizations can't match up to the film. If you really do believe magazines are more fallible, feel free to provide instances of false information. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 23:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you are just making up numbers. Obviously you have no inention of understanding this. 1 source is verifiable, 1 is not. We can verify the magazine because they don't get artistic license, authors of novels do. A magazine does "artisti license" it's called misquoting and if someone wishes, they can get them in trouble. Novels published with permission have all the license they need. It's about verifibility and reliability, NOT truth.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So you've never seen anything incorrect in a movie magazine about an upcoming movie? really? You do know of course that magazine editors also have artistic license, and when it says that the symbiote comes from space, that that is not from an interview, and it comes from the writer of the article.Drsmoo 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not for full-fledged coverages of films that span numerous pages, no. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't understand artistic license. It means you have permission to deviate as you see fit. When you interview someone, you cannot just simply say what you want after the fact. Now, they could very well be making assumptions, based on the evidence they were given in the interview, but novel authors don't make assumptions they directly change for a reason. Read the articles that Erik supplied you up there. The author of Superman Returns specifically says that he made certain major changes to keep the surprise of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep talking about changing an interview? The Jameson brings it from space line is not from an interview. It is from what the writer of thea rticle(who has artistic license) chose to write. It is his opinion on what would happen in the movie(which he got from watching the T.V. show)Drsmoo 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The information preceded the direct quote of "alien life force". It can't be assumed that it was the writer's opinion, but instead read as part of a continued explanation of the symbiote's appearance and role in the film. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"It can't be assumed that it was the writer's opinion, but instead read as part of a continued explanation of the symbiote's appearance and role in the film." Yes that can be assumed because if it was a direct quote from an interview it would be in quotation marks. The Alien life force line is correct, him saying it came from Jameson is not a quote from anyone in the film. And it is not presented as such. I think that what's happening in this article is that two users have assumed the role of being "guardians" over what the majority of fans who read this article accept as being inaccurate. Instead you cling to unreliable information for a little bit longer until the film comes out so you can pretend that it's actually going to be in there for a little longer. You dismiss one source as unreliable while citing another source which is more unreliable. Empire magazine also said that Harry would be called the Night Surfer, which has been proven to be wrong by interviews from the crew. Drsmoo 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
EMPIRE is considered reliable. Whether they get everything right is arguable, but they are still considered reliable. Adaptations from films are not because by nature they don't release everything that happens in a film, nor do they present everything as it always is. This is the same reasoning behind why we don't use trailers to cite information, because people edit trailers in a specific way, and a lot of the time it's in a way that doesn't directly correlate to what is going on in the film. The problem here is that we have one editor that doesn't understand the concept of reliability and verifiability. Provide a reliable source that debunks EMPIRE and we will be glad to change it. Unfortunately, all you have is the book. It may be based on the film, but go read those interviews, films only act as an outline for the novels.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Dude! Chill out! We're not the only users who have defended this. Please look at Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 4#Proof of symbiote comet origin! for other editors who have agreed with this stance. I'll agree with the Night Surfer correction, but that doesn't mean it was never something considered for the film. It's been corrected since, and we are open to reliable sources that will correct the information Empire has put forth. The novelization (and its synthesis with the photo) can't count. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You're also free to seek other opinion, maybe even contact and administrator if you believe we are owning this article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
How about, since there is no "reliable" information on where the Symbiote came from, the specifics of where the symbiote comes from are removed until the film is released. It can simply say that the Symbiote merges with peter Parker's costume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talkcontribs)

Maybe Jameson crashes back to Earth while riding the meteorite. Then everybody's happy. Except Jameson, of course. Captain Infinity 00:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Spider-Man Chronicles: The Art and Making of Spider-Man 3

A potentially useful source to expand this film article is The Spider-Man Chronicles: The Art and Making of Spider-Man 3, the book by producer Grant Curtis (which has been mentioned in the film's article). The book will come out April 26, and its ISBN is 0811857778. This could be enormously helpful, so if anyone gets a copy, please help contribute information about the film to the article. Here's the link if anyone needs further detail. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man Week in NYC

Not sure if this can go anywhere; information is mentioned under Promotion, and the official site for these events is already in External links. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


I recommend a revision of the Sequel section. The interview with Maguire indicates a more current stance, and Raimi has also spoken a few times recently about possibly returning for the sequel (where in the section, we're quoting J.K. Simmons on Raimi's intent). Also, I believe Kirsten Dunst has reiterated that she would return if Raimi (and Maguire, I think) will come back. The last citation for this was October 2006; let's update her words to be more recent. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be revising this section to be more current, mostly with citations from 2007. A lot of what's there now is from 2006, and we've gotten some more opinions since then. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Alientraveller 16:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see it... go figure, I didn't think you'd screw up placing your comment in the wrong section. :) Nevermind, then! —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 17:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

word duplication

I didn't want to add something in without asking first. I noticed this:

brings an "alien life force" back to Earth with him.[6] The force forms a symbiotic relationship

Has it been noted anywhere that this alien life force has been called something else, like 'entity'? I realizethat when the film finally arrives in theaters, it will be completely reworked, but the same word in close proximity doesn't flow all that well. I would like to alter the second occurrence of the word. Arcayne 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we stuck with "force" because the only other alternative would be "symbiote", which wouldn't work with the upcoming "symbiotic relationship" phrase. Maybe you can just say "It forms..." I think that would be fine with me, though it makes identification somewhat less clear. Ah, well, film's coming out soon enough. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Scaling back plot detail in the article

