Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 1

Topher Grace

Topher Grace has red hair. Carnage is a possibility. --65.30.89.204 2005-05-20T20:38:42Z

I just want to say that this is one of the most unintentionally hilarious things I've read in a good long while. --Misterwindupbird 03:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, he sure is a lot like Kasady. I could see it. Of course now they've said he's bleached his hair for the movie. --216.49.220.19 2005-10-13T11:31:02Z

I could see it in a movie, as well. But not in this 3rd edition of the saga, I don't think Carnage would fit in. He is way ahead in Peter's background and it seens to me it would just be difficult to fit in the trilogy plot, if they want to keep going with the same Spider-Man (comic)'s fidelity as they are keeping so far. --Cawas 15:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Um..excuse me but, HE'S EDDIE BROCK.-Jedizati 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Topher Grace will at the very least be Eddie Brock. Whether he will become Brock's alter ego Venom or not is yet to be said. If I had to guess though, based on Church's statement that Topher Grace's character will be a "real guy" until the end, where Church is quoted as calling him a "villian"--we will get to see Eddie Brock as Venom, even if only for a short while. That worries me a bit though. It says cliffhanger all over it. Jason 02:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

you mean, "Topher Grace is almost definatly Eddie Brock"-Jedizati 22:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You can pretty much surmise that he is going to play Eddie Brock, but, because Sony, nor Raimi or Topher have confirmed this we cannot put it on the page. Bignole 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It says on IMDB, and has been confirmed by 3 sources (enough for most newspapers) that he's playing Eddie Brock, why the speculation still?71.193.188.142 05:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Because IMDB also has that fan made synopsis up there like it's the real thing. Sony has not confirmed it, Raimi has not confirmed and Topher has not confirmed and there is no visual proof, that is why. - Bignole 11:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have read the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, or even played the video game, it would be obvious to you people that the Venom/Eddie Brock of this film is to be influenced by that incarnation of the character. Topher Grace would be playing that type of Venom...not the one you know from the main Marvel 616 universe. GIPU 68.11.135.130 0:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how obvious. Wikipedia doesn't deal in obvious, it deals in factual and until Raimi, Topher or Sony announce otherwise, we can't put it up there. Bignole 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You know...rudeness rarely helps in talk pages...but maybe Mr. GIPU just pulled it off. Feh. Anyway, though some of the Spidey movie universe and its continuity are lightly influenced by Ultimate ideas,—not the game, the comics the game is loosely based off of—that doesn't mean everything will be as it was in Ultimate Spiderman. For example, last time i checked, Ultimate Spidey was sixteen. Can't say the same for Toby's peter parker. Ultimate GG is a mutated form of Norman (no suit). Harry is hinted to be GG two, not Movie Hobgob. Doctor connors doesn't suck! Aunt May's the same old gal from——you guessed it!——Earth 616. Now, I could go on, but I won't. Eddie Brock (in some form) is likely to be in the movie, but Sandman (and possibly harry as GG2 are/)is only confirmed villain(s) so far. Ace Class Shadow 01:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the rest of the Spider-Man film characters Ace...just the way Venom is going to be portrayed in this film.....go back and reread it. I never said anything about the rest of the film being influenced by the Ultimate comics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.135.130 (talk • contribs)

Yeah...that's...nice. Topher is not confirmed as playing Eddie (Ultimate Version or otherwise). Believe it or not, he could—dramatic gasp!—be playing someone else. Honestly, it's not bloody likely, but we have to go by the facts. Black spider suit, Sandman, possible GG2, likely inclusion of the eddie brock character (but no actor to pin to the role) and SM2's Conners thing all add up to...a lot of speculation and a high chance for error. I've already told you why I feel your theory is off, but feel free to keep it (out of the article). As for our discussion, I'm usually as much for witty banter as spidey, but no chances to the article are likely to come from us just talking about our beliefs. - Ace Class Shadow 02:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't think Tophers playing Eddie? Well, dig this! Image:EddieBrock1.jpg Jedizati 13:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Topher is Eddie Brock. http://superherohype.com/gallery/Spider-Man/Spider-Man_3/On_Set/217.jpg

The person who took that pic of Topher and Bryce heard their dialogue and Topher is called Eddie. Why the hell do you people try to ignore that?

YOU ARE MY FRIEND NOWJedizati 12:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We ignore it because that was some fan saying he "heard" something. In the legal world that's called hearsay, which is unverified information that is heared, also known as speculation. Again, I repeat, we aren't trying to dismiss the fact that Topher is Eddie, we all truly believe that, but our beliefs do not supercede Raimi's, Topher's, or Avi's actual acknowledgement. Thus far, none have actually linked Topher to that character, it has only been fans and critics of the film. Bignole 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Its been confirmed that Grace IS Eddie/Venom--40k carnage 02:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)40k carnage

Venom

People are adament about Venom. I propose we keep him listed on the cast list but with his actor TBA. If not that, I'm open to other suggestions. The Anti-Gnome 05:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't make sense. The table is a cast table, and you are listing Venom as an actor. The character has only been mentioned by two actors and as much as we would like to believe Church, filming is still underway and they could easily scrap the character, if they are using him. The Sentinels in X3 were not even confirmed (even though there was concept art for them early on) until just the other night when Jackman showed a clip on Leno, that involved a Sentinel. So, I say that it shouldn't even be mentioned till someone higher in the food chain says so, namely Raimi or Sony. For all we know these actors are confusing Eddie Brock with Venom, seeing as someone probably said "Eddie Brock becomes Venom", but there may never have been a story Venom, just Eddie. Bignole 05:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Listing Venny as an actor was a accident. I meant to list those reversed. I still honestly think listing an actorless role would be a stroke of genius. Especially given the pressing situation/ I really think it could work, but I'll admit you have a point, too. Still, thinking about it, kinda sux that we might be depending on some talk to show a clip of Topher in his role. I mean...really. Though, if it's Conan, I guess I could live with it. HA! The Anti-Gnome 05:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean, say you list Venom as the role, but no actor. Then the movie comes out and there is Eddie, but no Venom. I mean, even having Venom created in the last 15 seconds, like Harry finding his father's hideout, doesn't really establish the character in the movie. So, to me (even though I want it to be so badly) neither Eddie or Venom are established characters, as of yet.Bignole 14:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. And as far as Wikipedia and Stanly are concerned, they're the same person. Feh. I dunno. I really hate saying this, but if we can't come up with a better solution, we might have to ask for article protection or at least a semi-protect. The Anti-Gnome 21:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

They are only the same person once Venom has arrived. Eddie is a single character, and was long before the symbiote came to town. What I am saying is that most actors are not comic savy, and if someone says that Eddie Brock is Venom, they may just think that if they have Eddie in the movie then they have Venom in the movie (i.e. Curt Conners and The Lizard, as stated by Kirsten Dunst in the first sequel). Bignole 22:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's sad that it got to the point that just plain 'TBA' isn't enough to deter people from typing in Eddie Brock/Venom. Now it's always TBA + specifics unknown/unnamed character/unnamed villian/character not yet officially confirmed. While TBA alone should imply any and all of those useless additions. It's just become so redundant, and an eye sore, and I would think even more confusing for the casual reader. I'm almost afraid to make a change because nothing so far seems to have been enough, but maybe spelling out TBA as To Be Announced would help. Jason 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but you know someone is going to come along because in their eyes it is "confirmed" and they will change it, because they obviously think we are doing a bad job to the point that we don't know the difference between rumor and fact.Bignole 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. I also removed the link to the wiki article for 'TBA' now that it's spelled out, that way it stands out from the other role links. Worst come to worst, we'll just have to keep changing it back until something official comes forward. Hopefully that'll be soon. Jason 02:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so this is cleared ahead of time, I have just seen some photos from the NY set and Topher is indeed a photographer. But, let's make this clear (even though I want to put this to rest and finally call him Eddie Brock) there has been no verification of what his character's name is. The only people calling him Eddie/Venom are other reports and columnists that are receiving pictures and running with it. They have not interviewed him or Sam Raimi or anyone of higher status to confirm his character. That being said, Raimi has already stated this will deviate from the comics the most, which could possibly mean that Topher is playing a "pseudo" Eddie Brock, and not the real deal. It isn't uncommon to create a character that represents previous characters. This could be done so that fans do not get angry if Venom never shows up in the films. Eddie was Peter's only real photojournalist antagonist, but, if you don't want to show Venom then you probably don't want to show Eddie either. Either way, for future reference, even if people view the set photos, please don't take away from it that he is playing Eddie, not unless there is a specific quote from Raimi, Arad, or Grace confirming that. Also, when they finally do announce his character, let's pay attention to what they say, because if they do not say Venom, but only Eddie then we can't put "Venom" as the character he is playing. Bignole 01:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Venom should be confirmed on the main page. The Q and A that was posted on Aintitcool.com was true because they are filming a scene in New York where the extras have to act like their scared of one of the villains growing huge. Of course it's Sandman...and that same Q and A confirmed Venom. And since it was written four months back, it had to be true. Here are pictures of Raimi directing the extras http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9064649&postcount=506

Provide the link to that Q and A, because I don't remember Raimi confirming Venom, and I certainly don't remember anyone confirming Topher as Venom. (Dunst and Church don't count as verifiable sources, mainly because we remember Dunsts prediction about The Lizard. )Bignole 04:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Q and A was made on SHH Boards with some user who pretended to be in the know. Here are his answers to questions. The post was made in February and it's unedited because it would show otherwise. It fits perfectly with what is being shot in NY http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8299411&postcount=1

And here's a link to a user who talked to Sam Raimi and asked him about Venom. Here's his picture with Raimi on the set. http://superherohype.com/gallery/Spider-Man/Spider-Man_3/On_Set/171.jpg

That is some forum site posters personal Q and A, where is the link to the actual one? If that is so reliable, why has Avi Arad said there are 4 villians. Why didn't that Q&A say 4 villains instead of 3? Why did they claim that Harry is more active than Franco has claimed he is going to be? We don't use forum sites as sources because it is too hard to verify their authenticity. Unless you can find the actual Q and A then it is basically worthless. I've read the "interview" that fan had with Raimi. What I found interesting was the fact that Raimi spilled the beans so much to some fan, right in front of the exects, and yet he hasn't said anything to any real journalist. That is why we don't post the speculation about the pictures. SHH.com just posts the pictures and the emails it's fans send, they never claim anything that the sending says is actually true. They only thing they claim to be true are the photos that are sent. Bignole 04:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You gotta admit it got many things true. Like the final fight in a construction site. And the Spider-Man Day thing. Here's a pic of it http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/Powderman_2222222/6461.gif The original was here http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=22569 but Sony had it removed. The post on the board is a transcript And the Q and A wasn't with Raimi. It was by some guy called lakiamai who clamed he worked on the CG No one said that there was a final fight in a construction scene, just that there is one. When he was "interviewing him" they were filming the scenes right then. I don't doubt the guy was there and saw things, I just doubt his q and a. Why would some guy who "works on the CG" answer questions? He doesn't know anything other than CG. Anyway, any CG is all in concept right now and they won't do anything till post production with CG, so he hasn't "worked" on anything most likely. It doesn't seem at all fishy to you? I mean it isn't hard to guess certain things. Look at the questions, they really aren't questions but statements that are admitted to. It seemed as though the guy just wanted to be acknowledged that all the fans were right about their assumptions. The movie isn't coming out for another year, there are a lot of things that can change in that time. Bignole 11:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The post was made in February and is unedited. Look at the date. And if it was edited it would say so at the bottom of the post. How could he know about Sandman growing and Gwen being held hostage four months ago? About SpiderMan day or the black suit being the same as the original costume? Furthermore, at the SHH Boards, there are people on the set right now, taking pics and videos everyday, and they hear about Venom all the time. Just look at the SM3 board there. And just look at the interview where Arad confirms 4 villains http://www.ifmagazine.com/new.asp?article=3028

iF: Why not the black costume from the comic with the big white spider?

ARAD: We reserved the white spider for something else.

For Hobgoblin? Nah...Obviously for Venom.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=4319

And Sam Raimi saying Venom is in the film near the end. Lol, that make alot of stuff. Sorry, I just think that it's not really a secret who Topher is anymore.

Again, I repeat, I have not disclaimed anything, just said that we do not post speculation. We post confirmation. Bignole 14:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I just think that Ned Leeds shouldn't be considered. Topher is Brock. We know that. Venom still isn't 100 percent confirmed as Raimi himself hesitated when asked about him. He did say he appeared but...who knows.

