Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alientraveller (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 20 December 2006 (→V-Rey's 2 cents). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about leaked footage of Venom or any other scenes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about leaked footage of Venom or any other scenes at the Reference desk.

Film Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives
May 2005 to August 2006 September 2006 to October 2006 November 2006

Message to new editors

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

Regarding footage of Venom, the editors of this article have reached a census through discussion that leaked Comic-Con footage of Venom in any form cannot be added to the article, since Sony has taken steps to remove the footage from many sites. In addition, while Venom was shown briefly as part of a series of Spider-Man 3 clips on FOX in November, the quality was not sufficient enough to include a screenshot of Venom from the FOX clip. Also, the leaked footage of a Venom statuette as well as the leaked computer-generated creation of Venom cannot be added. When a clear shot is available from footage/images meant for the public, we can discuss on the talk page about including the image. If there are any questions or comments about any of what I've said above, please respond below in this section. --Erik (/_contrib) @ 23:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Venom pic okay now?

Well, it's apparant Venom is in the film, based on the footage released on Sony's official Spider Man 3 blog. Now that a still frame of Venom can be seen on the Spider Man movie website, is it not reasonable to add this pic of Venom to the S3 article? Thought I'd throw that bone out there for you guys. For those who missed the link, here it is again: http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/spiderman3/blog/archives/2006/11/check_out_a_sneak_peek_of_spid.php Veracious Rey 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, the single frame isn't a very good shot. Mostly teeth. Veracious Rey 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, this pic I took from slowing down the trailer isn't bad, I hosted it on my site, feel free to use it 19:41, 1 December 2006 wikimindless (UTC)(04:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

We won't. Thanks anyway. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe the venom pic shouldn't be put on the site, it is not good qualtiy, but who put the banner at the top saying THIS PAGE DOESN'T DISCUSS LEAKED VENOM FOOTAGE. We were just discussing if it would be right for the article. The footage isn't Leaked, it was on national TV. On fox, thanksgiving day. The video was even posted on Marvel's OWN website Can somebody remove the banner? wikimindless19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The banner isn't talking about that. It means we don't discuss it like we are a forum. (i.e. WOW! Did you see that awesome footage of Venom? Hell yeah, it's going to be sweeeet!). Bignole 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You know in the first clip when you slow it down, it's good quality. (68.192.242.97 00:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

No it isn't. He's on the screen for like 3 frames, to the naked eye all you see is his mouth open, and when you go frame by frame it's slightly blurred in the best frames. Also, we can't just have a pic of Venom as "eyecandy" it must be supported by fair-use. Since he's a comic character we'll need a full shot of him, not just his head, to compare to the other incarnations of Venom. Bignole 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It's a suckass rendering that I'm sure Sony and whoever else don't want to highlight. Wait until they show us something they're proud of, and show it clearly. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ace, we should wait until a definitive photo is released by Sony. Patience is a virtue some of us could stand to acquire. A good pic of Venom will come eventually. Veracious Rey 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Venom for children?!

If you are interested...

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d177/ChibiKiriyama/FinalizedLook.jpg http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d177/ChibiKiriyama/PossibleSpoiler.jpg

Both are covers for children's books that Sony has allowed Amazon to advertise with. The Venom in the first is quite clear, though off in the concept art closeness. The second is smaller but almost completely anatomically correct to the controversial 'leaked images'. Both sport the official movie logo, as does the other merchandise based on the film. I'm not sure if it qualifies being that artistic license may be used in it, but it's still rather accurate. The Chibi Kiriyama

"First image is probably fake. Not sure of the second.--SUIT 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are two links to amazon. Both are for future books. The second one is for the image that Chibi posted (the first image). They could actually be worth mentioning in the merchandise section (if they are real). http://www.amazon.com/Spider-Man-3-Movie-Storybook/dp/0060837233/sr=8-6/qid=1165555771/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6/102-2717080-6708963?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/Spider-Man-Venom-N-T-Raymond/dp/0060837195/sr=8-11/qid=1165555771/ref=pd_bbs_sr_11/102-2717080-6708963?ie=UTF8&s=books Bignole

Here are some more. I think they are running short stories for kids, based on the film (probably won't be released till close to the films date).

http://www.amazon.com/Spider-Man-Spider-Mans-New-Suit/dp/0060837187/sr=8-22/qid=1165556402/ref=sr_1_22/102-2717080-6708963?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/Spider-Man-Meet-Heroes-Villains-Read/dp/0060837217/sr=8-1/qid=1165556555/ref=sr_1_1/102-2717080-6708963?ie=UTF8&s=books (this one corrisponds to Chibi's second link) Bignole 05:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We can include information about these books being published, but I don't think the information is notable enough for the film article to warrant inclusion of book covers. --Erik (/_contrib) @ 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, that'd be too many images (would never get a fair-use rational for those). I was simply providing links to the amazon section to prove that, in the least, Amazon is selling these things. Bignole 12:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