The recent dispute about the symbiote's origin in the film is not the first that's been had on this talk page. Similar discussion can be found in the past two archives. Due to the persistence of the disputes, and the likelihood that it will not reduce with the film itself coming soon, I would like to make a request to scale back on plot details in this film article at least until the film is available to the public. The reasons are below:

  1. The Synopsis section, originally written with good intent, seems to be an inappropriate synthesis of sources to present an "argument", which is basically the true story of the film.
  2. Articles on films that have been released do not have to worry about citation, as the film itself serves as its own source for the Plot or Synopsis section. Thus, the principle of synthesizing would only work in the short run, and the number of disputes regarding this process seems to make it unnecessarily trying.
  3. For the Synopsis or Plot section, the film is the end product. All sources prior to the film are subject to error or changes in the process. While I'm not advocating removing the information entirely, a different format should be explored to present details about the film from the media. That may be a separate discussion that should be held another time.
  4. The variety of potential sources to use to shape a film's Synopsis or Plot section is very broad. Leaked photos, reports of anonymous "scoopers", interviews with the cast and crew, trailers, and the novelization are such examples. The level of assumption to make here in tying all these sources together seems too high to be the editor's burden, especially regarding the illegality and misinterpretation of these sources, in addition to the short-lived nature of the pre-release Plot section.
  5. There is currently various literature available for Spider-Man 3, such as the novelization, the movie storybook, etc. Due to the creative licensing that is imparted to authors in writing this literature, these sources cannot be used as support for what the film will be. They can certainly say what the film could be, but there is not 100% clarification as could be found by seeing the film itself.

I propose that the official synopsis be presented instead for the film's Plot or Synopsis section until the film's release. We can either include and quote it from the studio, which I don't believe causes any issues with plagiarism, or we can re-write the synopsis and cite the location of the film's official synopsis. In addition to the Plot section, character detail should be scaled back, as we've depended on trailers and other sources to flesh out the characters. This may not be so accurate to do so.

I would like to request a consensus on this matter, as I think it's only appropriate to limit in-universe details to after the film's release in order to reduce disputes, misunderstandings, and inaccuracies. Are there any issues with this proposal? The main action will be the downsizing of both the Synopsis and Cast sections to basic detail until the film's release. If it's felt that details about the film's plot should be shared, then it might be best to begin a separate discussion on this matter. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this move. It should benefit everyone. The film will be out in a few weeks, so we can all handle a thinned plot/synopsis for that time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I support it, forreasons such as plot secrecy, there's no way to know with complete reliability specific details about the film. Drsmoo 02:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the {{spoiler}} tag exists to prevent readers from being accidentally spoiled. But yes, it can't be said for certain everything that will happen in the film based on the indirect sourcing we've been using. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Support - this avoids a lot of problems. How do you propose to stop the addition of new information before screenings? How do we keep secret the fact that the Sandman is really Peter's - oops! Never mind. :) -Arcayne 03:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Such information could be written out-of-universe, like in the Production section, Church describes how his Sandman will come into conflict with Spider-Man. Basically, it would not be written at all like the Plot sections of already-released film articles. The details of how to do that -- in a separate section or intertwined with the other sections -- will probably warrant a separate type of discussion. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The official synopsis

How about this as "The Story", as it is called on the SM3 website: (from the Spider-Man3 website, part of

"In Spider-Man 3, based on the legendary Marvel Comics series, Peter Parker has finally managed to strike a balance between his devotion to M.J., and his duties as a superhero. But there is a storm brewing on the horizon. When his suit suddenly changes, turning jet-black and enhancing his powers, it transforms Peter as well, bringing out the dark, vengeful side of his personality that he is struggling to control. Under the influence of the suit, Peter becomes overconfident and starts to neglect the people who care about him most. Forced to choose between the seductive power of the new suit and the compassionate hero he used to be, Peter must overcome his personal demons as two of the most-feared villains yet, Sandman and Venom, gather unparalleled power and a thirst for retribution to threaten Peter and everyone he loves."

I added the wikilinks, obviously. -Arcayne 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn you. I was just doing that and you saved before me. We definitely have to remove all the sensationalism out of it. We aren't promoting the film. Some of the sentences seem to carry on forever.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Holy cats, you mean I actually came in first on an edit conflict? Whoo-hoo! First time for everything. Bring on the dancing girls and the honey brown (for Erik) and a bottle of Midnight Hobo for me. Arcayne 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, should I replace the synopsis with the above, or what? Arcayne 04:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No word for word. We can't have things like "a storm is brewing", or "most-feared". It's indirectly promoting the movie through dramatic wording. We have to reword most of it, and I know you must have a problem with some of the overly long sentences.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
Yes, indeedy, but it is a direct quote. I am not sure how to paraphrase it without messing up the direct citation. Perhaps I just need my morning coffee.

Or to get bitten by a radioactive Composition teacher... Arcayne 11:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here, I've tried to remove what I think needs to be taken out. We still cite the official website as the source, but I removed peacock words and some over dramatic tones.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Peter Parker has finally managed to strike a balance between his devotion to M.J., and his duties as a superhero. But when his suit suddenly changes, turning jet-black and enhancing his powers, it transforms Peter as well. The suit brings out the dark, vengeful side of his personality that he is struggling to control. Under the influence of the suit, Peter becomes overconfident and starts to neglect the people who care about him most. Forced to choose between the power of the new suit and the hero he used to be, Peter overcomes his personal demons as two new villains, Sandman and Venom, gather unparalleled power and a thirst for retribution against Peter."