Well, because Avi says there are 4 villains, one yet to be named, it could be Hobgoblin, and that could be Ned because he was a reporter/journalist (w/e you want to call him) and Topher does look like him. No one has actually called Topher Eddie, and for all we know there could be some unknown playing Eddie. I personally doubt it, but, because there hasn't been any confirmation of that we allow all interpretations, so long as they are reasonable, and don't claim to be more than speculation. Bignole 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9141593&postcount=22

Look at this post by SHH by the webmaster. They had posted a spoiler pic but had it removed. It was of Topher Grace's villain's doll and it wasn't Hobgoblin if you know what I mean. They will post it only after the film is released. Let's hope someone leaks the pic again. Here's what left of the report http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=4372

Or better yet, just visit the SHH boards. The plot was leaked and authentified and Topher Grace is definetely Eddie Brock and Hobgoblin does not appear in the film.

We ignore it because when you deal with SHH you deal with fans' opinions, versions, and sometimes lies. It isn't that we don't believe that Topher is Eddie, because most of us do, it's that we do not post speculated information as if it were fact, unless someone (Raimi, Avi, Topher) actually verify the report. Wiki is about verification, and if it isn't verified then it has be listed a speculation. Bignole 19:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Until it gets posted by a reputable source (not a forum), any announcements saying Grace is Brock are about as convincing as this piece of tape on a trailer door. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn it! Sony got to SuperHeroHype and if you post spoilers from the Q and A, you get banned now.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/announcement.php?f=234&a=2

Grrr! This thing was legit and no one believed it when we should have. Now, we can't even mention it.

Here's MJ and Harry with each other. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9231409&postcount=4463

Then here's MJ meeting Peter at the same place then leaving crying. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9231397&postcount=4460

She's dumping Peter because Harry is forcing her to do so. How do I know this? It was in the leaked plot from months ago. The same one that we can't talk about on SHH boards at the risk of being banned. The same one you people are ignoring since you all want Topher to be Ned Leeds. And he's not.

We don't want him to be someone he's not. You should calm yourself. Wikipedia isn't about adding assumptions to pages when there is no real verification. What you can't seem to understand is the fact that just because someone says something it doesn't make it true, and even it is true (which none of us have ever denied what we truly believe, so please get that through your head) we still work on the principle of verification by reputable sources. FANS ARE NOT REPUTABLE SOURCES. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, because unless the people upstairs so say, anything can change in a year. Bignole 02:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In the teaser, you can see Ned Leeds in a church looking up at Spider-Man who is taking to black suit off with the bell. Wow...he must be Hobgoblin! There must be two Goblins then as GG2 is seen and it's Harry Osborn...He's unmasked and punch Spider-Man. Oh and Sandman fights in a subway that gets flooded...Just like the Q and A said...But that was fake, eh? Go Ned LeedsAlso explain to me how they guessed that the GG2 would be black and that he would wear googles and not a mask. EXPLAIN IT!

I revert change it whenever someone posts that "Topher Grace is confirmed to be Eddie Brock in the teaser trailer". Whoever does that is lying, and should realize it.

His role has Eddie has been leaked by multiple independent and reliable (sometimes) sources. He's playing Brock. Accept it. I have, and I was one of the people keeping his name off the article. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The teaser trailer does not confirm it, and that's my point.

A point I second, my good man. While - as I said in my edit summary this morning - DO genuinely believe that Grace is playing Brock, and while some reliable sources have claimed it, the article's claim that the teaser confirms the identity of his character is completely false. All he does is look up and say "Parker." - Chris McFeely 18:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The only way "eddie" could now be false would be if they completely change the story of the symbiote. The reason it's there now is because the "symbiote" has been acknowledge. It just isn't a black suit. Then there is the bell tower scene, where we all know eddie picks up the symbiote. Then there's Topher, at the bottom of the bell tower, looking up, saying "Parker". Now, I'm not saying we should confirm Venom, but that is the event that occurs right after the symbiote takes over Eddie. Eddie gets Peter's memories and thoughts and realizes that Spider-Man (the hero he hates) is the same person as Peter (the man he hates). Bignole 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There's some net speculation that he's Ned Leeds. He may be a hybrid of the two. The trailer has Harry getting pumpkin bombed in civilian clothing. Maybe Topher plays Hobgoblin and when he gets defeated, Harry becomes Goblin II, and then Topher becomes Venom later. Since this one strays from the comics, it wouldn't surprise me if they merged Ned Leeds & Eddie Brock.

There is no net speculation that he is Ned Leeds, there never was either.

Ok VENOM is the Symbiote. Not the person. SO Venom already came out in the trailer. So the trailer does confirm Venom's appearance, it comes out in it. Wether Eddie Brock will be shown wearing the Symbiote can still be debated but Venom has been definetely cofirmed.

Please sign your comments. Also, the symbiote is the symbiote and does not become "Venom" till he latches on to Eddie. If it was Venom before then how come Spider-Man didn't go by that name? How come Spider-Man didn't refer to himself as "We". Please learn the mythos before you respond. Bignole 14:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw in the trailer that Peter takes off the Symbiote and leaves it, confirming Venoms apperance. You dont understand that the symbiote is a peice of the Venom suit.I belive my friend Ted about Venoms apperance. Its obvious.

Did you see Venom? I saw him rip off the suite, but I didn't see "Venom". Just because we know the story doesn't mean we can predict the film. Bignole

Why in the world is Topher Grace given credit as Eddie Brock/Venom when there has been absolutely no confirmation of Venom even appearing in this movie? I am removing the /Venom and I am asking for it to remain like that until there is verifiable proof of him appearing as Venom in the movie. Much more then un-comic savvy actors splurting about Venom making an appearance, as the Kirsten Dust comment about Lizard was obviously confusion on her part, and not valid confirmation of a character appearing. A trailer of Spidey ripping off the Alien Costume is not valid proof either, as the movie might even end with this final scene. (Cablebfg 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

He shouldn't. People keep going an and changing it. His only listing should be as Eddie, as that is rather obvious from the teaser. Whether he is Venom is completely different. The problem is that we have trouble controlling anonymous users coming and an adding it. Be assured that someone is usually on top of it to correct it, and if you are planning on watching the page then that means we will have one more pair of eyes to watch over that bit of info. Bignole

Then i will take this duty to the grave with me, if i see it edited without confirmation given, i will revert it. (Cablebfg 21:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

I think the Venom suit appears at the end,or at least the making of it.--40k carnage 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)40k carnage

That doesn't exactly explain why the ad campaign of the film revolves around the symbiote. 20:16, 16 July 2006

Please keep in mind that the discussion page is not a message board. It's for discussion about the article and what should/should not be included. It's simple: until something is confirmed, it should not be included in the article. Theories about the movie are great, but this isn't the place to talk about them. You are just making this page longer than it needs to be and difficult to navigate. It would also help if more people signed their names to their comments.--CPitt76 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a user. I don't have a name to sign. But I'll try to avoid discussing theories in the future. 12:36, 17 July 2006

I signed and I'm just a GIPU. >_> 172.194.72.233 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What ^he^ said. Besides, you really should just make an account. >.> ACS (Wikipedian) 22:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation

Stop removing Venom from the cast lit...Sony have now released a pic of Eddie Brock bonding with the symbiote...its obvious he is in this film now so stop removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.80.172 (talk • contribs) on July 23, 2006 at 02:22 A.M.

Picture can be found here, if anybody wants to upload it.[1] --Nehrams2020 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Okay. Don't worry, guys. I'm on it Dayum. Topher is Venom! ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler:

A full scene was shown at Comic Con. I'll be as shaddy as possible; parts of it can be seen in the teaser trailer, however it's edited so that the symbiote does not appear near Topher. Topher Grace as Eddie Brock transforms into the complete Venom; fanged teeth, eyes, and drool included. one attendee described this Venom as being similar to Todd McFarlane's art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6.63.204.206 (talk • contribs) 05:48, July 23, 2006

Hmm. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that he's confirmed I think that portion of the article needs to be cleaned up a little. The bullet list with info that points to Grace being Brock isn't really relevant anymore since it's no longer speculation. Anyone oppose removal of these items and replacing them with a paragraph about the comic-con info?--CPitt76 01:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

You know the Ultimate Venom article? Before it went with the Venom article? Do you think you could bring that back but in the Venom article like I make it? Answer Below As Soon As Possible.

That's a question you should pose on the Venom page. Bignole

The Lizard

More than one villain? Why? The first two just have one in each of them! Why more than one? Besides, how are they going to fit the origins of all these villains into one film? It will have to be super-long just to fit three! Spider-Man films usually aren't that long! Scorpionman 02:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The Lizard would be a good choice, and so would The Vulture, Kraven, Scorpion, Mysterio, or even the whole Sinister Six. Sandman would be visually interesting (the sand effects, shape-shifting, etc.), but he may not have enough of a story behind him. Venom and Carnage should definitely not appear till a later film. Alexander 007 21:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The lizard, once considered the most likeky option, has probably been removed as a possibility, since the actor who plays Dr. Curt Connors is Dylan Baker."

What does that sentence mean exactly? There's no explanation given, so the casual reader will be left rather confused. Could someone add some detail/explanation to that sentence? -- Anon

Can we be sure that the Lizard is really ruled out now? I think it still seems quite possible to have him in this one. Even today's issue of USA Today, in its coverage of movie new from Comic-Con guesses that the villan Thomas Haden Church will play is "either the Lizard or Venom." -GamblinMonkey 17:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Hayden Church has been confirmed into the role of the Sandman, so that removes any possibility of him playing Lizard or Venom (Dylan Baker has been confirmed to be in this new film, so he will be doing the Lizard if that villain is in here). Scorpionman 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets start out with the obvious stuff. The villians are Harry Osborne as either the Green Goblin II or Hobgoblin, the sandman, and venom. The origin of sandman is rather easy to cover, along with the Green Goblin II (or hobgoblin), since The plot line for that one began LAST movie. Venom will be a toughie, although we already had a breif introduction to Eddie Brock in the last movie (*Watch closely when Mr. Jameson is talking to see what I mean*). -+-Anonymous-+-

I have to ask,when do you have to listen close.Im just wondering.

Darker

Would Spider-Man 3 be much darker like Batman Begins than the 2 previous Spider-Man movies? --Ed Telerionus 19:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be pretty kewl. But I think there should be a lighter side to it, also.-Jedizati 12:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Could be. When you give it some thought, this film has a lot of potential for deaths of key cast members, such as Harry Osborn (said to be his last Spidey film), Mary Jane (since there's a new love interest), Aunt May (dies in the comics), Captain Stacy (dies in the comics). Jason 02:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Spiderman2 was alot darker than the first one, so I'm assuming Spiderman3 will be the "darkest".

Its been confirmed Gwen Stacy also dies.

OK seriously, that needs some sort of spoiler alert if it is in fact true. --Lordofchaosiori 23:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The teaser pretty much comes right out and says this film will be darker.

about the "confirmation" that has been made on the article

an anonymous user has made changes to the article today "nearly confirming" that Chameleon will be on the third movie .. i have nothing against that but i still can't find anything on the web that "nearly confirms" it.. does anyone know anything about confirming anything yet? I'll change the "nearly confirm" to a "big possibility" till some prove shows up. --Amr Hassan 13:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon is NOT in Spidey 3.-Jedizati 02:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Chameleon and Kirsten rumors

The chameleon article was origionally posted on countingdown.com if I'm not mistaken. Regardless, the article was almost immediatly taken down and no longer exists anywhere in the net, except from a few scattered quotes. It was removed because there was no evidence to support it and was probably a lie to begin with. Also, other sites are reporting that in a interview Kirsten Dunce supposedly announced Thomas Haden Church will be Sandman and Topher Grace Venom. There is no way to be sure about this but the articles are still around if you care to google them.

I have to ask whether the Kirsten "Dunce" was done on purpose. 4:09, June 29 2006

New Actors

About saying that Thomas Haden Church will play Sandman, and Topher Grace will play Venom... Now, this is just a speculation and I have no external source to say that, but I believe it would be much more likely the other way around. To me it looks much more natural picturing Thomas as Venom and Topher as Sandman. Even because Sandman could "get out of the crime" if there is no Wizard in the plot, and Topher always plays the good guy.

And, as people are saying, I don't believe there would be two villains unless it's the whole Sinister Six. And it's more thinkable that Venom would be saved to a later movie, IF there is a later movie being arranged. So, if this is the last movie, Venom will probably be there. If he isn't, that's probably because it is not the last movie of this saga.

Also why both actors have to necessarily play a villain? Maybe one of them are going to do something else, who knows? I just can't imagine something else...