When Venom is even being considered kid friendly enough for *expletive* like this, you know the guys at merchandising have gone too far. I'm not positive on the validity or relevance, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're real, either. For now, just a mention in the merchandise section will do. Much like a "Spider-Man (film) joke book", this has little barring on the movie or how it will look. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the 4 books that I found on Amazon (not sure if there are more, didn't see them), and ThuranX (thanks BTW) bulleted them, since they are all by the same publisher. Bignole 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Danny Elfman

Surprise, surprise. Superhero Hype! just posted this news about Danny Elfman. It looks like we may have to change the information under the Film Score section because, as Grant Curtis has stated, Danny Elfman is working with Christopher Young on Spider-Man 3. Source: http://superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=4962 - Dam-itch 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed it when it first was announced. Bignole

Well, to me, that was untrue. That is exactly why I posted it. From what I saw, it still said

"Film score Composer Danny Elfman did not return for the third installment of Spider-Man because of difficulties with director Sam Raimi. Elfman said that he had a "miserable experience" working with Raimi on Spider-Man 2 and could not comfortably adapt his music. Instead of reprising his role as composer for Spider-Man 3, Elfman took on the project of composing for Charlotte's Web. Christopher Young scores Spider-Man 3 in Elfman's vacancy." Dam-itch 07:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the history. The only thing that I didn't change was the infobox, and you took care of that. Bignole 14:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What the heck happened? Did Raimi and Elfman kiss and make up? --Erik (/_contrib) @ 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, but weren't the Elfman comments like months, if not almost a year ago? I know they were when we were first getting this page together and didn't even have Topher's character set. I just know that on the webblog Grant says both Elfman and Young are working together. Bignole 14:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

christmas eve

on christmas eve there might be new clips and interveiws for spider-man 3 on fox on the 24th with spider-man.they might be showing new stuff or the same thing we saw on thanksgiving — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.240.238 (talk • contribs) 19:13, December 6, 2006 (UTC)

What?--SUIT 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the new clips that will be shown on Christmas Eve, 75.21.240.238? We can include that information in the article if you can give us a citation. --Erik (/_contrib) @ 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Erik, looks from his comment like he's just speculating. "there might be new clips", "they might be showing new stuff or...". Frankly, this looks like something a pre-adolescent wrote. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, holiday feature assumption. Gotcha. But "pre-adolescent", Ace? Do we need to hammer your teeth out so you don't bite no more? --Erik (/_contrib) @ 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Me brings the sledgehammer. And the Beer. Stop biting, Ace ... like rabies with him some days. ThuranX 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay. It looks confusing, SUIT will surely attest to that. And don't you start, X. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the...err...intention,—assuming good faith here—GIPU, but this talk page isn't a forum. If new footage is clearly shown, I'm sure there will be a note of it somewhere. In the meantime, it'd be better if we kept or hopes and/or theories to ourselves. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

well i got my information at countingdown.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.240.238 (talk • contribs)

Ok, I found the original posting at CountingDown.com, and tracked it down to the more official Comics Continuum. I'll include it in the article, so thanks for the heads-up. So how about that, Ace? --Erik (/_contrib) @ 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the information in. I don't know if the Spider-Man 3 material will be the same as what was shown on Thanksgiving or show completely new material since the citation doesn't say (I bet on the latter), I left it open-ended. Hopefully, there will be clarification and more detail about this. --Erik (/_contrib) @ 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Venom vs. Captain America

I think I say the news say venom and captain america make an appearance in this film. I know venom does. Can it be said the captain does, too? Boggydark 00:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what news you were watching but I don't think so. Bignole 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

God...the rumors keep coming. I have absolutely no idea where they could have gotten that idea. Frankly, I'd be surprised just to see a news station comment on this movie, let alone say something like that. At best, I could only see there being a passing reference to CM, but even that is unlikely. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything either, and I follow news on this film pretty closely. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Something was said about a crossover story, I think. They said Captain A would make a cameo. Is channle 9 news normally correct? Boggydark 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This might have been in reference to Civil War comic book cross-over (in which Spider-Man and Captain America are key players) instead of this particular film. Believe me, any "Captain America" news would be all over the Internet by now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If true this, is indeed sad. Why add Captain america? It can only hurt Spidey in the longrun with extra badies and friends. He is okay for now without the exta story lines. Do you all agree? Let's keep things simple. They did say the movie is what captain america is part of not the comics. Boggydark 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but let's conclude the discussion here... we try not to encourage general discussion on the talk page as it's policy to keep dialogue focused on improving the respective article. Thanks. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

