Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 6

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

Relevant info

Citations

  • ""Spider-Man 3" Web ticket sales top predecessor". Reuters. 2007-04-23. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Single long paragraph about the VFX used to create Sandman.
Talks about how the film was originally meant to be about Peter/Mary Jane/Harry and the new character Sandman. Also talks about hesitation to introduce Gwen Stacy. Mentions how Arad convinced Raimi to put in Venom, but we have that covered already.
Article about the preparation that Franco did for his action scenes.
Some analysis about the lead-up to the film's release. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Title says all. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

*Ian Mohr (2007-05-07). "'Spider-Man 3' spins worldwide web". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Might be a good idea to use Variety instead of SuperHeroHype and the other sources. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Took care of this one, and substituted if for the SHH.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

*"Spider-Man 3 Breaks Japan Record". SuperHeroHype. Retrieved 2007-05-08. - Keep on the look out for the Variety equivalent to this citation, it discusses more records that Spidey broke in Japan just recently.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is probably what you mean. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Rich TV deal. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A couple of Variety citations about the film and its B.O. performance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
60% drop from first weekend. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Overseas stuff. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Could be some stuff for the Music subsection. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The first of three articles about the film's VFX! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Article about... hey, how did you guess? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
About a scene. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Final of the three VFXWorld articles. The above one is just a newswire thing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
More effects info. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Interview with the producer... there's a third one coming. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Early reviews

Early, positive review of Spider-Man 3.

*Wesley Morris (2007-05-02). "Spider-Man 3 Movie Review: Secret identity crisis". Boston Globe. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - 4/5 stars *Richard Roeper (2007-05-02). "Spidey spins shaky web". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2007-05-04. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - Definitely need to include Richard Roeper when we are done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Misc

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

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



Plot section

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

That minor synopsis (the second paragraph) seems so out of place. It should be removed or edited as it starts to summarize the entire movie and then stops, and is then followed by the entire plot outline. 69.221.127.23 23:55, 8 May 2007 Marc 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A brief synopsis is usually included in the Lead, for people that just wish to see the basics about the film. It doesn't go into detail, which the plot does. It's meant to be a broad coverage of the entire film, with no real spoilers, instead of a description that includes spoilers and actual "acts" from the film. If you think it needs a bit of rewriting, go for it, just try to be brief.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spider-Man 4

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

Simple Question: Who gave you the impression that they weren't making Spider-man 4? --Gundor Twintle Fluffy 13:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
(MULTIPLE EDIT CONFLICTS)As we have discussed previously in edit summaries, and here in Talk, WP:CRYSTAL is in effect. Until we have some real material to work with, such as signings of contracts, or public announcements of negotiations and so on by interested parties, all else is probably rumor. we don't deal in that. ThuranX 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the director and the cast have yet to renew their contract for a fourth film, it would be too soon to create a film article for a film that may not even take place. Ideally, a film article should be created when a director, the cast, and a production start date are established. What we've heard about Spider-Man 4 is nowhere near that stage. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Really, just wait until we have solid evidence of the sequal, even though I think that someone said that 3 more sequals were confirmed, but that's just too big of a leap for anyone to confirm so soon. I don't think anyone would want to make a Spider-man 6 page or anything like that.Halo3master5000 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

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

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

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

Spider-Man 3, International Poster.jpg

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

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

ConsoleZ 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

SWEET!

ConsoleZ 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Writing credits

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

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

Sam Raimi story &
Ivan Raimi screen story

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

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

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

Incorrect plot line

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

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


Importance Scale

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

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

Marketing Error

UNder the marketing section, it is said

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

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

Casval 07:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot

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

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

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

perfectblue 11:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of reviews to integrate

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

Citations about music

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

New Goblin or Hobgoblin?

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

John 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

They are one in the same.SG-17 20:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's the New Goblin, because of the ending credits, even though he could be mistaken for the Hob Goblin. I think in the series he was the Hob Goblin, I'm not too sure. But in the movie, he was the New Goblin.Halo3master5000 03:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comics he was both Green Goblin and Hobgoblin (different continuities), in the film itself (the fictional world I mean) he's simply Harry. The credits list him as "New Goblin".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but why wouldn't they list him as the Hob Goblin, then? It doesn't make sense to me.

"Hobgoblin"? That's only in the comics. What I said was that in the film itself, he's just called Harry, but the ending credits list him as "New Goblin". The film didn't really call any of them by their alternative names. Eddie is never called Venom (see discussion below) and Flint is only called "Sandman" once, and that was by a news broadcaster at the end of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In the cartoon, Harry was the Green Goblin, he took over where his father left off. The Hob-Goblin was a completely differnt person. Jay316 17:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In the comics, Harry was the Green Goblin 2. In USM he's the hobgoblin. But in the film he's never called by a code name but in the credits it's New Goblin. -165.13.166.185 06:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mary Jane information

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

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

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

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

Plot Change

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

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

<blickquote>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a problem with these segments:

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

No Evidence on Sequels

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

That's why we don't have any real information in the section, and have a link tell you to go to another page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, but there have been comments by Sam Raimi, Kirsten Dunst, and Tobey Maguire, that if a good story was presented to them(that would make them alot of money), that they would easily go for a Spider-Man 4. I saw it on a TV Guide special recently. :D -GTAGeek123 14:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments do not equal fact. When the studio begins preliminary production, then we'll start a page.  Veracious Rey  talk  20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Three more sequels are now confirmed, take a look at the links please:
[1]
[2]
[3]
--EfferAKS 21:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

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

Please read WP:AVTRIV. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
To follow up on Bignole's succinct response, trivia sections are usually frowned upon for quality film articles. There are several reasons listed at the link that Bignole provided, but I'll explain them here as well. Trivia sections are usually made up of disconnected facts that would be better integrated into the article itself. For example, the section may say, "Topher Grace gained 24 pounds of muscle for the role." It's not very encyclopedic when it stands alone, but when it is embedded into the article (look under Casting), the information works better in showing how the actors prepared for their roles. It's too "easy" to drop an interesting tidbit into a trivia section. Some call it "lazy editing", but I think part of the reason why the trivia sections have been prominent in the past is that there is not usually a great deal of stewardship for future film articles, which may have led to the impression that trivia sections are appropriate. If you find any information that is relevant to the film and could possibly be included in an encyclopedic manner, feel free to integrate it into the respective portion of the article with citation. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
A Trivia section sounds like an awesome idea. Almost all movie articles have a Trivia section. -GTAGeek123 21:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Only those that don't have a status. No FA articles have a trivia section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
A trivia section is a bad idea - and is almost always frowned upon - please see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles - which is a Wikipedia guideline.danielfolsom 23:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Fourth voice against trivia sections, per WP:AVTRIV. ThuranX 03:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, when I first started at WP, I thought Trivia sections were nifty too - they added citable information that could be used as parts for other sections. However, that always isn't the case. Most trivia is either uncited or not focused on the article. As well, when the article is worked from before release, like it has here, a lot of that stuff has already been integrated into the article, which is were it is supposed to be. Take a look at all the FA film articles; these are the best ones we have so far, and none of them have a trivia section. That is bc the trivia that was there beforehand had either been immediately added to the body of the article, or purged as extraneous. Consider this a fifth voice for non-inclusion of a trivia section. Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That said, if you have info that isn't in the article, and is a rock-solidly citable and on-target, argue for its inclusion here in the Discussion area. That way, it avoids edit-warring in the article,and gives folks a chance to evaluate the notability of the info. Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Speaking of Trivia, does anyone notice the inconsistencies with the strength of the bombs? Harry only got scarred (and only in the face) while Venom disintegrated! Green Goblin (Norman Osborn) threw bombs in the 1st film and those he threw at became only skeletons. I don't know if anyone can find an attributable reference stating that inconsistency but I think it would be great for the article since a lot of people are wondering, pointing it out. Berserkerz Crit 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I read in a Spider-Man book that the bomb that the Goblin used in the 1st film (that turned people to skeletons) was called a "flash bomb" because of the flash disintigration. ~ Fernakk 917
The name isn't relevant to the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be a "goof" which is unencyclopedic. Plus, you can simply say they were different bombs, and you don't know how a bomb would react to the symbiote.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that when the DVD comes out, viewers can freeze and zoom in on the writing apparently on each grenade, designating its type as "Plot Device". :D -Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be highly original research since Norman never "named" his bombs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to forget that Harry was superpowered. Based on the beating he took throughout the film he would have high resistance to damage. Venom tradationaly was weak against fire, and he was already weaken by the dinging....all original research but just pointing out it's not entirely inconsistant. (Rekija 06:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
Not if you compare it to the first Spidey film goblin bombs. Yes it's all original research, that's why I asked if anyone could ever find a source that states such inconsistencies (like the dumb crowd watching a gigantous sandman in the construction site a few feet away - which is commented by one of the reviews in rottentomatoes). Berserkerz Crit 07:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Venom

I think we have to include the identifier "Venom" to the article, of in no other place than the Cast section. He is mentioned in the credits as "Venom/Eddie Brock". The fact that this is mentioned in the credits and not in the movie shouldn't make a difference. Elsewhere in Wikiepdia, articles supply names for unnamed (yet noteworthy) characters that are identified in the credits. Recall that the word "ewok" was not mentioned once in the film, Return of the Jedi, but everyone with a pulse knows who they are.
As well, the voices are different when Brock's face is shown and when Venom is 'dominant'. For these reasons, I think we should revisit the decision to avoid naming Venom. Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He's never called Venom, it's just a credits thing. Just like New Goblin. Harry never once refers to himself as any type of Goblin. The only person that got a name, and that was at the last second was Sandman, which was only known to anyone that might have heard the tv. We didn't refer to Octavius as "Doc Ock" before he became Ock, and once he did he got a name in the public. The same goes for GG.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing we need to note is that Eddie Brock's bad childhood is never mentioned in the film. In what way then can we preserve that information in Development? What's the term for backstories directors and actors write for themselves? Alientraveller 15:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What I've done, while working on Friday the 13th, is that if it was just a "backstory" to help the actor better perform in the role, then I would label that as "directing". It's something they are doing to help better direct themselves with the scenes, but that wasn't necessarily in the script. But, since we don't have a directing section, I think development is fine. What happens in production doesn't necessarily have to be expressed in the plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It can under casting though. Alientraveller 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I wasn't aware of where you were planning on pulling it till you did. I agree.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Allow me then to, in a very civil manner, point out how incredibly... PROBLEMATIC it is to pretend like you don't know what a character is called when not only does every single piece of merchandise and commentary linked to the movie state the name, but that character is also an iconic one in popular culture.Rglong 04:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