I think that the wording is too close to the official synopsis. Even with the dramatic tone removed, the structure is still the same and recognizable as the synopsis. It could be boiled down to its elements even further. Generally, what I've done in re-writing quotes for my own use is to look at the passage, put it away, wait a minute or two, then try to write out the general idea that was presented. That way, the ideas come across, but the structure and word choice will usually be different. (Unless you have a photographic memory, then that's a bit of a problem.) —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
We could go the...

After finally being able to find a balance between being Spider-Man, and spending time with M.J., Peter Parker begins to feel secure in his life. One night, Peter finds his costume has changed; it's now black, with the ability to enhance his powers. Bringing out the darker, more vengeful side, the suit begins to influence Peter. After becoming more egotistical, Peter makes a decision to abandon the suit. Also, two new villains, Sandman and Venom, arrive in New York with overpowering abilities.

..route. I don't know, that's just another try. Please fellows, jump in here any time. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It works for me. Probably needs some copy-edit tweaks here and there, but let's go ahead and import it now. Also, how much should we scale back on cast detail? I was thinking of sticking to character description for now. No details about their actions in the plot yet. For example, "Flint Marko: A criminal who is transformed into Sandman." —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No one seems to have questioned the cast list, except maybe for the inclusion of Daniel Gillis. I think if we cited the trailer for anything then we need to remove it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed Gillies, DeZarn, and whoever Mary Jane's father is supposed to be. I've also reduced detail as not to delve into plot detail. Any issues? —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just let the film cite itself. Alientraveller 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. With the film coming out in a few weeks we can expand on them later.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Now we're probably going to have to deal with people who want to expand on either the Synopsis or Cast sections. Our argument is synthesis because we cannot take sources which are either outdated, creatively re-interpreted, or methodically re-edited to describe the film. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan, man. I cannot remember what article I saw this in, but maybe border-boxing the aformentioned text might serve to set it apart for the few weeks until premiere. -Arcayne 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean using <!-- This method to embed comments in the article? -->? Maybe we can if push comes to shove, but right now let's see if there really would be an issue about the lack of film detail. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No, but my light of what you said, my question is moot. :) Arcayne 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunst's take

Kirsten Dunst talks about the confidence of her character in the film and how it deteriorates. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 12:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Promotion and Merchandise

I think we need to tighten up these two sections. We've admittedly used these sections as news aggregators for a while now, but the level of unnecessary detail would probably hurt this film article's chances of recognition down the run. For instance, we can tighten up information about the trailers to say, "The trailers for Spider-Man 3 were attached to Superman Returns,[1] Casino Royale,[2] and Ghost Rider.[3]" Is it really necessary to know which particular trailer was shown, at least in the article? Or the specific films' release dates, for that matter? We can wiki-link the films so readers can go to their articles to find out around when the films were released. Similar treatment can be given across the rest of the content for these two sections, I think. Should we go so far to house everything in Marketing, as has been done on other film articles? —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is no issue, I will go ahead and combine Promotion and Merchandise under Marketing and summarize the information more concisely. I will also revise the Sequel section to be more current, based on recent interviews. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller, let me know what you plan to do so we don't step on each other's toes here. :) —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 15:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did the information about the SM3 trailers being attached to films go? —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I deemed it unnecessary. Alientraveller 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the other ways that the trailers became public, through the Internet? Is it more unique than mentioning what films the trailers were attached to? —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'd like to include a single sentence listing all the major films that the trailers were attached to. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if worth mentioning but Sony Pictures has released multiple clips on their group on showing Spider-man saving Gwen, and part of his Sandman fight) I'd say this is part of marketing definately. Blood Wraith


I'm looking at the three sentences about the toys and collectibles from the film. I want to summarize them to mention Techno Source, Hasbro, and Sideshow Collectibles, but I don't know if that would seem promotional with the companies lined up like that. I don't think we need specific toy details. Techno Source and Hasbro have specific Spider-Man sites, while Sideshow Collectibles' Spider-Man stuff can only be found with searching. Anyone have any ideas? —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just be amgibuous: "Several toy companies....." The sources themselves will take them to the appropriate place. I'd line the sources up alphabetically.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


There are two different soundtracks -- this one with all the pop culture music, and the other one by the composers. I think the difference needs to be outlined between the two. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any sources on the composer's soundtrack? I had a brief check on and they had nothing. Alientraveller 16:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about a soundtrack being released for the composers' music. Maybe you can just title the section "Music" for now and talk about both the pop-culture soundtrack and the musical score. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision statistics

Today, the film article received an overhaul in which the Promotion and Merchandise sections were merged into the Marketing section, with extraneous information removed. A Music section was also created to reflect the musical score and the soundtrack. The Sequel section was updated to be more current, since previous citations were from 2006. The article size went from 37 KB to 31 KB, and we were able to shrink the number of references from 69 to 55. Hopefully the Making-of book will be able to replace a bit of the information in the article, cutting that number down further. If there are any other suggestions to make in shaping up this article, feel free to make them here. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