AHHH! No news is here! Thanks for the haeds up on looking this up guys. I'm here is you need help with the article edits. Shoot me a message! Ace thanks! Boggydark 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanups

I do see some clean ups needed for the spiderman3 article. Can I help you guys. I'll start whenever. Boggydark 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think needs to be tidied up? What are your suggestions for doing so? Bignole 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I will make pictures bigger. They will then be better, and all will see them better. Also new pic of Venomin needs to be added quickly. How can this be that Venom is not in the article yet. Erikster and Ace Class can help me Bignole. Boggydark 02:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Standard picture size is 250px. Also, it was discussed and we decided we wouldn't include Venom until we had a good picture and encompassed his whole body. Bignole 03:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I read article, I see now it is good. Sorry for mistakes. Something else, though. If Venom is a shape shifter, then why does he climb walls and not fly? Spidey did use his webs in the first comic, years ago to stop this. This didn't help, so is that why Venom keeps coming at him? Will they use this in the movie? Boggydark 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages's talk page guidelines. We want to avoid general discussion about topics that do not help improve the article. You should read Misplaced Pages's articles on Venom and elsewhere for your answers. If you continue initiating general-discussion topics such as the one above, we will need to remove these comments to discourage the talk page from backsliding into a fanboy forum. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry. I will go away. Boggydark 03:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone should remove the lie about John Jameson bringing back the symbiote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.27.189 (talk • contribs) 06:39, December 13, 2006 (UTC)

The information about Jameson was cited in a magazine article. It's hard to take the word of an editor (especially anonymous) over a magazine. Do you have a citation for your claim that Jameson does not bring back the symbiote? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Footage comparison

I hate to broach this topic, but I'd like to address the screenshot comparison between Spider-Man 3 and Spider-Man: The Animated Series under the Footage section. Since there was discussion at Batman Begins to remove original research comparisons between the Batman film and other Batman media, there seems to be a similar situation here. While the comparison image is supportive of the connection drawn, it still violates the policy of no original research. (For example, making a frame comparison of similar scenes in Batman Begins and Year One wouldn't further authenticate what is still original research.) The comparison information also seems out of place under the Promotion section. Thoughts or comments about how to address the footage comparison? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember when we first put that up there, and my campaign for it, but under the circumstances with Batman, I have to agree that it probably needs to be removed, along with any comparison in that section. Bignole 20:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, though. Though the current article doesn't leave much room for a mention of "similarities", the film clearly tales notes from the cartoon. Ah well. I guess I'm for removal. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Batman Begins is post-release and Spider-Man 3 is pre-release. This information might encourage further original connections upon and beyond release. I'll remove it, but maybe if someone from the studio cites the style of The Animated Series as an influence later on, the image can be re-added with an actual citation. So I guess someone could save it? (At a lab computer now.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I just took care of it, saved a copy on my computer. I'll go ahead and remove it. Bignole 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

John and Tobey

Well, according to several adament GIPUs and one supposed interview with Tobey Maguire, John Jameson will, to quote one GIPU, "NOT" bring back the Venom symbiote. Now, I hope the GIPUs, will forgive my skepticism, but I call major BS. I'm not sure what brings on this strange fan backlash, but it's getting tiresome. We have clear citation of our assertion and I know at least one standard editor following fSm3 news would have mentioned the "interview". Those trying to counter the citation simply delete and make argumentitive, commentary-like edits within the article space. I just happened to find a forum thread where people seem to denounce the idea of JJ Jr. bringing back the symbiote. Go fig. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

John Jameson does NOT bring back the symbiote!!! You're imformation has NO source!!!! You are getting this from the cartoon!! NOT ONCE in ANY interview did ANY one involved state that John brings back the symbiote! He's not even in the movie!!! Get you facts straight! You're posting utter BS. It will come from an asteriod! There was an article a few months back where a guy who worked for this film said it will come from an asteriod. He said other information BEFORE the trailers and the information he gave was proved in the trailers. You are posting lies and you have no proof what so ever. Once the movie is realised or it is stated in an interview, you will be shot down. I can't believe you getting you info from a forum!!! There was no such interview in Empire. Even if there was, a Irish Press said there had been test screenings, and that turned out to be a lie. Read for yourself! http://boards.sonypictures.com/spiderman/showthread.php?p=180400#poststop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.27.189 (talk • contribs) 06:30, December 13, 2006 (UTC)