External Link additions

Please could I add the following weblink to the "external links" section of the spiderman 3 pages. http://www.gruntmedia.co.uk/albums/show/112 London film premiere photos gruntmedia.co.ukAlittlegrunt 10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you first read Wikipedia:external_links, WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#LINK.
The website you want to add a link to hardly seems notable enough and the article already has enough good external links.--Atlan 11:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Order

I'm bringing this here because I've been talking to Alien, and he's mentioned that he doesn't care for the order of the sections. I figure it's easier to find out what others think on a talk page that has become popular, than on the older film pages. My reasoning is that by putting the plot first, it looks like we are giving preference for a section of copyrighted material, that is really only here to serve as context for the real information. I see it as saying "here's the plot, if you don't want to know anything else about the film then don't go any further". Also, The production is what comes first in reality. I see things as: you develop the film, you make the film, then you have the film, you release it, its reviewed and the box office starts to roll. This isn't a problem as far as Featured Articles go, but since someone else doesn't care for it, I feel that it's good to find out what others think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though I don't mind, remember we are discussing a film, and if we do get a film article off the ground, we have to actually write plot and cast, because that is what is a film is. Don't get the wrong impression just because you know how many hours it took to apply a costume. Alientraveller 16:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
See, I think that's what's watching a movie is for. I don't visit other film articles to read their plots (I generally don't visit ones I haven't see anyway), I do it to see what went into making it, that is if I'm not trying to find that info so that the article isn't just a plot. This being an encyclopedia, the plot itself is not that important. A general synopsis in the lead would actually suffice, although I'm not condoning arguing for that position. Plot and cast are important if you are going to watch the film, not read about it. It's all in-universe information. I think that if people just come to Wikipedia just to read about what happened in a film (go see the film), or who was in the film (go to IMDb.com), then they are coming for the wrong reasons. We already have to fight enough battles with extremists that think that film articles have no place on Wikipedia what-so-ever.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the order of sections in most FA film articles? Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I've seen Plot>Production, and I've seen them Production>Plot. You can go to Wikipedia:Featured articles and tally up all the films with each style.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm just a Philistine, but when I started checking out Wikipedia (before becoming an editor), for film information, it was pretty much to get the plot of the movie. If I wanted more in-depth information, I could read on past the Plot/Synopsis. I think that if we don't put the Plot first, people are going to wonder if we've forgotten to add it, and add it in again, creating an XL Bag O' Confusion with a side order of Headache. While it may be chronological to order it thus, it is not intuitive. Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think the big table of contents to the right would be a hint as to where the plot is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne makes a good point. When The Filmaker worked on Star Wars, he wrote very short production sections without sub-sections to make the TOC easier, and he/she also did it to not compress the two images in a plot summary. Alientraveller 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Revenge of the Sith has a rather long production section. Why would someone assume there wasn't a plot section just because it isn't at the top? No one has thought so on the Star Wars articles. The Boondock Saints and Richard III (1955 film) also follow the format, so it isn't restricted to just Star Wars.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference either way, but I don't think the majority has an issue with the Plot coming first. When something else comes first, it seems, then anonymous IPs seem to typically pop up and "fix" this. You could put forth a chronological argument, or you could present a foreground/background argument. The article is recognizable for the film itself, so it's easy to understand why the Plot section would come first, then the background of the film, as well as its impact, would be explored. I don't think there would be as much resistance faced if we kept the Plot section in the front. Maybe we could explore changing it up when there's not so much traffic bombarding this article, raising the chances for someone to put the sections "right". —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll go undo the first two films as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Err. I don't think he was thinking about something quite that proactive, Big. Look, I understand the underlying point, but the fact that the other films in the series are already one way should indicate that it might be okay to adapt the squeaky wheel to the other wheels. And yes, while the TOC may have the arrangements of the sections, I think that perhaps they are counter-intuitive. People see the movie first, and then, interested, read about the stuff that went into the making of the movie. The foreground/background argument pretty much makes itself. Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that makes sense. If you've already seen the film, why come back to read the plot first? I don't see why anyone really needs to read a plot for a film, seeing as it isn't the most important thing in the article (it's the only section that actually has a word count restriction).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
When you think of a movie though, you think of the plot, and usually the section is used by people that haven't seen the movie, and want to know what it's about. I think that more often than not plot is place first, but chronologically is fine to I guess ...danielfolsom

Okay, let's look at this another way: consider the article a journalistici endeavor. In such things, the most important information is included first, second-most important after that, and so on. In an article about a film, the most important part is the actual story. Without it, the film wouldn't have been made, and would have been in development hell, or not made at all. Everything that goes into the film is done to make sure the story is told. Production, Casting, etc - all serve the singular purpose of telling the story. Because of this, the synopsis of the plot should be the first thing detailed (after the Lead, which is an overview of the article en toto). After that, the second-most important thing would be the making of the film, Production. Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