New Venom pics

Now before anyone complains, I'm just being bold here. I added two new pics: one of Venom attacking, and another shot of Topher as Venom without his mask. I feel these new pics freshen up the article, especially since we have a new trailer and more info to deal with. Both pics are properly tagged, and sized small enough to avoid copyright problems. I think the Venom attacking pic is warranted and should stay. The article is long enough to handle three pics. But if someone feels the old pic of Topher should remain, then lets hear some consensus, and feel free to revert.  Veracious Rey  T  C  01:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree about the Venom attacking picture. It is a pretty dark picture, and I think the Venom without his mask picture would be fine on its own. I would rather have a picture of Harry in his New Goblin gear instead; that would cover all three villains in the film. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 01:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree the pic is dark, but unfortunately it's the best photo we have from any of the trailers. I won't revert any removal, although I do believe the pic fits well. Venom's face is clear, if not his body, but the shot itself isn't really about clarity. I think the darkness of the photo is more advantageous than problematic- sinister in fact. The fight does take place at night. A New Goblin pic would be a good addition too, and in my estimation long over due.  Veracious Rey  T  C  03:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this shot qualifies as the best that's available of Venom. There's shots similar to this and this, but they're flawed in their own ways for being too unclear or blurry. The trailers give a pretty good idea of what Venom will look like with all these shots seen in them, so I don't think this film article necessarily has to present two images of him. Since it's an article of a future film, it's a pretty subjective call to determine what images would be most important based on the trailers and such. Since we don't have the whole story of the film yet, fair use images should probably fit the content available in Production. Two images of Venom is probably overkill in that sense, so I think it would be best to go with the Venom unmasked picture, and replace the shadowy Venom picture with a Harry picture. I think that would make it fairly balanced until the film comes out. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 03:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I've got no problem with the Topher image, but the other doesn't seem like anything more than eye candy. Speaking of the Topher one, does it even sit next to information about Topher being Venom? Most images need to illustrate what they are next to (e.g. Sandman/Spidey is next to the Baxter Humby (or whatever his name is) information). Are we just trying to put some Venom images up to satsify fans?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Went back and checked. The Topher image is next to the bit about him gaining 20 lbs. I'd rather see something that shows that, but atleast the whole paragraph is about Topher and him being Venom. The other image is next to nothing that connects it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Biggie, how about this - the last two paragraphs in the production section could be swapped, and that would put related info directly next to the Sandman pic. Or you could just move the picture down farther, but I think the former idea might be better. After reading the information over a few times, I don't believe moving the paragraphs would hamper the article's flow (at least not to those who haven't read it 50 times.)
Finding a Goblin pic is proving difficult. I haven't located an image clear and detailed enough to use, other than the pic of a masked Harry in his lab. But I believe that one was tried already, and deemed inadequate.  Veracious Rey  T  C  21:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there one fairly reasonable image of Harry coming at Peter in between buildings, with pumpkin bombs in hand? I didn't mind that image to illustrate the New Goblin. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This is what I was referring to; it was Print Screened from the official site. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The image has been removed now, but where the "Venom attacks" was, there was no Venom discussion. There isn't any talk of Venom anywhere below the Topher Grace image. Everything else in that section talks about the film as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay adding the pumpkin bomb pic, though I wish we had a better Goblin shot. I don't know... is one mediocre image better than nothing at all?  Veracious Rey  T  C  23:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

7.5 minute preview of Spidey 3

I don't know if you guys know about it or have seen it but it's at or more specifically Spider-Man 3: 7.5 Minute Preview. There are great images of Harry and his new suit and gears plus more. Gawd can't wait for the movie... Berserkerz Crit 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


How come the part about JJ bringing back the symbiote was edited out and Daniel Gillies was also edited out of the cast? Why the sudden change of mind? Which I'm extremely glad about...Dark Spidey 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the proposal that I made a few sections above this one. Also, since it can't be determined how major Gillies's role is, in addition to other roles like Mr. Watson, they were temporarily removed until the film comes out so it can be seen what kinds of roles they may have. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 03:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

United Nation?

Yeah, I know it was supposed to mean "Worldwide release date"... but Worldwide != United Nation, which later is a international Political body. Suggest removing the UN flag. timdream 12:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, I couldn't find a flag that said "international" in the generic sense. If you can find something to replace the UN flag, feel free to do so. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 13:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the McDonalds flag or Starbucks. They seem to be everyywhere. Even in Columbia, where good coffee was born.  :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
An image of the earth would be better. Berserkerz Crit 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the UN flag with a map of the world template. AxG ҈ talkguests 13:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much! —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 13:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

New Goblin pic

Having read the article I noticed that there was no screenshot of the New Goblin, so I searched, and I found one of Harry Osborn as the New Goblin at featuring his front view on an advanced glider. It was in high resolution so I scaled it down so as not to have any copyright problems. I will add this one in the article above venom's pic. Feel free to comment it; whether it should be included in this article or not, because of the image clarity or whatever.Pvd21 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you crop the image to just show Harry's figure instead of the city background? He's hardly visible. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 17:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't like the image. The trailer provides better screens of Harry as the new Goblin, one wearing the high-tech mask. Berserkerz Crit 17:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this what you're talking about? It's not from the trailer, though. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's great but there's also one from the trailer I posted above, with the glider and bombs and stuff. If anybody could screencapture or what-that-shit-is-called, I think that would be better. I don't know how to do that. Berserkerz Crit 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Spiderman in black