I'm sorry, this doesn't look like a relevant discussion. I can see that now I just typed it in... But I just want to make sure it really isn't and if it's ok to leave it in here, I'd like to talk about it with anyone willing to. :P

--Cawas 19:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Doc Ock and Green Goblin in Spider-Man 3

I don't know why they would be considering Doctor Octopus and Green Goblin as possible villains. They both died, right? I know that they return in the comics, but this is a comic book movie and they need to leave room for new villains. There's no way Doc Ock could come back to life, anyway, if he was dead, which I do not doubt. Scorpionman 02:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, a comic books story line can be much more far-fetched than a movies because of it's audience. Many movie-goers would not appreciate a preivously dead villain coming back, because it is not plausible. Plus, I think they would much rather have some variety. 70.179.110.153 17:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, however, Thomas Haden Church IS playing Sandman. A simple stumbling across SonyPicture's Spider-Man site provides proof enough of that. In addition, all discussion of Venom, Carnage, and the accompanying details is, at this stage, speculation.

I think it's safe to say that any speculation of Doc Ock returning is erroneous. When Kirsten Dunst slipped and stated that there would be "two and a half bad guys. Because one will be resurrected." it's most likely that she was referring to Green Goblin II. The "because" in her statement (given that she actually did say 'because') is pivotal. It implies that she was referring to the 'half bad guy' as the one being resurrected, and IMDb has already listen Franco as Green Goblin II. This is also supported somewhat by the possibility that the second Green Goblin will go good at some point in the third film, thus making him a HALF bad guy. That is of course still pure speculation at this point. Jason 01:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would IMB list Franco as the Green Goblin II, no one has confirmed that that is his role. I said he went in for a lot of SFX makeup prep, that since Raimi is deviating from the comics alot with this movie (as he said so himself) he could be playing either Green Goblin or the Hob Goblin, or none at all, maybe something completely different. IMDb is posting speculatory information. But I do agree that Doc Ock would be a real big stretch as the "half a bad guy". I just checked and they do not have Franco as GGII, he's just Harry. They do have Topher as Venom, which is speculation on their part, because no one knows what part he is actually playing. Bignole 01:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I was just there yesterday, I swear, and the information was completely different. They're changing things around a lot. It had Franco listed as Green Goblin II and Topher Grace had nothing but (attached) next to his name. I don't know what's going on at IMDb. Jason 02:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because IMDb is like wikipedia, anyone can edit it, all you have to do is register. Bignole 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, any changes to IMDb have to be made through the site's managers. Jason 02:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

well then I guess it's obvious that they don't know what they are doing. Bignole 02:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

IMDB never knows what they're doing until a week after a movie's release. Considering what Kirsten Duntz said, "because one is ressurected" would most likely mean James Franco as Green Goblin II. If she never did say "because" though, Lizard/Curt Conners would certainly fit the bill of "half a bad guy," as well as mind-bending CGI. 04:18, 29 June 2006

Venom

If Venom is even a possibility, then the film will have to go into all that Secret Wars stuff, and then it will have to be extra-long in order to fit that all in and there won't be room for any more villains. I think that we should drop Venom from the "possibility list". Anyone else on this? Scorpionman 03:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, it's a widespread rumour, and they can write a new origin; I understand that Venom's origin in the animated series is different (and simpler and more concise) than that in the comics. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sam Raimi is quoted as saying he would have liked to get this movie out for summer 2006, but that there was such an enormous amoung of CGI that he had to wait till 2007. He went on to say the special effects will be spectacular. Raimi's statements lead us to one obvious conclusion: VENOM. Reynoldsrapture 19:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily...the new technology that Raimi is working with is state of the art, this stuff is supposed to do what The Abyss and Jurassic Park did for the first major CGI works. Plus, We already know that Church is Sandman and since his body can morph forms that right there is going to be major CGI work. Bignole 19:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you kiddin' me!?!? Venom is almost Definate! And after announcing Spideys Black (Obviously Symbiote) suit!-Jedizati 12:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

He's not almost definite. Raimi has already stated that this movie will stray the most from the comics, and if he was telling the truth about his feelings for Venom, then you will not see him ever while he directs. Now, even if Topher is confirmed as Eddie Brock that does not make him Venom. Church has said that Topher is going to be a normal guy for the whole movie, till the very end. So, that could mean the movie ends with him getting the suit. But, it could also mean that at the end of the movie "eddie" stumbles across the Green Goblin's lair and decides to become the Hob Goblin. That would be a departure from the comics, big time. There are plenty of possibilities. Bignole 13:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have some great thoughts Bignole, but c'mon man, are you arguing just for arguments sake? Have a little fun here, and don't jump on what everyone else has to say so much. We're all just excited that Venom is probably in this film. Don't take me wrong here, I'm not trying to bust your chops, just lighten up a little. Reynoldsrapture 19:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you thinking that. I would love for him to be in the film. My point is that it cannot be placed on the page that Topher is playing either Eddie or Venom until Sony has confirmed such a thing. Otherwise we are merely posting speculation and that isn't what wikipedia is for. At this moment in time this movie is about 90% speculation, the only thing we know for sure is Church is playing Sandman and Gwen Stacy is coming into the story. Bignole 20:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Speculation is okay in the discussion forum. That's what it's for. But I agree with you, names shouldn't be posted on the main page until confirmation. I should have thought twice before changing it (though I did use a question mark). Reynoldsrapture 18:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. We all get excited when we think we have some new news regarding something we like. I never said that Topher wasn't playing Eddie, and a lot of the facts point that way, but it's only because of what wikipedia wants that we have to wait for supported sources. Just keep checking Superherohype.com and the official site. Bignole 19:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It says there was going to be Venom movie in the Venom artical. The reason it was cancled was because Sony purchased the rights to Venom. Isn't that proof enough.

Gwen Stacy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Gwen Stacy's name appear on a tombstone during the closing scenes of Spider-Man? If so, it certainly warrants a mention in Wikipedia. --AWF

i just watched the last chapter on spiderman on DVD, and i saw no headstone of Gwen Stacy... (Cablebfg 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

IT SAYS THAT IN THE ARTICLE THAT GWEN WAS PETER'S FIRST GIRLFRIEND. THIS IS INCORECT. HIS FIRST GIRLFRIEND WAS BETTY BRANT.

No, his first date was with Betty Brant. His first serious girlfriend was Gwen Stacy. He and Betty never became serious. It says "his first serious girlfriend". Bignole 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is something you might find... Interesting.

http://spiderman.sonypictures.com/ Kalas Grengar 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

um...what was it? what is it?-Jedizati 12:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

well to me its spiderman in the symbiote suit (supposedly, having his photo took. now there only two people that could be - peter parker or eddie brock. and seeing how the camera was moving and zooming in, im thinking the latter. Ritchie_b

Assuming stuff just causes problems. This is a teaser and not actually from the film. Also, there is more than just one photographer at the Bugle. The couldn't survive with just one or even two. Bignole 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Darker Suit?

Everyone is going on about Spidy's new dark suit, based on the poster that has appeared showing him sitting on a ledge in the rain. The suit looks black, sure. But anyone with some common sense can see the mood of the poster is supposed to be dark. Spidey is hanging his head, it's raining, probably middle of the night. Thus the suit isn't black, the entire poster is meant to convey darkness, loneliness, despair, etc. I'm willing to bet the color of his suit is still blue/red. From all I have heard, the tone of this new movie will be one of tough choices, between women, friends who turn evil, and so on. Spidey will have some difficult decisions ahead, this could be why he is sitting lonely on the ledge. Just a thought.Reynoldsrapture 15:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the official site claims that the poster is not black and white and that the suite is indeed black. They have not said anything about this being the symbiote (thought that would be the obvious conclusion), but, they did concur on the speculation that it is a black suite and not just a black poster. I agree that the mood is supposed to convey bleakness, but, do you think it would have looked better if it was the middle of the day in the background? Remember, when he wore the suite (after his ego trip) he was really depressed about the way he was acting. The poster could symbolize his distress over his actions while he was wearing this "black" suite. Bignole 16:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read that the site confirmed the suit is black, but I'll take your word for it. One thing I'm confused on: Did Spider-man himself wear a symbiote suit for a time in the comics (if so, the poster makes more sense, because the pic is obviously not Venom), or is the symbiote suit worn exclusively by Venom and Carnage. Maybe you can clarify this for me. I'm not exactly a Spidey expert. Reynoldsrapture 20:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things: yes he did, although he didn't realise what it was, then he got rid of it when he realised, the symbiote escaped, and then bonded onto Eddie Brock. Venom and Carnage more or less ARE the suits, but only when bonded to someone (thus there have been multiple people wear the venom symbiote), Carnage is the 'son' of Venom. Secondly, and more relevantly to this, I read an interview in Starburst magazine where Stan Lee said Venom was in the film, unfortunatly, the whole article is not on the net, however http://www.visimag.com/starburst/ has the beginning of it, although is not really much use. Alexjholt 09:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Eddie Brock could very well be in the movie, and to Stan Lee, Eddie Brock will always be Venom. He could have been saying Venom, but, it could only mean Eddie. Either way, we can't put a role for Topher till Sony confirms it. Bignole 12:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I see it like this: the picture sony releashed is obviously not of the "real" black suit. They can't show that in a freaking promo pic with the movie a year or more away. They're confirming the black spiderman suit but giving us a fake picture of it. Classic. Ace Class Shadow 23:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Filming has been underway for months. Bignole 00:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Why not? Face the music guys, Sony would make no gains from deceiving their audience. They wouldn't have released the image if they weren't prepared to do so, meaning it's not a 'tentative' black suit that's just acting as a placeholder to confirm the symbiote suit--it's the final version. If you're disappointed with the suit, you have "a year or more" to come to terms with it. Jason 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.manyhighways.com/photoblog/20060610.php Here are some pics of his new suit. Looks more like a really dark blue than black.

You mean Superman Returns, and that's old news lol. Lordofchaosiori 01:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

New poster pic- look closely...

200px|thumb|right The new poster pic of Spider Man sitting in the rain with his head hung... can anyone see an image of a person? I downloaded the pic and zoomed in on his eye. I'm not sure, but it does indeed look like the image of a man with the head and arms visible. Remember the Spider Man 2 poster and the image of Doc Ock in Spidey's eye? This could be something similar. Anyone agree? Reynoldsrapture 03:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you are looking at is a reflection of the storm clouds that are overhead. Bignole 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

One can never be too sure... Reynoldsrapture 16:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping that you were correct and that it would lead to identifying another villian, but alas it was only storm clouds. You can tell by just comparing them to the clouds that are directly behind him. Bignole 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Created a zoom in for the conspiracy theorists (and those curious) --vossman 21:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the zoom, it shows that it nothing more than clouds. Bignole 22:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, awesome job on the zoom Vossman. I guess I'm wrong, but weirder things have been observed. Reynoldsrapture 23:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

200px|thumb|right Could this be the Hob Goblin? User:Wuffyz 20:28 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... I don't know. What do Vossman and Bignole think? Reynoldsrapture 19:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

All of you who believe that there is something in the eye should take a look at the largest version of the image available @ superherohype.com. It's unquestionably NOT a villian. It's just the webbing on his arm. Jason 10:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually... in the latest issue of "Total Film" in the UK, they have a *very* large and high quality sized picture of it (Page 15). If you turn it to the right 90%, it *definately* looks like a mask within the eyepiece, more specifically, it looks like what I'd expect the "movie take" of Venom's face to be. I'm aware people will probably think I'm BSing, but if anyone else has that issue of "Total Film" - check it out. It's a *much* higher quality image than the one that's here. I'm going over to check the Superherohype image now though. (Ulicus 12:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

Checked, and yeah, works the same there though its not *quite* as easy to see (though still pretty obvious). Flip it to the right 90%, and it's very clearly a face, with it's own eyepiece and mouth. (Ulicus 12:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

To demonstrate (of course, it might NOT be venom, but its clearly a face/mask - download and zoom if still in doubt) -

Gah, looking at it even closer, there's a chance that it could be a new "Green/Hob Goblin" mask for Harry, since there's something that looks like it could be an oversized nose. Whatever, we'll see when the film's released. (195.92.168.175 14:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

LOL...you guys will see what you want to see. It doesn't remove the fact that nothing has been confirmed. Bignole 14:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, though I don't know how you can't see *anything*. (195.92.168.174 12:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

I wouldn't bet my next paycheck anything is there, but the super-enlarged pic does look intriguing. I don't see anything that looks like an image of venom, but there sure does seem to be something in the general shape of the Hobgoblin. Let's deal with what we know: first, Harry discovered his dad's evil identity at the end of Spiderman 2. Second, he knows Peter is Spiderman. Third, we know Harry is in the next film. Put that all together, and it's safe to say Harry goes bad in some way or fashion. I could be way off here, but I don't think Raimi would toss the ending to Spiderman 2 and totally go off in another direction without at least answering some questions about Harry first. So, in summary... yes, that could be an image of a mysterious mask in Spidey's eye. Anyway, it's fun to talk about. Reynoldsrapture 18:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see what someone would think of as the side of a face, but it looks more like a venom than a hobgoblin. Hob looks just like Green, only different colors. Raimi said he wasn't sure if Harry would turn evil. Harry could battle a lot of personal demons in the next movie. Unfortunately, we do not know anything yet, and I have a feeling we won't know anything conclusive until Talladega Nights comes out and the teaser hits. Bignole 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks a lot more like a building when rotated right 0%. Colin Barrett 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think it's just his webbing. If the image is a mask, it looks like crap. Reynoldsrapture 00:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that if it was a villain -- venom as you're saying -- then spider-man wouldn't be sitting in the rain like that; he would probably be fighting him or running away from him or at least talking to him if they weren't fighting, but from his position he does not seem to be talking, figthing nor running away from anyone!! --PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, even if it is something it wouldn't mean that he would be fighting him. This is a promo poster, not a scene from the movie. Bignole 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For f-ing Christ! Rotate the pic so the dark Spidermans chest is facing up. Now zoom in on the eye. It’s the head and shoulders of some character, but who???