See, you're attributing the importance to the plot just because that's what is there in the end. Without the production there wouldn't be a film to even watch, unless the Keebler elves have a magic oven that preps films too. The "basic" idea of the story for the film is already covered "first", that's in the lead paragraphs. The details analysis of the film isn't that important, it's a side bar to the real information, only used for context, because its the only thing not really written in "out-of-universe" format. That's why we limit what can go in it. If it was THE most important piece of the puzzle, we'd have scene by scene detail. Without the "story" (which is covered in the lead), the film wouldn't have been made, but without actual production there wouldn't have been a film at all. It's comparing apples and oranges, and giving preference to one over the other. It would be like putting "US" in front of "UK" just because you think that "US" part of a film had a more important job. Standard operating procedure, do it alphabetically.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
But the Lead Statements are supposed to be an overview of the entire article, and not just the plot. The Lead is also supposed to mention the production, awards won and general critical assessment. Using your same argument, it could be said that the "basic" idea of the Production is already covered "first" as well.
You also contend that without the production, the film wouldn't exist. I submit that the reverse is just as true: without the resulting story on film, the production is for naught. I am sure you can recall details of films that were in production that was then cancelled when fo whatever reason the film wasn't going to make it to theaters. What initially makes the film noteworthy is that the story is released in theaters. I am not saying that the Production isn't important; not at all. I am instead saying that the initial assessment of the film is the story it tells. Then, the subject of how that vision is imparted allows for people to explore beyond the lot if they so wish. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I know that that is how I look at film articles. I don't think its out of hand to suggest that others approach film articles in similar ways. Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I've never seen lead paragraphs cover production information, because it's too specific. You generally cannot summarize production information like that. Production info isn't generally considered part of the "basic" information in the first paragraph, nor the "impact/influence" type of information in the second paragraph of the style guidelines. What kind of "basic idea" of production can fit in a lead? I can recall films being cancelled before they went into production, not after. Studios generally don't eat that much money. Warner Brothers tends to be the exception to the rule, and even then none of the films went into production, they were just forced to pay out because the films didn't go into production. Also, if a film sucks, that doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Friday the 13th Part 3 has a generic plot of killer stalks campers, but what makes that film notable is its innovative use of 3-D animation. They actually hand built all of the 3-D project attachments for every theater, which was unheard of (and illegal, because they created a monopoly on 3-D projectors) in that time. What happened on a film, story wise, was irrelevant to how it looked, which was all thanks to the production. If the production sucked that would have been it for the 3-D in the film. It isn't the story that was important, it was the visuals.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Movie style villian toys

Is it worth mentioning that the movie styled villain toys have appeared in the games? This is the case for the Scorpion (he's in the first game for a few levels) and the Rhino (he's an early boss). The designs match --HellCat86 23:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Using Venom's name

EVERY source related to this movie - the director, the actors, the website, the novelization, the toys, the making-of book, the credits - ALL OF IT - refers to Topher Grace's character as Venom.

But people are afraid to say the "V" word just because nobody says it in the movie?!?

We all know it's Venom. You know it's Venom. My mom just saw it and she knew it was Venom. Stop being obsessed with particulars and have some common sense, for the love of god.Rglong 03:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Knowing who they are doesn't mean that we should call them that. Harry is credited as "New Goblin" in the closing credits, yet no one calls him that in the film, and he is never called that in the comics.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, knowing who they are does mean we can call them that. Everything related to the movie (again, the games, the toys, the making-of, the website, the director, the actors, etc.) also refers to Harry as "New Goblin". So yes, we can call him that.
Please explain to me how you justify ignoring every other source - dozens of them - over one thing: the actual script. What makes it more important than all those other things combine?Rglong 03:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
If you've seen the comics and the tv shows, Venom is called Venom. also, all the advertisements such as action figures call Harry "New Goblin" as said above. ~ Fenrakk 917
I've seen them too, and the point is that in the MOVIE he isn't referred to by that name. We aren't talking about marketing gimmicks, toys, or how he may have been referred to on a script. In the credits he's listed as Venom, but he isn't called that in the film. We are talking on a purely "in the film" basis.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Because I can find plenty of sources that also call Harry "Green Goblin" and "Hobgoblin", but those aren't right. We don't retcon a film ourselves. We know who really killed Uncle Ben, but we don't go back to the first Spider-Man article and change the plot to say that Flint is the real culprit. Same goes for when he falls in the particle accelerator. Even though he's "Sandman", that's just a monicker, one that isn't given to him until the very end of the film by a news broadcaster. We'd be retroactively inserting a name that wasn't used, just because "we know" the truth. It's just like when a character lies in a film, you don't let everyone know he's lying from the get-go in the plot. The problem is that we've never had a problem with the names before, because the first two films, as soon as the villain is revealed he gets a name publicly. A good example is The Phantom Menace. We know that Palpatine is the Sith Lord, but in that plot it isn't mentioned that he is, because at that point in the story no one knows the truth.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
But I'm talking about REPUTABLE sources - not fansites calling Harry the Green Goblin or Hobgoblin. The creators of the movie and all official merchandise never confuses that name, they ALWAYS refer to him as "New Goblin", which I believe is actually trademarked on all the merchandise. So I'm still not convinced by your argument, you seem to be implying some confusion over the name when Marvel and Sony are clearly fully aware of what both of these characters are called and are in fact slapping those trademarked names all over their merchandise, the website, the novelizations, the video game, and every other OFFICIAL thing related to this product.
I honestly don't give a rip anymore as long as the plot is balanced between being brief and having enough information to make sense, and as long as someone doesn't try to remove all mention of the words "Venom" and "New Goblin" from the entire article, but I still don't agree at all with your argument, not one bit, and I think you need to look at official and reputable sources like the official website.Rglong 04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what they say, and I know what the ending credits say as well. My point is that just because we (the outside world) know the truth, doesn't mean we should reflect that truth in a fictional world. My example of The Phantom Menace is just that. Outside world knows Palpatine is really the "Emporer", hell, it's played by the same dude, but he isn't referred to as the Emporer, and the truth about his identity isn't even revealed until Revenge of the Sith's plot. "We" know the truth, reputable sources know the truth, the studios know the truth, but what we reflect in that section should be a reflection of what actually occured. As far as the rest of the article goes, that's all out-of-universe content, so using those names are fine, because that is how they are used when being associated with the film in a real-world way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying, as long as your argument is that the plot section should stay tied to the literal plot of the movie (i.e. the script), and as long as you're not suggesting that there is no difference between fanboys calling Harry the Hobgoblin and the name "New Goblin" being the officially trademarked name.Rglong 05:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No, no no no...I'm only talking about the plot section. The rest of the article can use the names (depending on who you are referring to) as seen fit, because that's out-of-universe content that is speaking on the characters as they are referred to by the studio and creators.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to come in so late...did someone say there is an official script for the film? That could be considered a source. How much it differs from the film could very well determine its reliability. Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We'd almost never be able to determine authenticity, and I think Rglong was saying "script" when he meant "film".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I say that as long as you have Venom and New Green Goblin in the casting section - that's really the only place that you need them - unlesss you guys are talking about removing it from the casting section - then I would think your nuts ... casting sections should go by the credits I say ... meh, honestly it's not that big a deal either way.danielfolsom 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope, they were listed that way at the end of the film. I'm only attributing the "lack of naming" to the plot itself, because they just didn't use them during the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PLOT problems