Has anyone considered putting a screenshot of spiderman in black suit in this article except for the poster which is rather in comic style? There are many featuring him but I think this is one of his best in the trailers and clips and would do the job well. It portrays spidey in black suit and his new powers taking "control" of him. Furthermore, could somebody please put the pic I uploaded in the Synopsis section, or wherever appropriate, as I have difficulties in placing it right. Thanks. Pvd21 08:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly where are we to put any further pics? The synopsis cannot hold an image right now, and most of the other sections need relevant images that deal with the text they are near.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree; there's probably more than enough images that could be used sufficiently for the article -- Peter and MJ, Sandman in monstrous form, etc. The Synopsis section is too small for images, so we've tried to tie in images to the relevant content in the Production section. I'm sure when the film comes out, all these images will migrate to the Synopsis section or be removed/replaced by other kinds of shots. Ideally, the section should have images of key moments from the film -- I imagine that Peter possessing the black suit would be one of them, so it will probably be added after the film's release. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 12:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations for possible use

An interview with Church and Franco, but didn't seem like anything to salvage at first glance. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a third trailer at -- this seems to be the final non-theatrical trailer for the film. There's nothing too new except for how Peter gets startled in the mirror. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Possible info for writing: "I had worked on the story with my brother Ivan. Primarily, it was a story that featured the Sandman. It was really about Peter, Mary Jane, Harry and that new character." —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Production photos

I recently came into posession of a trailer-like medium quality video from the internet showing actual production clips (meaning no special effects etc.) like the scene where spidey tears off his black suite or when he fights sandman. I think it was leaked from the crew of Spiderman 3. I am afraid to ask, as I probably know the answer, if such screenshots might be included in this article in a new section such as "The making of" or similar. Please note that this is a friendly inquiry. I do not intend to upload anything if there is no support or legallity as I don't know how to act in such cases. I just want your opinion. Thank you for your time. Pvd21 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad you asked us first! We went through a similar situation with the leaked Comic-Con footage, which revealed a preliminary shot of Venom. We determined that because such footage was not available for public consumption, it would not be appropriate to extract screenshots from them. Additionally, no fair use rationale would apply because the footage is not available in the public realm (in the legal sense, of course). Actually, I wonder if you have the Comic-Con footage... from what I saw, it was largely incomplete. In either case, the footage that you have does not sound appropriate for inclusion. Possible footage to sample from, though, may be the video blog entries on the official film blog. There may be some screenshots of some use in these, but I don't know if it's appropriate to "copy" screenshots from these videos. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, from what you said, it sounds fair enough not to include them here yet. I suppose we will have to wait for more official goodies. I appreciate your explanation Erik; it helped. Pvd21 21:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tracking and early awareness

The above citation talks about how early awareness has been measured to be extremely high for the film's release. There's even some budget mention for you, Bigs -- "Wall Street film financing experts tell me that, based on SM3's budget, it may well be the most expensive film ever made. Sony privately is admitting to a budget of $250 mil, but analysts tell me it's more like $300+ mil." The citation seems valid -- the author seems to work for LA Weekly, so this is an extended blog. Let me know what you think of using this information to set the stage for its release, to see if expectations are met or not. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 13:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't like using hearsay like "but analysts tell me...". What analysts? Where are their figures? Are they incorporating the marketing budget along with the production costs? He's seems to be going vague about the budget issue, as is usually the case.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wary of budgets being thrown around these days, and I'd rather go with the familiar $250 million. You always have to remember to exclude marketing too. Alientraveller 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, here's a link to a woman who talks about how undefined the budget for the Pirate films are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, we'll sit on it and see what other numbers come up in the future. We can always refer back to this down the road. I like that link, by the way -- it's an interesting breakdown about box office revenue and production budgets. The indefinite measurements might be something to create a guideline for when it comes to franchise films in the future. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 18:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting this citation, let's not worry about the budget information. Is the tracking information of any use for the Release section to reflect potential anticipation by film audiences? —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 20:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was rather interesting, it even compares it to other films. Right now, I think it would tie in with the marketing information. I think that if it comes to a point when we are going to nix the marketing info, it's something that would go well with the reception info. We could use it to show a comparison with that and the box office numbers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Theresa Russell

I made this edit with an edit summary, but the database was temporarily locked for maintenance. When I finally edited it, I forgot the summary. I'm hiding it because there doesn't seem to be any notability with her role, as there's no coverage about her as opposed to Bryce Dallas Howard or Elizabeth Banks. Any issues with that? —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 20:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Can I get permission to edit this page so I can put that it recieved a PG-13 rating? --98E 23:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary to include the rating information for the film, for a few reasons. First, it's biased toward the United States; why is the U.S. rating more relevant to mention than other countries? Secondly, the only way to make it fair would be to list the ratings for all the countries, which would be unnecessary indiscriminate information. Lastly, rating information is not notable. The Spider-Man film franchise has consistently had a PG-13 rating. If this film was rated R, then that would be worthy to note. However, the rating is merely standard fare. I hope you understand. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 23:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times

This is pretty impressive coverage that has a lot of "soft" information. There are *spoilers* about the nature of the characters in the film, especially the villain, so don't read it if you don't want to know. Some potentially useful points made:

  1. Conflicts and characters that have carried through the trilogy
  2. Both heroes/villains involved in scandals and emotional dramas
  3. Paparazzi and tabloid journalism are recurring themes
  4. The "inherent sadness" of Sandman similar to Lon Chaney's Wolf Man, as well as recent "villains" Gollum and King Kong
  5. ""Villains with a conscience have this sad realization of who they are, and the monster they've become — there's a sense of regret. So at the end of these movies there's a dramatic resonance that really stays with the audience." -Church (great quote)
Man, I don't even know where to start! :) —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 05:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and included the new information. Let me know if the additions are acceptable. I have to say that the thought put into this may very well make this film the magnum opus of superhero films -- until Watchmen, of course. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That had some interesting plot information mind, but when push comes to shove post-release, the Sandman comparison to various sympathetic monsters was worthy of inclusion. Alientraveller 10:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I spoiled myself a little bit reading the article. I don't include the plot points, due to the proposal we've made and the fact that it will be described in the Plot section in a couple of weeks, anyway. The Lon Chaney parallelism was a definitely a nice connection to make. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 13:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That article has a lot of juices in it. One of them not related to the plot is "Sony will say only that "Spider-Man 4" is in the early stages of development, with no official word on casting, start date or release." Berserkerz Crit 13:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's included in the Wikipedia article. Sort of a pseudo-update on the sequel, if you will. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 13:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if the Spider-man 4 article could be redirected to Spider-man 3#Sequel. What do you think? Berserkerz Crit 13:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
While I would not normally mind that, I think it would be better to continue the page protection, especially through the film's release. There may be some light editors who will unnecessarily change the redirect to an actual film article, and I think that kind of dispute can be sidestepped for the time being. The article's deletion log pretty much reflects that. I think that the Sequel section can be found by readers, anyway -- I doubt that there are people who would skip reading Spider-Man 3 entirely and start wanting to know if there's an article on Spider-Man 4. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Holy that's a lot. Nvm then ^_^ Berserkerz Crit 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Preview screenings?

Not sure if there's anything of use here; some people who were at the preview screening commended it. Not sure if the article is written to be completely positive of the film, though. Erik (talkcontribreview) - 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I worked in mention of positive reaction from Japanese viewers, as well as a brief review from an Extra critic. Hope that's sufficient. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 4 and The Hobbit

Probably not much here either, but the small article is interesting, especially for what Dunst has to say and Raimi's future projects. Might be worth intergrating into the article in some capacity.  Veracious Rey  T  C  23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I worked the Hobbit stuff into the Sequel section, making sure that it was Entertainment Weekly that was suggesting the possible impact on production for Spider-Man 4. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 00:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this quote very interesting:

Sony's President of Production Matt Tolmach tells EW that the studio is cautiously optimistic about retaining the team that launched the Spidey franchise so spectacularly: "Listen, we're making Spider-Man 4. Our hope, dream, and intention is to do it with Sam. But I don't have a crystal ball." (italics mine)

Straight from the horses mouth. So, full speed ahead huh? Perhaps Talmach's definitive quote should be placed in the article as well.  Veracious Rey  T  C  01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I'm not sure how to add that without sounding redundant, since it's already mentioned that the studio is developing the film. The quote doesn't say how Raimi's decision would be handled, either. What do you think? —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 01:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If you mean full speed ahead with making the article, guess again. "We're making Spider-Man 4" is about as definitive as me saying "I'm going to get an A on my paper". I may plan on it; I may work hard to get it; but the truth is, working hard and planning doesn't always guarantee you'll get what you want.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying. But whether Talmach is being overly enthusiastic or not, his remark is still important. I'm not sure why he would go out on a limb with this. Perhaps he knows something everyone else doesn't, and isn't letting on. I can't say I blame him with such a cash cow movie franchise. Heck, they ought to make ten more movies. Anyway, what I'm getting at was that his quote, in my mind, carried enough weight to be mentioned in this article. You guys are much better with those decisions than me, though. I enjoy researching... I'll leave most of the decisions up to you :)  Veracious Rey  T  C  03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh..well, I don't know how it could be inserted in a manner that wouldn't reiterate exactly what's been said before. We know they all (the studio) want to make another film, and we know that Raimi, Maguire, and Dunst would only come back if each of them came back and the story was good. I think we'd end up just bogging the section down if we added every interview that quoted some Sony official saying they were going to make 4 no matter what. Because, you know part 3 is going to be huge, and once it comes out the only question any of them are going to get will be "is there going to be another one?", so we'll have tons of "they want to make another one" replies that will just be redundant to what we have already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with that (even if you're a Seminoles fan).  Veracious Rey  T  C  03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Official Budget

The films official budget is not $250 million. It's $258 million. I have corrected the section on the page. Superherohype has confirmed this. Dark Spidey 11:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Alientraveller had already updated the infobox, he probably just forgot that it was in the body of the article as well, thanks for catching this. I still don't like not having official confirmation of the budget. Sorry, but saying "the official budget is.." and not saying who told you, that kind of bothers me, even if it is Variety. But, Variety is better than BoxOfficeMojo, or any of those others. Now we get to see if they update their numbers or not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot section

When the film is released on May 1st, I would suggest permitting a free-for-all for editors to write up the Plot section however they please. There will probably be a lot of editing (even with the semi-protection) in regard to this section, so I don't think we should be concerned with the quality of the section for the first two weeks or so. However, an eye should be kept out for any edits of the rest of the content, especially the uncited sort. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's going to be the worst 3 days of my Wikipedia life, because I'll have to avert my eyes from the section until it's released here. It's going to be bad. I'm predicting at least a 1500 word essay of the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing write-up

Although I understand what each sentence independently means, I think others will be confused of this.

"Principal photography for Spider-Man 3 officially started on January 2, 2006.[24] Principal photography wrapped up in August 2006 after over a hundred days of filming. Principal photography had begun on January 16, 2006, on Stage 30 at Sony Pictures Studios in Culver City, CA."