I think its Venom or hobgoblin/greengoblin2. I inspected it SUPER closly and there looks like a big tounge hanging out.one word.VENOM

It's definitely someone. It looks like the first film's Green Goblin to me. Keep in mind though that it's a teaser poster and it may be using a random image as filler until - forgive me for saying it - the appearance of Venom is created.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6752/faceuz9.jpg, I think it does look like a face, a face with something on the forehead :S Can't figure out what it is.

I think it just looks like a white diamond. It could just be the webbing on his costume. Try not to get too obsessed with it; it may just be nothing.--Shut The Eff Up 04:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

John Jameson

In the article, it says that John Jameson already has the jewel. I just watched the second film, and didn't see it anywhere in the movie. Does anyone have a screenshot to confirm this? Was this in some sort of deleted scene or something? Colin Barrett 06:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe he was wearing a necklace in the scene where he and MJ are opening up their RSVPs for the weddding, and she tries to kiss him upside down. I don't know if that is the jewel from the comic. Bignole 11:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I just watched Spider-Man 2 for the fourth or fifth time, making sure to pay special attention to the scenes with John Jameson, and in none of them was he wearing and sort of necklace or medallion. However, there is something odd looking on the right side of his neck, and if I recall the jewel which turned Jameson into Man-Wolf attached itself to his neck, right? So it seems it was at least there. Willpower 08:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the story behind this jewel you guys are talking about? Reynoldsrapture 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In the comics John Jameson discovers a ruby which turns him into the villainous Man-Wolf. There's some conplicated alternate-dimension stuff involved, so I doubt it'll figure in 3. My guess the jewel and Jameson's "jump" in 2 is a bit of an homage. Willpower 12:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

He is also shown in Spidey 2 next to a full moon.--135.214.40.68 21:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Teaser Site!

What do u guys think of the Spider-Man 3 Teaser Site! I think it's perdy kewl!-Jedizati 19:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

rumoured plot

i think the 'rumoured plot' should be removed. it's not rumours, it's more of a fan fic.

I agree, I just placed the "(rumored)" part on it so that people wouldn't get confused and think that it is true. It has been circulating the web for about a month now. Bignole 22:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any other evidence against this plot summary aside from a lack of confirmation from Sony and its unusual length? Jason 08:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of, it isn't listed anywhere else that is a valid source (i.e. Superherohype.com or Movies.com)Bignole 11:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The version posted in the article seems to be grammatically touched up a bit. Nothing major. I just noticed a while back that a line on IMDb read as "What's Parker's secrets?", which should be either "What are Parker's secrets?" or as it's typed out on the wiki "What's Parker's secret?" Anyway, I'm probably diving a bit too deep into this, but if the original read as IMDb does, it could be further evidence against it being legit. Unless Sony's writers don't believe in proof-reading. I have to admit though, the summary does sound an approach Raimi would take. Jason 06:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that Sony has never released such a plot. Why is it that the plot has not shown up at any other official website? Bignole 11:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland filming

A second unit has begun work in Cleveland for some stunt shots today. Not sure if that's worth mentioning. I didn't see anything much interesting happening yet. http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1145608981106950.xml&coll=2 Pimlottc 20:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

From now on, to avoid edit wars about redirects, click the link and see where it takes you. If you click Cleveland and it takes you to the Indians then you know it is wrong and then you can supply the correct link name. If you click New York City and it takes you to New York City then it's fine, and you don't have to correct it to say New York, NY; because there are already redirects automatically placed to take you to the correct page. If the link goes to where it is supposed to go then changing to be more specific doesn't change it's link, thus making it a POV edit. This works both ways, so, please stop with the edit wars about redirected links. Check to see if they work correctly, if they do then leave them be. Thank you. Bignole 19:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't treat us like children, dude. Or at least not me. They're the ones changing stuff pointlessly. I'm easy going, that's why i left it as "New York City" when such an edit was pointless. Thanks, though, for indirently backing me up. Of course trying "avoid redirects" is POV. In reality, that's just to change someone else's work to use your choice of terminology. That's POV and just impolite. We're supposed to be a team, guys. Teammates try not to piss each other off if they can help it. This can definitely be helped. Ace Class Shadow 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to treat anyone like a child, sorry if I did that. I am just annoyed at the constent changes that are unnecessary. I'm not casting blame on anyone, just pointing out that if it works the way it is then there is no need to correct it. Only if the link is sending you to the wrong page, like when you are trying to look up an actor, and someone else has the same name but isn't an actor. Bignole 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree, but it'd be nice if you notice who's right and who's wrong (and maybe mention that in the talk page comment, too. It's not bias if it's accurate). :) Ace Class Shadow 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically both are right, because both links go to the right page. Also, both are POV titles, one is just more specific that the other. I prefer not to take a side and say who is more right than the other, because that just fuels fire that doesn't need to be spread. All I wish is that everyone work together to make this the best page possible, and not have fight over details such as which link title is better suited for this page. Bignole 20:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess, but I must disagree slightly. If a person is speaking editting an internal link (title or otherwise) to match their POV rather than to help the article, they are at fault. Anyone trying to show them the error of these ways should be praise for doing so, because that person would, like you, be trying to avoid further problems. But feh. It's really no big deal, I just wish they'd realize there's nothing wrong with redirects.

Hey! I also just realized something, by changing the destination, they're miss informing others. Normally, if the word "cleveland" is wikified and click, you'd see the "redirect" message. By avoiding this, they're actually misinforming anyone who clicks that link. I'm changing it back. Ace Class Shadow 20:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ace, I think you need to assume good faith in other's edits. There was nothing wrong in changing the link from Cleveland to point to Cleveland, Ohio. Also, your edit summary of "Changing the link this way is not only POV but selecive misinformation (lying). Changing it back. Learn to admit when you're wrong, you'll be better for it." tells me that you might need to review what is POV and what is not and to know that piped links are not misinforming the reader, but pointing a link to where it needs to go while not cluttering up an article with the link's full name. I think you need to learn to admit when there's nothing wrong with other's edits. No one in this has made a wrong edit and the article has been needlessly reverted multiple times. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed on some talk pages that you sign your name as The Anti-Gnome. Based on your description of what's POV and lying, do you not consider that deceiving others? I personally don't because I think piped links are fine as long as they're reasonable, like the Cleveland link, but it seems kind of odd that you'd have a problem with it when you use piped links in your own signature. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't start this discussion to cast blame, or to create personal attacks. The point was that no matter what your reasons, blatantly going back and forth editing a piped link is still considered an edit war. I don't care who is to blame, or who is at more fault than the other. In a 48 hour period there were 9 edits to either the New York link or the Cleveland link, and to me that's one in the same, because they both center around the same thing which is linking to the appropriate city. Both links worked exactly the same, and delivered the person to the correct page. Bignole 13:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a nickname! There's no "Anti-Gnome" other than myself. Anyway, I'm over this, really. The way I see it, it was about two <insert derogatory plural here> that wanted to "avoid redirects". What is that? Are redirects "bad" now? Should we keep our women and children away from them? Use Redirecticide in a can? Form Anti-Redirect Klans? I mean...really. Still, I've stopped using the Anti-Gnome nickname and gotten over this whole thing. Being the one to post comments about edit wars in other articles prior to this I should have known better. I'm right, of course, but whatev. Ace Class Shadow 20:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a couple of days late, but things need to be clarified. Fixing a link so it goes directly to the page instead of bouncing off of a redirect is perfectly acceptable and in no way pushing a POV, lying, or anything of the sort. It's just a trivial edit to make things flow slightly smoother. There's certainly no reason to edit war over such a trivial matter. Saying you're in the right to revert such an edit, however, is certainly a flawed statement. You're only compunding the situation by wasting more space (however little) on Wikipedia's servers instead of just leaving it be. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Alright. Here's my final beef: labeling something "cleveland" but linking to "cleveland, ohio". Makes the reader think "cleveland" isn't a redirect. Isn't that misinformation? But I digress. This is a "waste of time/space". Debating semantics. Really...

But still, I guess a learnt something. No matter how pointless the means, we must avoid redirects at all counts! Kill the redirects! ::Hails to the fuhrer::. ACS (Wikipedian) 19:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not misinformation. What about all the links to movies with (200X film) in the name? By your logic, piping those links is lying to the reader. Same goes for your signature. You're lying to people by piping the link to omit the "User:" and changing how it reads. You are basically arguing against link piping here, so you must see why you're wrong. As for your last comment, don't be so melodramatic. It won't kill you to pipe a link instead of using a redirect. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I started this was to end trivial edits that didn't need to be changed. If someone links "Cleveland" and then later someone changes it to "Cleveland, Ohio"; GUESS WHAT!? they both go to the same damn page. The only difference is the at the top it doesn't tell you that you were redirected. I could see if you put in Cleveland and it sent you to somewhere else, but if the link works correctly then changing it is a needless edit that is only going to piss someone off and cause them to change it back, so forth and so on. If the link works then leave it be, that was why I started this page. As long as you are taken directly too the right page, whether it be because the link contains the exact page name, or because it was AUTOMATICALLY redirected there then it doesn't matter. Now, let's stop bickering about who is right and who is wrong. Everyone that had a hand in the link changing was right and everyone that had a hand in the link changing was wrong. They were right because both links went to the same page, they were wrong because they were fighting over who's link was the best; if you didn't pick up on that that is what makes it POV. The same thing applies to the New York link. New York City; New York, NY; and New York, New York are all the same damn thing. There is only one. Bignole 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

New York is the new Highlander?! ACS (Wikipedian) 20:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that changing a redirect isn't really necessary, but changing it back is even worse. Someone fixing a link is technically in the right, since it's a small matter of good bookkeeping to do so. That whole edit war in favor of a redirect is just ridiculous. As for the POV thing, there's absolutely nothing POV about fixing a link. ACS was the only one fighting the link. The other two each only chaged it once and cited decent reasons in their edit summaries. ACS misused the definition of POV as a reason. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, look, I don't want to fight. I really don't. But I'd rather not ever debate this again. Can we at least acknowledge that if a link goes to the right place, changing the name is pointless? I see where big is coming from now. I really do. I wikify "New York, NY". That's specific, it gets you there. I'm not wrong. Honestly, I think I picked it because I wasn't sure if I should be too specific. The movie might take place in multiple New York cities, right? Anyway, someone else comes in to change the link. Was the link broken? No. Was it misdirecting the reader to the wrong article about the wrong location? No. Was it linked externally as opposed to internally? No. What was their "valid reason" for changing a link in a way that would easily qualify as a "POV" edit? "avoiding redirects".

Okay, welll, Redirects aren't always good, but they certainly aren't always bad, either. If you have an article about something that goes by various names, wouldn't it make sense to have a the less accurate names exist in your encyclopedia but redirect readers to the most accurate one (which was used as the article's name)? Yes? That makes sense? Excellent. So, the redirect is HIGHLY unlikely to be made into its own article and is still serving a purpose. Good compromise. That's the situation we have with these locations. The difference is, this isn't some paper encyclopedia where people have to flip pages. Redirects automatically display the correct article and text.