I was removing the names you added, as that is under discussion, then I looked at and saw some good edits that I removed along with them, so I reinserted that. As for some of your other edits, plots should be brief, and some of the things you added were just verbose in nature and better summarized as they were previously. I asked you to be more civil, but your second response was pushing it. I only requested that you stopped, or it would force me to seek outside assistance with your attitude. As for this entire section, please no that Wiki is not a personal battleground. I'm sorry if you feel you edits are not appreciated, but the talk page is not the place for such information. It is not helpful to the article. If you have a problem with me personally, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
And please also keep in mind that arguments aren't won simply by linking to Wikipedia policy. Unigolyn 06:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with you personally, I have a problem with anyone who immediately reverts good faith edits. And pardon me if I'm touchy about it, but I've been through revert wars before where one person blocks everyone else's attempts to improve an article, and it is infuriating. I'm not too impressed that you reinsterted some of the things you liked, your comment in the history page after you cleared my edits the first time was the first insult. If there were problems with my edit you could have changed a few sentences rather than getting rid of all of it in a knee-jerk reaction. Again, I don't care who you are. If you or anyone else continues to do that I will take outside action myself.
Also I will continue to change this article if I think it needs revision. It still contains a load of extraneous information and is missing some very major plot elements.Rglong 04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Extraneous information? You may want to read style guidelines for plots. Brevity is the key. Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The extraneous information I was talking about was, for example, the scene-by-scene breakdown of Harry and Peter at the restaurant, though I see you've taken the time to read my whole edit (thanks) and reinclude my shortened version of that section. I'm fine with certain sentences of mine being removed, all I want is for the article to naturally improve as people edit it, not for anything to get automatically erased before it even has a chance to be read by anyone. It also now at least mentions that MJ has a storyline of her own, she is after all a major character. I also think mentioning Sandman's daughter is a major plot element, not a substitute for watching the movie.Rglong 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