I don't know how to restructure it (since I wasn't the one who made major revisions) so if someone else can, please do. Berserkerz Crit 01:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Principal photography had begun on Jan. 16, on Stage 30", that needs to be removed. There is no citation for that information. #24 only says that it started Jan. 2, and #25 only talks about Peter Martorano and Cleveland.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Symbiote origin revealed

A critic has seen the movie and has revealed the symbiote's origin. If this isn't proof, then I don't know what the Hell is...Dark Spidey 07:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we've decided to not write a plot summary as if the film is out. You can write out a synopsis with the true origin come May 4. Alientraveller 07:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We didn't have a personal vendetta to exclude the symbiote's origins. It's not civil to rub this in the faces of editors who are adhering to the policies. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 20:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The running for the movie on the article is incorrect

The confirmed time is 156min [1]

I trust Vue and Variety rather. Alientraveller 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, on RT it says 156 minutes as well. Berserkerz Crit 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it really matters. It's something really unconsequential, and since the movie will be out officially in a little over a week, I think we'll be fine. Variety is a reliable source, more reliable than If they are wrong, then they're are wrong. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and verifiability is based on reliability. As for RottenTomatoes (as I assume you mean them when you say "RT"), they review movies, and since the film isn't out yet (minus special screenings), we can't really use their word for this type of information. Also, it's being released overseas before it is released here in the US, and the overseas version might have 10 extra minutes on it. Since the only viewings so far have been overseas, we cannot say that it will be 156 min here in the US. Now, if there is a 10 minute difference, maybe we could note that in the production section (maybe), but only with a reliable source that says, "Raimi released a 10 minute longer film overseas, because....". Otherwise, just saying "The movie was 156 min in Japan, but 145 min in the US", is irrelevant. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened, which is generally because certain markets are more lenient with certain scenes of a film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


just found that on that they already rated it, it got an 80%. just wanted to inform you guys on that and to suggest to put it on the article, because if i do it, it will probably get erased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

I'd rather wait. I recall writing down all the early mostly positive reviews for 300, when overall as the weekend came it had a mixed reception. Alientraveller 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think getting the quotes of the advanced reviews from RT will improve this article, not the percentage of good to bad reviews. Berserkerz Crit 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Shouldnt we add something about the new goblin? Teeple12 19:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter considering it's out in two weeks? Not to mention the whole Production section. Alientraveller 19:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion we had above about the plot. If it wasn't mentioned in the official plot summary on Sony's page, then we aren't mentioning it here (until the film is out and we can write an actual "plot").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Chabon

The Variety review said: "Four years back, vet scenarist Alvin Sargent, with a story assist from Michael Chabon, enriched the premise from all angles -- emotion, humor and villainy." Is there a citation we can find about Chabon that's not from a review? I doubt objectivity is an issue here, but I figure it'd be better if we can find the Chabon assist mentioned elsewhere. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 20:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this, I haven't found anything in direct relation to Spider-Man 3. Chabon helped polish the Spider-Man 2 script, but from what I could find, he had nothing to do with Spider-Man 3. He was mentioned as a writer for the second film in articles about Sargent being hired to pen the third one, so the reviewer might've misread something. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


I've seen FA articles with this section, and I think it's in the WikiProject Films style guidelines (although I'm not sure, and I'll go check and strike this out if I'm wrong). I think things like this novelization and the game should be placed there, because they are adaptations of the film. We could search for interviews with the game developers and the author of the novel, and discuss their decisions for the changes they made and whatnot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

sounds like a good plan. ThuranX 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Online ticket sales

Add to article?  Veracious Rey  T  C  18:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Blender + Spider Man 3?

Blender was used in Spider-Man 2, so I wonder if it was also used in Spider-Man 3? Anyone have info about that? If so, it should be added to the article. --Jdm64 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The first large professional project in which Blender was used was Spider-Man 2, where it was primarily used to create animatics and pre-visualizations for the storyboard department.
"As an animatic artist working in the storyboard department of Spider-Man 2, I used Blender's 3d modeling and character animation tools to enhance the storyboards, re-creating sets and props, and putting into motion action and camera moves in 3d space to help make Sam's vision as clear to other departments as possible." [2] - Anthony Zierhut, Animatic Artist, Los Angeles


Single long paragraph about the VFX used to create Sandman. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Early critical reception

Early, positive review of Spider-Man 3. Do we want to go ahead and create a Reception section on this article? I think it might be a good idea, as there have already been some credible reviews circulating the web.  Veracious Rey  T  C  17:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There isn't enough review of the film to justify a new section. That was why we are waiting till the film is official released. A handful of reviews for the film aren't going to amount to much. But keep this review here, because if the overall reception of the film declines, it could be good to note that early reception was good (and it what markets that happened), but that it decline after the official release of the film and more mainstream critics had a chance to review the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rating Issue