Effectively, what was done to "avoid directs" was no better than changing a wikified alias of a person to the name of the article about that person. ("Scott Summers" to "Cyclops (comics)".) In this case, whoever changes the link after it's been put into the article is just making a POV edit. I'm trying to force my POV on this basis that the other people are wrong, and that I'm self-rightously teaching them some kind of lesson (on manners, above all else, in this case), not realizing that I'm incorrect as well. Meanwhile, they're using the weak excuse of "avoiding redirects" not realizing that YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

Bottomline is: We don't have to avoid every single redirect in existence. That's what I've been saying from the beginning. If you disagree, fine, but that'll be your POV, and that's something I doubt you could use to improve an article. ACS (Wikipedian) 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Aunt May as Carnage?

IMDB's Full Cast & Crew list shows Rosemary Harris as May Parker/Carnage. WTF? Dr Archeville 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been why I have said that using IMDb as a valid source is not enough. I mean, that is probably just some idiots vandalism, but, they do tend to put more speculation on their website than most. Bignole 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And now ths listing's gone. As it should be. Dr Archeville 12:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Its supposed to be Peter as Carnage. Or as it said in Ultimate Spiderman comics.

• Spider-Man 3 is based on the main Marvel universe, not the new Ultimate universe. Just a thought.

HAHAHAHA! Aunt May as Carnage...that's a good one. 75.58.211.220

Confirmations in general

I know a lot of changes have been made lately, because anonymous users believe them to be true. Most are merely speculation. SHH.com posted an email they recieved from someone that claims to have talked to Raimi and that he devulged info to them that he and the executives still haven't released to anyone else. They claim that the teaser will be with Superman Returns, that Venom will be in the movie, that Topher will be in a suit, and that the teaser will be like a minute and some change. Sorry, but I honestly don't know what SHH.com would even post such garbage. I'm sure Raimi is a great guy and would talk to fans, but I highly doubt he would slip up and release information that he wasn't supposed to, with exects standing right there (according to the email).

Also, these set pics, I have seen the set pics. They are rather awesome, but nothing in there has confirmed anything more than Tobey wearing the black suite (so yes, that is confirmed, it wasn't just a play of the image, it is a real suite and you can see for yourself), and that Topher is a photographer. You have to assume the photographer is Eddie, but with the changes from the comic it doesn't mean that he is "Eddie" in a literal sense. (I personally believe he is Eddie, but my opinions matter not when it comes to the accuracy of this page). Also, the chair pieces that contain the logo...sorry, but they are simply the spider that is on the back of the original suite. Granted it may look a bit different, but rememeber they have changed the suite before, but it is still of virtually the same design, and not the same as what Venom has on his chest and back. This major assumption comes from the fact that it is white and sits on a black background. From there we should take into affect the fact that Avi Arad has specifically stated that the suite is a representation of Peter's mood, and since they are playing on the suite heavily in the poster, the color scheme is nothing more than that. Also, in the original movies they didn't have the blue/red color scheme on all crew equipment. Anyway, we all need to work together to keep this article accurate to date. If you find an actual verification that any of these rumors, or any others are true (made by people that count, not fans who claim to have talk to someone, but actual interviews that are circulating around to other news organizations) then please change the page accordingly. But, until that does happen, let's work together to revert edits made by people who do not take the time to assess the speculatory nature of their claims. Thanks. Bignole 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing a post on the SHH boards about how the top legs of the spider on Pete's chest, in the image of him opening his shirt, actually bend inward like seen in some illustrations of Venom--or the symbiote suit, I can't remember which. My best judgement tells me that they weren't being delusional. So the logo could have been changed a bit for the purposes of the symbiote storyline. Jason 16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm, sorry, Bignole, but YOU are mistaken. The link I put up (Yes it was I who found the link to the pics of Topher) specifically stated that VENOM IS GOING TO BE IN THIS MOVIE AND THAT GRACE IS PLAYING HIM! Kalas Grengar 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Show me a link where Raimi, Topher or Avi Arad have said that Topher is playing either Venom or Eddie Brock. I have seen the pictures of Topher, and the problem resides in the fact that no one has actually stated his particular character's name, except for Church and Dunst and I'm sorry neither are comic savvy and merely go with what the public tells them. Point being, go look at X3, there are several characters who's name was changed in the film from their comic counterparts, or their powers where changed. So, as I state, unless the 3 important people actually say so then it is nothing but speculation. Avi has said the Venom, Sandman and GG and a 4th villain will be in the film (unless that was some elaborate prank), but I don't recall anywhere in there where he stated who was playing what. Bignole 22:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Go to those particular pages on Wikipedia. The symbole wraps around his upper body. It isn't just a chest symbol when he or Venom wears the symbiote, it's an upper body symbol because it really doesn't end. That wasn't what was on his chest in the picture, and not what was on the seats. Bignole 16:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, but Venom IS Topher, and I am 100% sure of it. He looks like eddie, he is falling in love with Gwen, who is falling in love with Spidey, and he is taking pictures. Who else could he be. No, really, make me a list.Jedizati 12:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Trailer? (Footage)

http://www.doubleagent.com/video.php?v=985&ct=70

Contains "footage" of Hobgoblin and Venom. Most of the shots look faked (using footage from the other films and editing some digital stuff in), but the one shot of Venom looks promising. GreatGatsby 06:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

GreatGatsby's rite. A lot of teh footage look fake and most of tehm are from spiderman 2. Although i have to agree venom looks cool.

'Venom' looks like the Green Goblin 1 in black, SPECIAL EFFECTS.And the teeth,oh PUH-lease,its from Alien--40k carnage 22:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)40k carnage

Trailer

I saw what surely lookked like a trailer for S3 on Youtube.com by searching Spiderman 3 trailer. It had all the real actors and showed spidey in the black costumeas well as the Hobgoblin in a yellowish variant of the original Green Goblin version. Someone (more experienced than me) should check it out or maybe include a link to it or something. Robocoppitiesthefool 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It was fan made, it said so on the title. It wasn't too bad. Bignole 01:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugh that was a horrible attempt at a trailer. And the closeup of Venom's mouth looked like an ALIEN. Lordofchaosiori

I agree with you, It was HORRIBLE.--40k carnage 22:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)40k carnage

I saw an other trailer on Youtube.com it had Venoms hands and feet none of it looked fake. It had a Sandman with a sand lower body, and Green Goblin II it looked exactly like Green Goblin I, but I couldn't find anything from spiderman I. could someone check it to see if it's a fake. I got there by searching videos for Spiderman 3 at Yahoo.com, its the the one with the sandman picture.

Official Trailer

I work at a movie theater. I was able to preview Superman Returns, and the Spiderman 3 trailer was attached to it. The villians i saw were Venom (taking over spiderman), Sandman, and the Green Goblin II. There was no fourth villian i could see in the trailer. It's about 30 seconds to a minute and a half long i think. It showed the bell and parker fighting against the symbote (trying to rip it from him). Sandman was crashing against a building and the Greengoblin was flying (and i think in another scene, was fighting spiderman)

-Theropissed@yahoo.com

Ok, but please don't edit that into the article until more sources can verify that claim. Thanks. Bignole 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw the trailer before superman returns last night, I don't have a clear memory of all the details, but the main villian featured was Venom, and it kind of gave the vibe that Parker was being taken over by Venom himself. --Measure 21:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please not that the symbiote is NOT Venom, it is its own being. Venom is the persona taken by Brock when the symbiote attachs to him. Venom was not in that trailer. Bignole 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I think that anyone who isn't an ardent student of Spidey lore will recognize black spidey as venom. --Measure 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyone that knows that Venom is would know that "black spidey" is not venom, nor is the substance that is on his suite. Most people that are familar with the character are familar somewhat with his origin, otherwise they wouldn't know about him period. Bignole 23:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Venom could be the symbiote's name. Since it's other hosts have taken on the name Venom, the idea is supported. Or a mutual name Eddie and the Symbiote agreed on, since it's always the whole we thing.

The symbiote is just the symbiote, it doesn't take the name "Venom" till it merges with Brock. It never refers to itself and its host as "we" until Brock. Spiderman in the black costume never refered to himself as "we" or "venom spider-man". That is a pseudonym that was created when it latched to Brock, out of hatred for Spider-Man separating himself from it. "Venom" is the only symbiote that actually refers to itself as "we". Calling it "venom" before it latches to Brock is incorrect. Even the page symbiote (comics) incorrectly lists the different forms as their pseudonyms, as if that is what they really are. It's merely a parasite that latches on to a host, and how that host reacts to it is different. It just became simplier (when the other symbiotes spawned) to refer to them by the name they created with their original hosts, then by "symbiote 1" or "symbiote 3". Bignole 23:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about? venom is the name of the symbiote... if it wasnt, then scorpion isnt the current "venom" just the current wearer of "symbiote 1" and, would you look at, goes by venom too... venom is the name of the symbiote... stop trying to make it more complicated... -Xornok 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, venom was the name the symbiote adopted after Spider-man removed it from him. Otherwise Spider-man would have been venom as well. It was name that was adopted to suit its hatred for Spider-Man. The name wasn't even created till Eddie came along. Bignole 21:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

They still need to be refitted better with the text.

Yeah, and make sure all their info is correct, cause we don't want to lose them. Bignole 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Music rights

Raimi doesn't own the music rights. Sony, through Colombia Pictures, does. Directors in America pretty much never have the copyright to movies.

References

Since editors of this article haven't read WP:CITE, let me give you a quick lesson on what to do.

• First of all, start a reference directly after a fullstop/period, do not leave a space

.<ref>

• Not

<ref/>.

• When you write a link you do this -

.<ref> [http://example.com Link summary/title/header] ''Example.com''. URL Accessed Julember 22, 2089</ref>

• No adding the link to the title, no adding extra spaces, got that?

• Oh and, will people stop linking SuperHerohype.com? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 07:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

SuperHeroHype is a reliable source, therefore there is no reason not to cite it. --Madchester 07:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying don't cite it, just don't link to it every time you mention it. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 11:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Harry as Green Goblin 2

I suggest that Harry as the Green Goblin 2 is pure speculation and we should not have the article be writen so it seems like this is official. I had edited the page to mention speculation that Harry may not be GG2, and someone edited it out saying it was "speculation". We should include any speculation that has evidence of it being true on the page, such him possibly not being GG2, such as we have that Topher Grace is Venom, though Topher could be the Hobgoblin or some other character, and the possibility of additional villians in the movie. The only villian that has been fully confirmed is Church as the Sandman. I had proof from the trailer that Harry could possibly not be GG2, and the Hobgoblin page mentions the possiblity of the Hobgoblin's appearance in the movie due to the facts I stated in my addition to the article. I'm suggesting that we revert the Harry/Green Goblin/Franco section to the way it was with the speculation of the Hobgoblin, or possibly add a section for the Hobgoblin, as we do with Conner/Lizard, Mysterio, and others.--Icweiner 02:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that Topher is Venom. What it says is that Topher is Eddie Brock, now they are technically two different characters (atleast until Eddie finds the symbiote). Second, the reason Harry is said to be the GGII is because of the picture. If you look, it's obvious that the person on the glider (granted it's CGI, but still obvious) is not Topher. Seeing as Topher is sporting blond hair in this movie and the person on the glider is sporting auburn hair (i.e. Franco's character Harry), it becomes clear that who's on the glider isn't Topher, and most likely Harry. Second, seeing as the glider and the rider are green, and not yellow/orange, it's safe to assume that it isn't the Hobgoblin. And that theory of the hobgoblin was originally placed there because of Ned Leeds, who is also a reporter for a newspaper, but, that would be saying that they bypass all the previous hobgoblins just to use that specific character seeing as he isn't the first Hobgoblin. Bignole 02:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

According to James Franco's official site, it is stated that he will be the Green Goblin 2. Look under "film." [2] --Meph1986 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure why we are already giving credit to Green Goblin II under the James Franco cast listing. The IMDB site does not list Franco as GGII, and the James Franco website either; never listed himself as Green Goblin 2, or has been edited because it is unconfirmed as of yet, at least officially. Also, the teaser has at least confirmed the appearance of a Goblin-esque character, but nothing is certain as it may even appear in the film as a dream. (Cablebfg 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

As you can see in this picture right here http://www.aintitcool.com/images2006/CCharryposter.jpg, James Franco is clearly in the new Goblin suit. Pho3nix-

And, as you can read from our links in the article, Raimi has said that his is neither called GGII or Hobgoblin. Bignole

Peter Parker?