She was a major plot element that never panned out beyond some general chit chat, which why I think it wasn't included originally. The film itself has a lot of storylines, many of which are minor and don't go anywhere, like the Gwen Stacy storyline. Her presence in the film serves almost nothing. She isn't a primary factor in Peter/MJ's strain, just a minor compounding one, which is probably why she isn't mentioned more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about the daughter? It's the Sandman's entire motivation for everything he does in the movie. Or are you talking about Gwen? I think the plot right now gives Gwen exactly the right amount of attention by briefly mentioning her twice as she directly relates to Peter and what he's doing to MJ. It doesn't need any more or less of Gwen.Rglong 04:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Penny Marko was the major plot that didn't pan out. But pan out I mean actually get some resolve. He was still trying to help her, but in the end we don't know what happened, and it wasn't like he mentioned her beyond the ending of the film. Thanks for removing the second bit about Eddie being a rival photographer. I meant to do what when I readded yours at the top, but I forgot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I don't think the daughter needs any more mention except that it's Sandman's primary motivation, I think she should be mentioned once as a major plot device and that's that.
As for saying the accelator turns him into "sand" - I find that awkward. It doesn't just make him a pile of sand or something, it gives him the powers of the Sandman. There's no reason not to say so and mention the name, or at least call it "living sand" or something that describes better what he turns into.Rglong 04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It once said something else but I can't remember, or find it in the history. As for the "second plot", a brief synopsis is given in the lead paragraphs that summarizes the film quickly, it allows people that are passing through to just read the lead section and get a feel for the entire page. If it isn't brief enough you can trim it. There shouldn't be any spoilers in it, just a basic understanding of the film itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, okay, but it kind of sounds like the first part of a plot section. Shouldn't it be a brief description, like one you would find on the back of the box once it comes out on DVD or something?Rglong 04:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I guess it sounds alright. I think the main plot section is nice and concise now without losing anything. I know it's not a "substitute for the movie" but it should also make sense to people who haven't seen the movie, so I hope nothing major gets deleted after this.Rglong 04:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That's what I mean, just it has to be in our own words. Feel free to trim if you think it needs it. I think all of us have gotten into the "don't let the plot overrun with detail" phase that we haven't taken the time to just go through it. Last time I checked, the plot was below 600 words, which is below the requirements for plot sections, per WikiProject Films. There shouldn't be any major deletions. You and I've been discussing it, and I personally resinerted things that didn't need to be taken out (not that me doing it personally means that's some type of authority, just that it was my bad).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with that second plot I guess. As for the main plot, I think more about Peter and MJ's relationship is in order, since the whole movie is basically framed around it and relates to it. Mentioning that Peter keeps trying to propose to her throughout the entire movie but that he's not ready to put his wife before himself, etc., is a major plot element and not extraneous, in my opinion.Rglong 05:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There actuall was some bits about him trying to propose to her, but apparently (looking at it now), they were removed. This page has had tons of edits today alone, so who knows where the information went. I'll have to find out tomorrow how you worked it in, because it's 1am here and I have work in 7 hours. Oh, that bit about Sandman and being "sand", what I forgot was that it was in the lead synopsis. So, you can use the "shapeshifting sand monster" as a new classifier, if you wish. It's probably a little better than "living sand", or just "sand" for that matter. Anyway, off to bed. I apologize for any tension.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Goodnight, and sorry to fly off the handle, like I said I was reacting to traumatic memories of past revert wars involving people much less reasonable than you actually turned out to be. As for the marriage proposal, I just threw it in there so it was there. It could probably be moved though.

I can't think of any more major plot elements right now, I think they all may be covered, the article makes sense I think, and it's still under 600 words. In all honesty I would still add a bit about Peter putting himself before MJ and not listening to her or supporting her, but it doesn't need specifics like "he kissed Gwen Stacy" and "whenever MJ tries to confide in him he talks about himself", etc.Rglong 05:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think something should be added about Harry dying and him and Peter forgiving each other and realising they are best friends. It's pretty important. Dark Spidey 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Darky, have you read the plot? That's in there. Well, the forgiveness part was removed, but I'll add it back, because that's what the film is about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a small problem, the grammarian in me doesn't like this sentence:

However, Eddie has grown too attached to its power, and jumps to save the symbiote just as Peter throws one of Harry's bombs at it, destroying both in the process.

If you've seen the movie, you know it's the bomb that destroys them, but the structure of the sentence makes it unclear what the subject of the verbal noun "destroying" is. Who destroyed? The bomb or Eddie? I'm just trying to work my head around how to fix this and keep the plot concise. Wrad 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter throws a pumpkin bomb at the symbiote just as Eddie, who has grown attached to its power, attempts to re-bond with it; both Eddie and the symbiote are destroyed.
You can always try to just rearrange the sentence, like that, or other ways. I like what you did already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice. I'll use that. Wrad 01:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My WORD says "Remembering what happened in the church, Peter frees ..." and "Realizing the suit is changing him for the worse, Peter runs..." need a semi-colon after "church" and "worse", instead of a comma. Both those statements come off as fragments to me, but it didn't have a problem with me just ending them with a period. What do you think? Do you think they are two independent clauses, or dependent?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your punctuation is okay. I think the reason you don't like the structure is that it is generally frowned upon, even thought it is technically correct, mostly because it makes the text hard to read. I'll think over how to adjust it for a bit here. Wrad 01:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see how it would be a complete sentence on its own, but it would be a weak one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something like this.

"In a flashback, Peter recalls how the church bell's toll weakened the symbiote, and frees Eddie from it by clanging several pipes together."

"At this moment, Peter realizes the symbiote-suit is changing him for the worse. He runs out of the restaurant and goes to a church bell tower to be rid of it."