People want to know what the film is rated. I dont like it that users keep deleting the PG-13 rating. It is not unnecessary. --GTAGeek123 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If people wanted to know a rating they could look up the movie on a film page, or open a newspaper, or watch tv. Film ratings are not notable, unless there is some drastic change to them, like a PG movie suddenly getting an R rating. Please stop adding it. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently, I saw a comercial of the first Spider-Man movie showing on Toonami on Cartoon Network this Saturday, and they said they'd show a sneak peek of SP 3 and the comercial said the rating was PG-13 For Some Sexual Content, Innunedo, and Partial Nudity. I doubt none this would happen in the Spider-Man movie. The previous Spidey movies never showed this kind of content. I'd be shocked if the rating was true. On the regular comercials, the rating was PG-13 For Fantasy Action Violence or something. What's up with the ratings? --Naruto134 00:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It's Cartoon Network... and as for including the rating in the article, think of it this way -- if the rating information for the US is included in the article, then the rest should be, right? So that makes for a long and unnecessary list of ratings, especially when the rating isn't notable. It's been the same as the last two Spidey films. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You probably saw a joke, especially if it was on Cartoon Network. Wasn't that the same station that showed the Aqua Teen Hunger movie, only they made it so tiny you couldn't see what was going on, and they muted it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
But that was on Adult Swim, not Cartoon Network. Even though their on the same channel, they're not the same whatever they're called. I can't remember. Cartoon Network has made mistakes lately. The ratings were probally mistakes or they were trying to trick people. --Naruto134 00:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One can always just go to the source and type in "Spider-Man 3". And I quote, "Rating Reason: Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action violence.".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Still though, if someone would happen to be in a hurry, and they visit wikipedia's Spidey 3 page, they want to know what it is rated. Wikipedia is supposed to have as much information as possible, and a movie page is supposed to have the rating...--GTAGeek123 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to have as much encyclopedic information as possible. Indiscriminate information like film ratings, especially those that have been well-established in this film series, are not encyclopedic. In addition, few, if any, film articles of Featured Article status carry rating information. Besides, the official site is easily found in a search engine's results, especially ranked higher than this Wikipedia article. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to let people know that I did not wish to start conflicts or editing wars. I just felt strongly that one of the first things MOVIE article should have was the RATING. --GTAGeek123 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No need for caps... I understand your perspective, but ratings are really just mirrors of content for film audiences. But if a film's rating is R for strong language, the film isn't necessarily about strong language, is it? Like we've said before, if the U.S. rating was mentioned here, then we'd have to include the rest of them here. Doesn't mean no rating information is allowed -- check out the second paragraph at Spider-Man (film)#Release. That's encyclopedic content because it's the start of the trilogy, but after the first one, it wasn't unusual to have the same ratings for film #2 and film #3. If Spider-Man 3 was rated differently in the US or elsewhere, prompting attention in the media about it, then it could be reported. Otherwise, it's not a substantial part of a film article. I would think that the plot summary, cast, production, and reception are the first things a film article should have. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I'm still a bit hazy on who has the final vet on External Links and their validity and what is considered relevant enough vs. what gets the boot. I take part in a movie preview site called Your_Geek_News and we've been receiving press kits and the rights to use video content online for a lot of great 'geeky' movies. I just wanted to let you know that these links are 100% legit, copyright intact, and are of no lesser or greater relevance than a Rotten Tomato written article or a SuperHeroHype story, which appear to be relevant enough to remain on a Wikipedia article. If you'd like to see the site to validate the content, visit ~Matt (13:06 April 26 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zymaseman (talkcontribs) 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I left you a message on your talk page. You need to read Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox (also the section just below that one, title "Wikipedia is not a repository of links". Actually, it would probably be good to read the whole page, but those two are more specifically directed at your recent edits.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What you are doing is promoting your own project. That creates not only a conflict of interest, but lack of neutrality on Wikipedia. Your article itself is nothing more than a promotional bit, aimed at getting people to view your site. I've never heard of his site (not that it would dictact its usage on Wikipedia), but that makes me question any content on there that claims to be "legal". Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't promote movies, and that is why we generally keep all trailer links strickly to the official website. If someone wants to watch a preview for a film, they can find it somewhere else, because Wikipedia is not a repository of links, where you can just insert your link because you think it's better than most.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

More writing detail

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. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Making of" book

Just a heads-up... this book should be out in bookstores now. ISBN and stuff can be found under "Further reading" in the article. Might have some useful content for the article itself. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sequel Sam Raimi has confirmed that there will be a Spidey 4, 5 and 6. Should this be in the article?

He cannot confirm anything. He's just saying that they want to make a 4,5 and 6. Confirming something that that proportion is a little bit of an overestimation. Besides, it doesn't affect this film. In essence, we really shouldn't have any sequel information here. It sould be on the film series page, since it pertains to the whole series, and not just this film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 4

I think that a page should be made for Spider-Man 4. We have proof of it, so a page should be made. Yahoo! Movies even has a page for it, and they don't post rumors, just the facts. There should deffinitely be a page for Spider-Man 4! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:42, April 29, 2007

I'm sure Yahoo Movies never makes a mistake. Regardless, saying "we're going to make Spidey 4", and actually doing so are two different things. The page should not be created until production has either started, or is really close to starting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Proof of what? Raimi, Maguire, and Dunst are not certain to return, and the sequels are currently in "development", whatever that means. It could be an announcement for people to keep talking about the continuation of this film franchise. Some sequels that seem ready to launch, like the Superman Returns sequel, can run into unexpected delays in production. There's too many questionable factors here, as opposed to the transition from 2 to 3, when everyone was contracted for a trilogy. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 14:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Ben Parker

In the names and actors, "Uncle Ben" need to be redictect to Benjamin Parker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, that's been done. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 18:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


I suggest we archive all closed discussions by midnight on April 30 and have all the April discussions put in a "April 2007" archive. Film's coming out soon, so there may be unnecessary comments to discussions that have been closed for some time. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The film will be out here in my country in around 10 hours. People will come here... a lot of them. Let's pray for this article. Berserkerz Crit 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully The Power of Context will keep any malicious intents to a minimum. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another citation for use

Article about the preparation that Franco did for his action scenes. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)