Is it just me, or does Peter have black hair in the official trailer? Any opinions?

It's after he has the suit, it becomes "addicted" to it, like a drug addict. So, everything is more slicked back and stuff. Just appears that way. Bignole

Yeah I've noticed that too, I think he becomes like that after prolonged contact with the symbiote, but he probably changes back to the "normal" Peter after the symbiote leaves him. Pho3nix-

Most likely. The symbiote feeds on particular areas of the brain, namely emotions. Sort of like a biological drug. I can't wait to see what Raimi does with it. Bignole

Two Things that need to confirmed!!!

Hobgoblin or Green Goblin II

With the teaser trailer online and the Comic Con 2006 days away I have been wondering whether which goblin Harry Osborn will become. To stay faithful to the comics then he will be the next Green Goblin although this seems repetitive. Using the Hobgoblin would make much more sense.

More then likely, he will be the GGII, but who knows. Dont think that Raimi wont stray from the comics, or use an alternate cannon like he has obviously done with Topher Grace being a skinny Eddie Brock(Ultimate vs Regular Venom). If they made Franco play Hob Goblin, they would probably do it the right way and have Hob Goblin look like HOB GOBLIN, i did not see that in the trailer. I think GGII is a good choice, and not repetitive. (Cablebfg 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

What about the pumpkin bomb exploding next to Harry's face in the trailer. Could this be the Hobgoblin? After all he could the foruth villain.

It said on James Franco's site that he will be playing GG2. But, for some reason, it has been removed. --Meph1986 03:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I say we just hold our breath for a day or two and see what we find out at Comic Con. If we're lucky it'll resolve most of the debates at once. 16:59, 20 July 2006

Raimi said at Comic Con that "Harry Osborn becomes a new kind of goblin baddie, that is neither the Green Goblin nor Hobgoblin!" [3] --Meph1986 14:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it said that Harry Osbourne is not technically any kind of goblin - he just uses his father's equipment to get revenge. No names... just a big bad Harry. --Mambo Jambo 17:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, at any rate I changed "Green Goblin II" in the list of confirmed villains to Harry Osborn. 12:48, 25 July 2006

The Theory On Mysterio

Many reports have stated that Bruce Campbell will portray QUENTIN BECK (MYSTERIO) although DR. CONNORS was seen without his arm in Spider-Man 2 so maybe he becomes the LIZARD at the end of Spider-Masn 3? But then a cast list stated that Ryan Michaels will portray ALEX O'HIRN (RHINO)?? I'm really confused on who the foruth villain is. I've been trying to work it out for weeks but looks I'll have to wait to see what is confirmed at the Comic Con. It seems to me that Mysterio has a stonger case than any of the others.

All that is known is that Bruce Campbell will be in it but his role has been keep tightly under wraps. Apparantly it was stated by the films producers that one day he would be upgraded to villain and not just cameo and Bruce Campbell has stated himself that he will be annoying Spiderman in the third movie, doesn't MYSTERIO annoy Spiderman alot in the comics?. Its wortht to note that THE SNOOTY USHER played by Bruce in Spider-Man 2 told Peter that it "helps maintain the illusion" by refusing him entry into the theatre, MSYTERIO is often referred to as the MASTER OF ILLUSIONS.

Nothing has been confirmed. No one has stated anything about Mysterio or Rhino, or their respective aliases. It's an assumption that Campbell would play Quentin, and I have never heard anything about Alex O'Hirn. So, I removed him from our cast list. Also, if you just said "you wen to the con" and meant the Comic-Con, then you're mistaken...seeing as it doesn't start till July 20. Bignole

I posted the two big paragraphs on Mysterio some other guy claiming to have been to the Con posted that the other day. I didn't bother replying cos obviously the Con hasnt started yet.

The problem is that you have a bunch of people working on the project that aren't comic savvy, and so when they are informed (example) that Quentin Beck is in the movie, and in the comics Quentin Beck is actually Mysterio, a supervillain, they automatically assume that Mysterio is in the movie. The same went for Dunst's comments about The Lizard. I think someone told her before all the drafts were complete that he was in the movie and so she just ran with that. Then the drafts came in and it was just Conners, no Lizard. Bignole

Carnage

Somehow, I think the posssobility of Carnage appering in this movie is very high,or at least the origin.Does anyone else agree?--24.58.254.58 21:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)40k carnage

I doubt Carnage will be in the movie, but I think the origin is possible.

I must disagree. Carnage didn't appear until late in the game, even in the Ultimate line of comic books, he was pushed all the way back to the 60s, and well after all the "classic" Spider-Man villains who showed up from 10-20s. Besides, the Carnage of the comics needs Venom in play for at least one movie before another symbiote creature (or monster) can appear, and the mainstream Carnage is a serial killer, decidedly not a family-friendly villain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.192.71 (talk • contribs) 02:31, August 2, 2006

Remember: Wikipedia is not a forum. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man Teaser Poster

It seems we may be changing posters here today. Sony is supposed to release a teaser poster (I guess what we have is just a teaser image) for all the theaters sometime today. So, I would be looking for a replacement spot for what is there now, because I believe it should be kept on the page, seeing as it was a picture that sparked a 1000 debates. Maybe even deserves it's only mini-section detailing this. Bignole 11:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol, that new teaser poster is not as cool as the first one, they should have kept it as the official one. Pho3nix-

Apparently, if you see it in the theater it actually changes colors. Depending on where you stand it goes from red to black to red to black..so forth and so on. Unfortunately, you can't do that with a computer image of it. Bignole

Cool, gotta check it out at the theater sometime. Pho3nix-

Also, if you go to the Spider-Man website, not the official S3 website, but the general S film website, they have the poster on quicktime so that you can see it flash between black and red. Bignole 18:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I also noticed how the spider logo on the chest changes when it turns black, the legs sort of point more upwards. Pho3nix-

SPOILERS

I am marking that this article has spoilers. I saw no warning at the top, so I read on. This article just ruined part of the movie for me. I am not happy about this.RoryS89 04:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

Uh...Dude, this is straight from the trailers. Kinda...common knowledge. I admit, warnings might be in order, but unless you dig your head into the sand—(man) aka Flint Marko (real name: Willaim Baker) played by Thomas Haden Church—you're bound to find this stuff out eventually. In a theatre near you, most likely. ACS (Wikipedian) 06:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what the "Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow." warning is supposed to mean then? No plot details? Spoiler-free? No ending details? Stop me when I get condescending enough. You warning was poorly placed and an eyesore. Use {{spoiler}} (on the page already) next time. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Easy, dude. It's not like he vandalized the thing. Besides, never fear. The Ace-Man is here. I took care of it, at the cost of your version/edit(s). >.> ACS (Wikipedian) 07:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that some of you are being flat-out jerks, I didn't see a warning at the top, where I've found it in many movie articles. So, I just scrolled down through the page. And what I saw was NOT common knowledge from the trailer. Saying what main character dies is NOT something you'll find in the trailer.RoryS89 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

You'll want to check out this discussion since you have such strong feelings about the issue Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. CovenantD 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's alright, I don't need to read an article on it.RoryS89 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

It's not an article, it's a proposal to do away with spoiler tags altogether, all across Wikipedia. CovenantD 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. Thanks, Cap'n. >.> Back on topic, Ror, could you cite the version which both stated a character would die—likely speculation, BTW—and lack of warning before such information was stated? Oh and BTW, I personally admit these warnings are small. You could have easily missed it. However, I double checked the version before your edit. No sign of any "death". (At least, not before the warning, placed right under "Possible villains, characters, and storylines". Also, forgive the jerkiness. We all enjoy a good Slim Jim. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

that link don't go nowhere. Also, I support the use of Spoiler tags, and I support that Rory added one here. There's no need to dogpile him for whining a little that we missed one here. He fixed it, which is demonstrative of the good intentions wiki idea, and he started a talk to discuss it. Not the big deal it seems some see in it. leave it there, and enjoy the page.ThuranX 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh...dude, what are YOU talking about? Seriously, did you even read the comments? Check the edit history? Here are the facts:

• 1. The guy added something like "Warning: Spoilers!" in the intro and left it at that. I'm not anal retentive or anything, but some guys are right to ream him over it. I mean, there's a correct and simple spoiler template which he didn't use.

• 2. He claims some death or something was spoiled for him, but has yet to cite what, exactly, he was referring to. (Likely spec, not fact, BTW. He cannot be spoiled if the spoiler itself is false, guys.)

• 3. He was irate about the whole thing from the start. Had he been calm and not stressed over a the scant details an article for an unreleased movie could provide, he might have gotten a more polite reaction.

• 4. I get that he likely expected one of those short movie articles where you can just see the "Plot" section and spoiler warning right below the intro. Instead, he found a long, detailed article and likely missed the spoiler tag. Honestly, I still didn't find it vital we move it up, but I digress.

• 5. He seems to be of the opinion that a spoiler tag should be at the very top of a page no matter the length. Thus, he's insistant one we put there, ignoring standard policies.

• 6. Every link I've found in this section "goes somewhere".

I think that's about it, but even if there's more, you get the picture. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

He was likely referring to the relevance to the link, though that's probably just wishful thinking on my part. I should point out that this section is the evidence equivalent of steak for the spoiler debate. Now, as to what Rory complains about, I believe, if anything, the user refers to this. In the version the user read, it may well not have been marked properly (I guess "a big Spider-Man 3 plot twist" isn't quite enough), thus the user's complaint about spoilers. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

{{Spoiler}}

Hmm. Is is just me or does it seem like they had multiple takes? Bah. Bah to the multiple takes. Anyway, is that it? I get it. He falls. "He's dead, Sandman. Uncle Sam is dead!" Still, didn't we all already know this? Ah well. Thanks for filling me in, Someguy. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing. Could very well be something else. It's equally likely that he refers to Spider-Man 3#James Franco. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your link to the discussion about the use of the spoiler tag, ACS. It wasn't working earlier. I think it's getting bounced around druing their long debate on things. And no, I didn't run through the whole history list on this, like I usually do. I looked at the state of the page, adn it seemed fine, so clearly the problem was 'fixed'. However, again I reiterate. you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill. The page probably should've had the spoiler warning a while back. He's wrong to whine about it, but the dogpiling is unneccessary as well. Just fix it to the template and move on. This is ridiculous.ThuranX 05:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That was CovenantD you're referring to, link-wise. Also, there was spoiler warning beforehand. However, no one's really dogpiling the guy. You and him are actually the ones overreacting. It's not a big deal, but he did make a mistake. Anyway, I guess we can/should just end it now, for the sake of your blood pressure. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I refer to this (Obvious possible spoilers follow): "Rumors have surfaced of Harry becoming a "good Goblin" shortly before dying at the end of the film. It has also been confirmed by Franco that this will be the last Spider-Man movie his character will be in." Now, maybe I read it wrong, and the "dying" part is part of these "rumors". If so, I'm sorry to jump on everyone. But I still say that any possible spoilers, rumor or not, should be marked better.RoryS89 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

As I thought, the same spoiler warning I somwhat joking added here was visible there. I'll show you a screen cap. [4] Anyway, the spoiler warning was visible. As I stated earlier, they're small. One can miss them, but they were they. As for Cov's suggestion, I think he meant that if you feel spoiler warnings are necessary, (and perhaps that the template should be changed,) it might be in your best interest to join that discussion. If the "spoiler warners" side loses, there will be no official warnings on Wikipedia altogether. And I'm afraid unsightly warnings like the one you made will never be allowed. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Venom

Stop removing Venom from the cast lit...Sony have now released a pic of Eddie Brock bonding with the symbiote...its obvious he is in this film now so stop removing it.