Also, shouldn't "shape shifting" have a hyphen? Wrad 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think both of those are completely uneccesary. First of all, in the first one - you don't need to say "in a flashback" - it's an extra that's uneeded- we're giving the general plot, not the entire movie. The second one is already there, but with better phrasing and less words - it says that he decides to remove the suit - the reasons don't need to be laid out - they're fairly obvoius. And seriously - "At this moment" ? - Why would you ever say that - it only increases wording. "Wow, good thing it said 'At this moment' - I thought they meant 30 years from now!"02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of symbiote suits . . . calm down. If you've got suggestions, please find a less aggressive way to put them forward. This sentence is also a bit off: "Peter takes Gwen to the nightclub where MJ works in order to spite her, and gets in a fight." Who is he trying to spite? MJ or Gwen? the sentence is unclear. Wrad 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with your recent changes. The also seems to me to be necessary to tie things together, otherwise, we're just jumping right into Harry's story with no warning. "Exemplified by" may be shorter, but how many people know what it means? Surely there are other ways to shorten it and increase readability? Wrad 02:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrad, the suggestions you made right below my last statement, I like those. I think you can ditch "In a flashback", because right after you say "Peter recalls", which basically says that he remembers. I think th same goes for "At this moment". The way you worded the rest is good, and I think that should be substituted into the plot section. I think they work better. Yes, there should be a hyphen with shape shifting (effectively shape-shifting). As for your last questions, how about: In an effort to make MJ jealous, Peter brings Gwen to the nightclub where Mary Jane works and gets into a fight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Wrad 02:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and inserted the changes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Changed "restaurant" to "nightclub" for consistency (which I misspelled in my edit summary).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I keep adding in that Harry sacrifices himself for Peter, which is a fairly important point, and it keeps getting removed, so that it just reads as though Venom simply kills Harry. This is not the case. 82.44.185.5 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the adjustment just now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not of much importance but...

Make sure that information is from a reputable source, and don't put information that may be opinion based,as on one website, i saw a reference that said sandman's actual name was Charlie Trailor.Which is somewhat rubbish.(just for the welfare of the article).Wongdai clcheung 10:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's true. Thanks for trying to help out, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aunt May Edit

I edited Aunt May's page. Someone put that in Spider-Man 2 she had to sell the house and live with her neighbour. This is NEVER said in ANY Spider-Man film. I have no idea where that came from. She sold the house and moved into a small apartment. Honestly, where do people get this rubbish from? Dark Spidey 01:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the price of a free encyclopedia. The malcontents can't help themselves. Thanks for cleaning it up, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Remaining Symbiote?

On a side note, I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but remember when Dr. Connors was looking at a piece of the symbiote? There is no further mention of this again in the movie once Dr. Connors calls Peter about his findings. So who knows if Dr. Connors killed the symbiote piece or if it’s still contain in his lab. If you remember the piece was moving and assuming it's alive too. Could this be Carnage symbiote that would later escape in a future film or somehow the reintroduction of Venom?

This is not the place for that kind of discussion. You'd be better to keep that at movie forums, or IMDb.com. But to answer you, Conners said the symbiote needed a host to survive, and with that little piece not having a host readily available, it'd die.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember where, but I read an interview with Stan Lee saying they were considering bringing Carnage into one of the sequels. Jay316 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The symbiote has to have an offspring to form carnage though, because he is red suited.

And please remember again that Wikipedia is not a forum. Alientraveller 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cameo?

I think that Willem Dafoe (Old Goblin) made a cameo appearance as an extra sitting behind Peter Parker in the Jazz club. Can someone confirm this? Although Dafoe is actually in the movie as a sort of ghost of Old Goblin, this would still be a cameo.66.248.160.235 21:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind I found it on imdb. Someone with a proper account can add it in to the list of cameos. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/trivia 66.248.160.235 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We need a more attributable source than IMDb. The trivia bits, in particular, are user-submitted. Some of them are just flat-out wrong compared to the material in this article. Take a look at the bit about sand: "Real sand was used in the scenes with Sandman, except where there were characters being buried/covered in sand. Real sand being possibly hazardous for such scenes, ground up corncobs were used as a substitute. It provided marvelous snacks for the cast and crew afterwards..." Not really reliable, is it? If a more attributable source can be found, we can see about including it under Cast. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Saw the movie twice now, noticed that guy both times - he looks kinda like Willem, but he's a younger guy who just happens to bear a resemblance. Not to mention Dafoe already has an actual role in the movie, so why would he have a cameo?Rglong 16:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I looked for a better source but couldn't find one. Should probably cut it. Wrad 19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the movie 4 times now, and I havent noticed anyone who resembles Willem. Im supposed to go see it this week again. Ill look for him next time I watch it. -  GTAGeek123  talk  20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw him straight away, or I thought it was him. He's right in the middle of the screen, in the background, for a full 15-20 seconds or so in the restaurant. Not that it matters, if we have no source. Wrad 03:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly the guy you're talking about, he does look a little like him, maybe could be a family member, but the guy is like thirty years younger than Dafoe. I'm 100% certain it's not him, but keep an eye out because there is a strong resemblance so maybe it's his son or grandson or something.Rglong 15:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

I noticed that this article has been nominated as a "Good Article". I think that it has the criteria to be a featured article.  GTAGeek123  talk  20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but I think Erik and the guys want to do it step by step. Or not, I don't know who nominated it for GA. Berserkerz Crit 06:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it would be best to do it step by step because the film is still going strong in the box office, both domestically and internationally. According to this, it's the #2 most visited page on Wikipedia. I think we could pursue Featured Article status later in the summer, when other franchise films have taken up the spotlight. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is also a time factor, and many editors will oppose the film strictly on the basis that it hasn't been out long enough.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Night of the creeps resambling

I think Sam Raimi tried to resamble the cult movie Night of the Creeps as long as the scene from the simbiot arrivinge the earth is quite similar to the first scene of that movie, and the simbiot in some scenes resables the creeps form this movei.Altought i was hint about this beacause of Jonah screaming Trill me!. As long as a character from the night iwas named after Raimi, i think this would be a good adition to the so far non existent trivia section.

Cripty

  • Please note the WP:TRIVIA - which states that trivia sections should be avoided.
  • Please sign your post using four tildes(~~~~)
  • Please provide a source for what you say if you expect to get it added to the article, the encyclopedia could care less what you think - it's about what is true. Now if the New York Times said something or other ... then ... who knows, it would probably be added.danielfolsom 20:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Willem DaFoe cameo?

Did anyone else notice a man bearing striking resemblance to Willem DaFoe sitting behind Peter Parker and Gwen in the jazz club scene? If that's him, it certainly should be mentioned in the article. Steveo2 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we already discussed that (see four sections above this one), and it doesn't seem to be him. No attributable source has been found to confirm this information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

The article meets all of the criteria, I'm going to go in and make some corrections that are minor, but it easily meets the criteria. It's well written, sourced adequately, comprehensive, and doesn't have any significant MoS violations. Please note the changes I make and the edit summaries I left to indicate where there were errors. Quadzilla99 13:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Australia release date - May 3 2007

Hi, the release date for Spider-man 3 in Australia was May 3, 2007. Many websites list this information; here's one: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/Spider-Man+3/movie/17415/ Please update this Wikipedia entry accordingly. Thanks! AJ 10:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jameson's vendetta

"J. K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson: The aggressive chief of the Daily Bugle. He carries a personal vendetta {links to Revenge} against Spider-Man,"

Since when does Jameson wants *revenge* from Spider-Man? Someone should edit the link out.

I changed it to "Feud", as having a personal vendetta against someone doesn't necessarily have to mean you are seeking revenge for something.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Thanks!

LOTS OF TRIVIA

Look at all of this! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/trivia I think somwhere in the article we could use some of this trivia. Like the different plot lines, like the one about Sandman killing Venom, which I don't ever think could happen, seeing how the symbiote would revert to bonding with the solid sand particles that make up Sandman, or like Vulture originally being a villain or Spider-Man 3 and 4 originaly were going to be back to back, because of how long the plots were. I mean come on!! Just look at this, someone please eneter it. This is so cool. Thanks alot!!! ManofSTEEL2772 May 25 11:13 p.m. 2007

You should read two things. First, the many sections above that deal with trivia. Second, this page. To sum them both up, trivia should be avoided, and all relevant information (i.e. encyclopedic information) should be worked into the appropriate sections of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that many of these bits actually came from the film's Wikipedia article, and the rest of the bits are extremely trivial. "While being in the Venom costume, Topher Grace didn't drink any water during his breaks because he couldn't use the bathroom with his costume on." Like, really... that's not very encyclopedic. If citations can be provided for any of the bits, then they could be integrated into the article. However, looking at the list, I don't see anything worth hunting for. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WOW! U guys are weird. U don't think any of this is cool and ur source is right there, where I provided you. The web adress. Wow, I though that would be an intresting section, o well your loss.

IMDb is not a "source", it's a collection agency. Some of what they have is stolen from us, almost verbatum.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that trivia is exclusively user-submitted. Thus, not everything may be accurate or attributable or notable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Emo Spidey

I think it's important to include the Emo-Spidey hype that's crossing the internet the past month. Critics, fans, ytmnd-ers, bloggers, vloggers, fora, and especially webcomics are constantly making jokes about Emo Spidey. For the ones who don't know what it means: it the Jared Leto/Goth look that Toby Maguire wears half the film. Many people don't consider it to be 'darker', but 'lamer'. Especially the moment Toby trows his hair back is considered really terrible. Most of the jokes on the internet are about Spidey have 'issues', 'missing his Linkin Park-cd's' or 'blogging his fleelings about MJ'.

It's actually quite a hype. It completly defeated the 300 jokes that were very popular in the past months. I think it should be included in the article. The article is mainly about professional critics, so it's good to read a thing or two about the cultural reaction too.

Got a reliable source mate? As it is, the term emo or goth or whatever we call grungers these days is very blurry. Alientraveller 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Cultural reaction is only notable if someone other than the culture actually mentions it. In other words, if USA Today has an article about it, then it's more notable than say if you read on a forum that someone didn't like it. Most of the "jokes" are trivial, and not verifiable beyond a couple people.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On Vh1's Top 20 Video Countdown, host Aamer Haleem quoted the lead singer of Fall Out Boy, (whose first name is Peter, and whose last name slips my mind) who is especially adamant about the use of the stereotype, and even yelled "Spider-Man 3 sucks!" at a concert. Does that count? Steveo2 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Internet memes based on films often suffer from recentism. From my personal perspective, the memes for 300 have not really stuck around as much, so its doubtful that its impact on pop culture is long-lasting. This is likely to be the case for "Emo Spidey" as well. These things aren't reported right when they surface, but rather after a period of time, if it is persistently relevant enough, by the mainstream media. Find some citations about the media reporting on this so-called Internet sensation, and we'll see if it's relevant enough. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spider-Man_3/Archive_6&oldid=1137198396"