Picture can be found here, if anybody wants to upload it.[5] --Nehrams2020 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, now I can laugh in the face of all those users who for some reason (stupidity) kept on saying that Venom wasn't going to come out even though it was OBVIOUS from the trailer. Gosh I swear, people make arguments just for argument's sake. Stupid people. Mkay? Love you all. :) Lordofchaosiori 04:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I find funny is all you users who don't know the difference between encyclopedic guidelines and opinions. The vast majority of us knew Venom would probably be in the film, but what we believe is not considered valid. Only actual sound sources can be used to verify information, not deductive logic. So please, keep your insults to yourself. Bignole 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes... just because they show a character in a trailer doesn't mean it's going to be in the movie... it all makes sense now, I can see how that would be my opinion and not fact. But yeh I retract my insult. But I still love you all, mkay? Lordofchaosiori 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, from what I remember, the second the teaser came out and we saw Topher in the bell tower we adjusted his credit to Eddie. No where in that trailer did you see Venom. Now, there is an extended trailer shown at the Comic-Con, but no one other than them have seen it, but apparently you get to see him in that. Recently Sony released images of Topher and the symbiote, and Raimi finally acknowledging Venom in the movie. Coincedently, we have adjusted Topher's credit to include Venom. So, I really don't see where we were denying anything. We were simply going by the guidelines which say that you don't state something is fact unless it is backed up, and it hadn't been till recently. Bignole 05:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I pretty much knew it was going to be him, Use common sense. Pho3nix-

Those of you not familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines, please read them. It doesn't matter something is common sense. It doesn't matter if all evidence points to something. Unless something is confirmed, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Up until Comic-con, Venom's appearance was not confirmed (in the teaser trailer, Venom was never shown, and Grace was never referred to as Brock). That's why it wasn't included. Now that he has been confirmed, the info has been added. We're here to discuss what is appropriate for the article. I'm not sure why people take it so personally when others (like Bignole) try to maintain established Wikipedia guidelines. This isn't a message board. If you want to discuss unconfirmed theories and insult other people, there are plenty of other places for you to do that. Please try to leave this page for constructive discussion.--CPitt76 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I need to stick up for Bignole, too. Though I admit, at one point everyone has taken this movie a little too seriously, the fact of the matter is Venom was NOT confirmed in the teaser trailer, nor was Eddie Brock. Just because you comic guys out there may be Spider Man experts, and even if all of us were 99.9% sure Eddie/Venom was in the movie, this doesn't mean we can print something as fact in an encyclopedia based on speculation. And this is what Wikipedia is, an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Not a message board. Not an editorial. An ENCYCLOPEDIA. I'm not sure what the problem is in understanding this point. Seems like common sense to me, but then again common sense isn't that common nowadays. Reynoldsrapture 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So common sense isn't allowed on wikipedia... I was not aware of that. My apologies. Lordofchaosiori 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read your bio, Lordofchaosiori. You're a teenager, wet behind the ears, who's main interest is playing Nintendo. And if you'd read closely my last post, I said common sense is a good thing. I'm not going to get into a pissing match with a teenager, nor should anyone else. Nuff said. Reynoldsrapture 03:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha "Playing Nintendo." I'd argue about how this statement is wrong but this is getting wayy to off-topic. :) Lordofchaosiori 06:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad someone noticed. This need not go any further. We have our confirmation, so we're happy. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Many of us KNEW a long time ago that Venom would be in it. It was never speculation to me, I always could tell he'd be in it.RoryS89 05:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

Thanks for backing me up RoryS89 :) Lordofchaosiori 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I've dealt with this situation at another website before. One guy actually refused to believe it until a few weeks ago when Avi Arad said Venom was in it. I had always suspected it, and I knew it the second I saw that first teaser poster. It makes me happy, because Venom is my all-time favorite comic book villain.RoryS89 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

Exactly!! Man this movie's gonna rock :) Lordofchaosiori 01:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Comic Con video

Right here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.1.86 (talk • contribs) at 22:23, July 23, 2006

Nice, but you could hardly see anything, which sucks. I hope they release that one soon. Bignole 22:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I kinda doubt it. Because the Comic-Con footage for Spider-Man 2 never made it online if I'm not mistaken. Hopefully, it's different for this one. --Meph1986 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You kinda doubt it? Did you watch the damn thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.1.86 (talk • contribs) at 01:21, July 24, 2006

Yes I watched the damn thing. But this footage was NOT suppose to be seen anywhere except at Comic-Con. Someone secretly recorded it and put on online. --Meph1986 05:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

God bless piracy. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw, what I guess is a camera phone capturing the second trailer. It's ultimate influenced again. Ultimate Venom. We see Peter talking to some older person—a chick, I think. Maybe Eddie's mom or something—about the suit and that "it can take you over". Technically, the symbiote forming over Peter's suit, but only enough to change the color is a big hint. Topher's Eddie refers to himself as "Edward Brock, Junior" as he goes into a church asking that Peter Parker be killed. He's really distrought and Topher plays it great. The phone capture guy moves his phone down. *belltower* Capture guy's phone is back up after seemingly missing the bondage and we see it...him...them. Venom, in all its massove glory. Compared to Eddie, it's huge. We can only assume he somehow gets more of the stuff on him than Parker to make up for the added mass just like before, I guess Peter's regular suit protected him from the symbiote's mutative qualities as well. It can be found a bit larger here:[6]

I'll admit, it seems surprising that someone pulled this off and its not deleted yet, but it's clearly the read deal and the audio only confirms the ultimate rather than mainstream influence. Perhaps that's why Raimi finally caved. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I heard, Raimi said he concented for the fans and grew to like the Symbiote. I think Aint it Cool has some info on the details of the conventions, by the way. On annother note, you said "We see Peter talking to some older person—a chick, I think." That sounded like Aunt May to me. Oh, and that link has been removed. --MrRandomGuy 03:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please upload the video? Pho3nix

If it was Aunt May, can it be assumed that she finds out that Peter is Spider-Man?--Shut The Eff Up 01:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I took two screen shots of Venom from the Conic Con trailer. Should they be put on the site? --MrRandomGuy 06:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is that? You can't make out what it is. Pho3nix-

No, please don't put those on the page. They are out of focus and horrible. We know what it is, but it isn't a good picture. He isn't a UFO. There will be an actual picture released eventually. Bignole

Pho3nic, it's Venom from the unreleased trailer, and Bignole, I understand. MrRandomGuy

I don't know if this is a real picture but it looks legitimate to me, it's a damaged Spidey waring the symbiote.[7] Lordofchaosiori 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a scene from Spider-Man 2. Where he has just been reveal to Harry. Someone just glossed the suite in black. Bignole

If someone wants to see the pictures, let them put them there. And that's not from Spider-Man 2. Nothing in Spider-Man 2 looked like that. If you're referring to those two pictures that is.RoryS89 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

First, the two big pictures are fine right here. They are not for the article. We didn't post camera phone pictures from the production set. They are out of focus and unprofessional, and have no place in the article. They are fine where they are. Second, the picture that is from S2 is the one that is in the link that Lordofchasosiori provided. It was a picture that circulated the web a long time ago of Peter in a black suite with ripped areas, and is clearly from Spider-Man 2. Bignole

My fault... Lordofchaosiori 01:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It isn't the first time someone has stumbled across it and thought it was real. It looks real, someone did a good job of making the suit black. But the symbol alone should be a dead giveaway. Bignole 02:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

AGH! How did I not see that? Man... haha. Lordofchaosiori 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Refrence Needed

"It has since been revealed that he is playing Eddie Brock. Photos of Topher carrying a camera during shooting scenes led many to believe this was the case long before the confirmation. Sam Raimi has previously stated he dislikes the Venom character and claimed that as long as he's directing Spider-Man movies, Venom will never be in one as a villain, but that's no longer the case, as the symbiotic foe has been confirmed."

I know I've seen this before now, but it is still unrefrenced. It should have one. JONJONAUG 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Raimi even acknowledges this at the CC. When he is asked why he finally decided to show Venom. He states that after the second film the producers explained that even when he was making the first film people wanted to see Venom. At the end, he stated that since making this film he has come to like the character. Now, I don't have a link to the above statement, but his recent statement (in the audio interviews which can be found at SHH.com) suggests that that was the case. Bignole 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link that I found stating what Raimi said about Venom. [8] --Meph1986 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Official plot synopsis

The official plot was released in a press release from Sony about the movie in IMAX theaters.[9]

"A complex web of secrets, vengeance, love and forgiveness, Columbia Pictures' Spider-Man 3 is a riveting adventure that will transport worldwide audiences to thrilling new heights on May 4, 2007."

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. As Spider-Man basks in the public's adulation for his accomplishments and he is pursued by Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), who rivals M.J. for his affections, Peter becomes overconfident and starts to neglect the people who care about him most. His newfound self-assuredness is jeopardized when he faces the battle of his life against two of the most feared villains ever (Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace), whose unparalleled power and thirst for retribution threaten Peter and everyone he loves.

It should be in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.7.94 (talk • contribs) .

I don't think that synopsis is official, srry, but it's been confirmed that there are FOUR villains, not two: Venom, Sandman, Harry (he gets his dad's powers and uses the Goblin armor & equipment but it's been stated by Raimi that in the movie he isn't called the Hobgoblin or the Green Goblin II) and a mysterious fourth. I think that the fourth villain with probably be a minor one, maybe just at the beginning, because the rest of the movie with concentrate on Peter's personal struggles and the other villains.

That's was released on the official site, but it really isn't a plot. It's more of like an overview of what the movie will be, but nothing specific. There are not 4 villains. Harry really isn't a villain, he's more of the enemy of Spider-Man. He doesn't do anything other than hunt Spider-Man. The last villain is Peter himself, or rather his struggle to free himself and his mind from the symbiote. The only real villains are Sandman and Venom. Technically, there would be 4 antagonists. Bignole 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

...Harry really isn't a villain, he's more of an enemy of Spiderman. Sorry if I missed something, but I'm pretty sure that counts as a villain! All the villains from the movies, comics and TV shows ARE enemies of Spiderman - that comment doesn't make any sense, User: Bignole, there is no difference between an enemy and a villain. And Avi Arad confirmed WEEKS ago that there are 4 villains. Also, if Harry's mental focus is solely on destroying Peter, and/or if he does take the same gas his dad did in Spiderman 1, then I'm pretty sure Harry won't mind killing a few people to get to Peter.

To anon, here's the difference:

villain

1.A vile, wicked person 2.A man extremely depraved, or capable or guilty of great crimes 3.A deliberate scoundrel 4.The bad person in a stage or screen play archaic The lowest level of medieval serfdom Harry, as even Raimi has said, is only after one thing and that is to kill Spider-Man. That doesn't make him a villain, it makes him vengeful. Otherwise, the Punisher would be a villain. There is a difference between a villain and being someone's enemy, or an antagonist. So, say that you were my enemy, that doesn't make you are villain anymore than it makes me one. There are heroes that don't get along in the Marvel or DC universes, but they aren't villains just because they are each other's enemy. Villains is a loose word used to describe anyone that opposes the hero, but in all technicallity, Raimi has said that Harry is not a villain per say, but more of a man out to get revenge on Peter for killing his father. For the purposes of the city, Harry is no more a villain than J.J., but to Peter he is his enemy. It's about semantics, and in semantics enemy and villain are different. Bignole 18:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I respect your viewpoints, it's just I don't think that many people involved in the movie, or fans of the series, would think this far through and this literate about the difference between villains and enemies. Avi Arad didn't - like you said, technically it would be four antagonists - people usually refer automatically to all of Spiderman's foes in this movie as villains, because that what Harry, Green Goblin II and Hobgoblin were in many other previous incarnations of Spiderman - the movie is taking for the most part a fresh new introspective look into his character. I think a villain can also come under the definition of enemy, if the villain is in direct rivalry with the protagonist. I never considered the semantics, like many other people, so I just refer to all the bad guys as villains. I never really paid much attention to political correctness, sorry...

People do usually refer to all as villain, intially, but that's only if you don't understand where each is coming from. If Harry is only out to get Peter, and makes it a point to not harm anyone but him, then he really isn't a true villain. He's Spider-Man's nemesis, but not a villain. Either way, the original comment was about the "plot" that was released, but in actuality was fan made and based on question and answer sessions with crew members. Avi said 4 villains, and Raimi clarified that there are only 2 real villains, then Harry seeking revenge, and Peter battling his inner self, making 4. Bignole

Okay,I understand now, thanks. I never knew Raimi had clarified on that subject - rumors have been circulating for months that the fourth villain was an actual villain from the comics, like Mysterio or Carnage. It's eebn confirmed that Peter fights his inner self in this movie, but it was treated as a completely different field than the villains.

Pics.

Someone please clean-up the pictures in the article. Pho3nix-

Yeah, I agree. Let's decide what we should keep, because I assume you mean clean them up as in remove some? Bignole

Yes. Pho3nix-

Well, obviously the infobox one should stay. I believe the first promo (Spidey on the church top) should stay, because it a little relevant to the outburst in fan speculation and joy as to whether it was just a black suit or the symbiote. I really don't see a point for the Gwen Stacy pic, we don't have one of Mary Jane, so why her? I don't think we need 2 THC pics. I think the new promo of TG changing into Venom is enough for his character, so the other could go. I think there should be no more than 1 picture per side character. Bignole 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you just leave them? Why are you worried about the number of pictures there? I think it looks great. People can see more pictures this way. Why do people look to change everything they can in this article?RoryS89 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Because people keep trying to add one more picture, and one more picture, for things that they liked. This article isn't that big and we have more pictures than other articles twice our size. Bignole 21:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can ask people to stop posting pictures. But the current pictures don't necessarily be deleted. RoryS89 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But we don't need two over everything. Like the picture of Spider-Man hanging in front of the skyscraper window; what exactly does that provide for the article? It isn't in a section of importance. We already have a picture of him in the suit, and one of just the symbiote. Bignole 23:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I just think we can leave a good amount of them up.RoryS89 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

Hence the reason why Pho3nix came here, to address the issue. The pictures are starting to get out of hand and we need to figure out which ones are necessary for the article. Littering an article with pictures doesn't make it better, it just hides the flaws with flash. Obviously the infobox picture and the first promo picture have reason to be here, they were the first photo and official poster released. The Eddie Brock/symbiote promo has a reason. At least 1 Sandman picture deserves a spot, and Harry picture. I don't think we really need a picture of Harry and the pumpkin bomb, but it doesn't do anything for the article other than create more spoiler. I don't think we need the Gwen Stacy picture because we already know she is part of a love triangle with Peter. I think that once the article becomes large we could use some of these pictures (or different ones) but the size of it currently makes them do nothing but take up space. Bignole 00:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that Gwen Stacy pic is kinda useless, and correct the positioning on the Venom picture also. Pho3nix-

repositioning is hard, cause not everyone uses IE. Some use Firefox, and some people have different resolution sizes. That's been a problem, cause people see different gaps in the page and try and correct them, which creates gaps for other users. I personally have a huge gap where the Tobey Maguire promo picture is, but people that use Firefox don't. Bignole 11:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the following pictures off:

• [[:Image:THCSandman2.jpg|200px||Thomas Haden Church as Flint Marko.]]

• [[:Image:Harrypumpkingbomb.JPG|200px|Harry with a pumpkin bomb thrown at him.]]

• 200px|Peter Parker with Gwen Stacy

I also moved the picture of the Harry Goblin up and to the left a bit, removing the 'right' in "In the Spider-Man 3 teaser trailer, there is one shot (right) where a pumpkin bomb ... is thrown right next to Harry..." You can put them back if you want to, but I think it looks a bit more cleared up. --71.118.168.253 09:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I cleaned it up and it was changed back to look worse. Sorry, guys and gals. --71.118.168.253 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Found the Comic-Con 2006 Extended Spiderman3 trailer

Well, here it is ladies and gentlemen, still a little blurry but you can make out most of it. http://youtube.com/watch?v=jf6A97aDCLw&search=spider%20man%203%20trailer Pho3nix-

-- "This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Sony Pictures because its content was used without permission." --71.118.168.253 05:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cast Links

Just for other editor's piece of mind: The link for Eddie Brock Jr goes to the Ultimate Venom section of the Venom article. The reason is because this is the only place that mentions "Eddie Jr" and is most appropriate to link it to the correct spot. When you click the link it takes you directly to that section of the page. There has been a numerous amount of anons (and a couple reg. users) that want to change the link to just Venom (comics). There is a reason why "Venom" is linked to the whole article and "Eddie Jr." is linked to just one section. I have placed a note in the cast section explaining this. Bignole

Well, perhaps it's the misused slashes that confuses them, or the fact that it's "Edward". Who knows? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the cast, I think the "Cast" section should be moved up closer to the beginning of the article. It makes sense to have an overview of the casting available before reading the in-depth details about each one. Anyone in agreement? --Erik 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes alot of sense.--Shut The Eff Up 01:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got no problem with moving the section up. ACS, I don't think it's the "Edward", unless these anons aren't aware that "Edward" is "Eddie". Bignole

Alright. I'll move it up between the "official announcments" and "in depth" stuff. We can add the plot in the middle when it becomes more concrete. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

James Franco

In the San Diego Comic-Con Trailer, we witness Spider-Man in his Black Symbiote Costume throw a Pumpkin Bomb from the Room(Exactly the same in the Trailer) at a figure(That looks EXACTLY like Harry, in the exact same scene) VERY similair to the Teaser Trailer. This is almost concrete confirmation, and should be taken without a doubt, even though the Teaser Trailer scene showed a more close-up figure of Harry recieving the Pumpkin Blow(He got practically Symbiowned!). The only possibility of this being wrong is if their is two Scenes, and one is a Preminition of Harrys.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The One of All (talk • contribs) at 21:15, August 5, 2006

O...k. Well, did you see a definite trailer or something, because I missed that scene. >.> ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

theory

• In the footage of Harry as a villian in the teasers and the way Sam Rami was talking about it at the Comic-Con makes me think that some of those scenes maybe in Spiderman/Peter's head as the suit is trying to take over.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.144.50 (talk • contribs) at 04:23, August 3, 2006

Uh...'kay. That's a new one. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure everything with Harry is real in the movie. The only thing getting in his head is the symbiote.RoryS89 06:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

Cleaning up the article

I think that this article could be cleaned up in terms of excess "lead-up" information. There's a lot of sources and speculation that have led up to what is now confirmed -- the symbiote, Topher Grace as Venom, etc. The "Official announcements" section seems spammish -- is it really necessary to mention that Sony Mobile will let you download pictures of Venom on your cell, or what wallpapers are now available for download? In addition, there seems to be speculative writing in the "Possible villains, characters, and storylines" section -- examples include:

• Theory about Dr. Connors helping Spider-Man with symbiote
• Cromwell's involvement in the movie due to Doc Ock being gone
• Harry supposedly being killed by a pumpkin bomb in the teaser

And so forth. The lead-up history to Topher Grace as Venom, should be significantly shortened, but not necessarily purged. I'd tackle this monster of a page, but I wanted to run a revamp possibility by other editors first. Let me know what you think. --Erik 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. It kinda looks like one of those "UPDATE!" sites that lists old info along with the new as it comes in. I'd be happy to look into it. I'll come back with my findings in a bit. I could probably summarize without moving the important stuff, but I'll hold off. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I looked. I'll fix what I can, but maybe you should handle it, because I honestly don't see much to correct. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That is to say, certain things need to be cleaned up, but over all, things like the downloads refer more to what was confirmed and when. It's not an attempt at "free advertising on Wikipedia". Spec is well founded in general, though I'll remove stuff that looks too much like POV. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've begun to clean up the article a little bit. Some of the changes I've made:

• Revised opening paragraph to be more stand-alone, can't assume reader knows who Spider-Man is off the bat
• Moved cost information to a background section, which could stand to be expanded
• Removed speculative information about Dylan Baker, although there could be a mention of how Dr. Curt Connors was The Lizard in the comics
• Trimmed Banks information to just confirmation; her statement was irrelevant to the film article
• Trimmed Campbell information; didn't need to go into detail about how the cameo was discovered if the article says so already
• Cited original article for when Dunst let slip about Church as Sandman, removed sentence about photo

I want to do something with the Official announcements section. I don't think it needs to be on the top, because to be honest, this makes the article seem like a news aggregator for Spider-Man 3. This is an encyclopedic entry. I also want to trim down other character backgrounds such as James Franco and Topher Grace, but I wanted to get feedback on the changes I've made before continuing to make edits. --Erik 18:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's okay. A little shallow and matter-of-fact, but okay. I, without speaking for the project, have no objections at the moment. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean-up the article a bit. I swapped "Official Anouncements" and "New Cast" because it didn't make sense to officially announce when they came aboard after the fact. I also removed several "official announcements" that were not announcements at all, or were more speculatory announcements that don't make sense any longer. I removed more "speculation" in the character bios, seeing as they have all been confirmed and thus speculation is irrelevant. It still needs a bit of rewording to sound more present tense in some places. Bignole 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What's with all the Natalie Portman doing the Black Cat role mumbo jumbo!!!

12.218.21.163 is posting information about Natalie Portman doing the role of Black Cat, and i can't find any record of that on the web.. can anybody confirm that or delete the post cuz i already deleted it once and he/she posted it again.. -- PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 23:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find soemthing referencing this too, but couldn't. given that both of us are mystified, I reverted it out. ThuranX 23:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

get a load of this, he also posted it on Black Cat and Natalie Portman pages.. -- PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 00:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Venom Picture

"Starting July 22, a picture of Venom has been downloadable on cell phones from Sony Mobile."

Two things: First, the link that confirms this goes to an unrelated article, one talking about the pictures already on the official site. Secondly, does anybody actually have the picture? And can it be uploaded to here? --71.118.168.253 02:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Venom picture is the one that is already on the page, it's the one of Topher and the symbiote. That was what was released. Bignole 02:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. But the article is still wrong, though. --MrRandomGuy 16:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is that supposed to mean? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong? I went to the link, it works. Bignole

to quote what the link says...

"First Pic of Venom in Spider-Man 3 Online! Source: Sony Pictures July 22, 2006

Sony Pictures has updated the official website for Spider-Man 3 with the first photo of Eddie Brock changing into Venom! You can view the photo in wallpaper form at the official site by selecting 'Desktop' and then 'Wallpaper 2'. A third wallpaper of Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker with the black suit has been added as well.

Another poster, featuring Sandman, was also revealed during the Comic-Con presentation and can be viewed here!

Spider-Man 3, directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace and Bryce Dallas Howard, opens in theaters on May 4. "

That has nothing to do with the cel phone pics. --71.118.168.253 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, then remove the link. The information is fine, the stuff on the page was just updated, or the wrong ling was provided. Bignole 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Citeless

Anyone remember the citeless "Eddie, Peter and Gwen" love triangle rumor? Well, it's been there for days, uconfirmed. I think I'll remove it. It seems too contradictory to the established love triangle between Peter, Gwen and MJ. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gif Images

Does anyone mind the gif images that I added? --71.118.168.253 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandman's cool. Not sure about Peter sleeping, though. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The one of Peter seems to be more about the symbiote than him sleeping.RoryS89 05:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

It should be, but moves slowly and doesn't really give you much to look at in the way of the symbiote. Heck, we have to separate images for the sym touching his hand. That image really doesn't serve as a good replacement. That's my point. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But, the Sandman one still works quite well.RoryS89 06:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89

I don't like it.. it keeps looping over and over and over and at some point it stops being cool and becomes really annoying.. even if it was played once, by the time i scroll down it would be done played.. and what if someone tried to print this article? it's not gonna move on paper! and it's gonna look really ugly with it's one low resolution frame.. i say the old images come back and those can be added as external links..--PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 16:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

All gifs get old. It's a moving image in a loop. What do you expect? And print out an article? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Remember that. Now, I say we keep Sandman and add that picture of him with the kid. It's on Wikipedia. It's in his article. Might as well put it here. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to print the page, they press that button in the toolbox that says "printable version". You don't print the raw page. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, i know about the printable version. still, i don't think that an animated gif from the trailer really belongs here.. illustrations using jpeg images are okay, and if somebody wants to see "sandman in action" then they should check out the trailer.. i say that the animations should be replaced by the old jpegs.. adding the gifs as external links is probably ok but i'm still not very excited about it since it's already available within the high-quality trailer..--PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 00:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what we really need a Gif of? Harry on the glider! 172.195.72.57 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not much but it's something

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/720/720537p1.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.148.16 (talk • contribs) .

Comic Con vid...again

According to a GIPU "The exclusive Comic Con footage briefly showed what appeared to be Spider-Man (in his red and blue costume) literally battling another Spider-Man in the black costume."

With this and the USA today comments, I'm beginning to wonder if we should mention this somewhere in the article. Heck, we have everyone mentioned in "Possible villains, characters, and storylines" but Topey and Dunst. Perhaps we should add a "Topey Maguire" section and explain that, apparently, the forth enemy is Peter. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a dream sequence of his subconscious battling this parasitic entity, and until we actually have more to go on there is no reason to mention him in that section. Bignole 04:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It probably is THE dream sequence straight out of Amazing SpiderMan #358, where Peter sees his two different costumes fight each other. That dream was also in the animated Spider-Man series of the 90s during the Black Suit arc. It's good to see they're including it in the movie too!

Harry Osborn Pics

Has anyone noticed that the pic with Harry and the bomb next to his face has more bombs on a shelf behind him? He is obviously in his dad's secret backroom. He also has the same shirt on while riding the glider, but it seems torn up or blown up. The mask he is wearing is probably to cover up his scarred face from that bomb exploding.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.148.166.5 (talk • contribs) at 19:48, August 15, 2006

It's a possibility, I guess, but just speculation at this point. I wouldn't recommend adding it to the article. Oh and remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)