First of all, tune down that attitude. You're getting emotion get in the way of your judgment. Now, the information about John Jameson came from Empire magazine's "Ultimate Superhero Preview" coverage: "Just in case you're wondering, Venom is actually a symbiotic alien, brought back to Earth by astronaut John Jameson (son of Daily Bugle proprietor J. Jonah Jameson, last seen in Spider-Man 2), which latches onto Parker, bonding with him and becoming his new costume. After the living suit - which no one knows is alive - tries to possess Parker, and is then rejected, it foists itself instead onto the emotionally fragile Brock, becoming a force to be reckoned with, a creature with all of Spider-Man's powers and none of his moral strictures." This information was in relation to the film, not general Spider-Man lore. Your information is not as reliable because it is only at the message boards. Maybe the information is incorrect, but the Empire citation supercedes your claims. Don't worry, if there's a verifiable source that explains that John Jameson isn't in the film and doesn't bring the symbiote from outer space, we'll update accordingly. Nothing to do with our personal preferences and everything to do with what can be verified. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And jeez, I need to say it a second time... chill out! It's not the end of the flippin' world. You should be happy you have a pretty quality article about the film other than this Jameson issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So I guess we have to wait until the film is released to prove you wrong. EVERYONE on every message baord on the web knows it doesn't come back with John Jameson. I have read a New Zealand article with Daniel Gillies stating his wasn't in Spoider-Man 3. I will try to find that article to prove I am right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.27.189 (talk • contribs)

That would be TERRIFIC. We'll be here, waiting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Gillies has been filming two movies and TV episode around the same time as shooting for Spider-Man 3. There is no way he could have filmed any scenes he may have had.Template:Unsigned6

Just to point out a discrepancy with that, Tom Welling has filmed movies at the time of filming Smallville. Obviously if Daniel is filming two movies and a TV show he's making time to do multiple jobs at once. We do not know the extent to which his character is or is not in the movie. He could very well just appear for the scenes that bring the symbiote to Earth, and that's it. James Marsden filmed his scenes for X-Men 3 at the same time he was filming Superman Returns. Bignole 20:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to prove you all wrong! You evil genius'! http://stuffdaddy.blogspot.com/2006/02/in-come-fakerswith-truth.html Good enough for you? Much more reliable than your 'Empire' magazine, or whatever it's called... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.27.189 (talk • contribs) 20:02, December 13, 2006 (UTC)

Your citation is a blog, which fails the reliable source standards. "Where does the symbiote come from? An astroid." Is that the knowledge that's supposed to topple us evil geniuses? Please go see Empire, which is the company that publishes the film magazine. Are you telling me your "STUFF DADDY" blog is more credible than that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That Stuff Daddy mentions nothing about where the symbiote comes from, so citing it seems irrelevant to your cause. And your initial source (Spider-Man forum) is two forum members going back and forth at what "THEY" think will happen. Bignole 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Empire has been wrong before! I have contacted Grant Curtis to clean-up this BS that's being posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.27.189 (talk • contribs) 22:36, December 13, 2006 (UTC)

I hope you did it on the Spider-Man 3 webblog that he responds on, because it will be hard to take the word of some copy and paste email. Bignole 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's now on Superherohype.com that the symbiote is indeed brought from space by Jameson. It came from a Tobey interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.7.233 (talk • contribs) 00:57, December 14, 2006 (UTC)

Liar! He ONLY said it came from outer space (which he could be trying to throw us off) He said NO such thing about John Jameson bringing it back!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.122.85 (talk • contribs) 00:50, December 19, 2006 (UTC)

Production photos

I noticed the speedy deletion tag was removed for the lenticular teaser poster, so this discussion may be mute. But should the article have a "promotion photo" section, or something similar? I only ask because this link, http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808496334/photo/stills, provides some good pics. I won't add them, I'll leave it to the rest of you guys to decide if they're article worthy. I know there was past discussion on whether or not the two reflection images of Good Spidey/Dark Spidey were legite (the ones where he is crouching on a ledge). Well apparantly they are. Some of the pics are old news, granted. But I haven't seen the newer ones advertised yet. Might be an interesting addition to the article. Past discusions have shown some editors don't take too kindly to too many pictures in an article. I tend to agree, but in this case a few more shots might be okay, especially is organized in a seperate section, maybe near the bottom of the article. Veracious Rey 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If they are promotional photos released by Sony, and not just someone cateloging all the images they can find, then the proper citation and a link would be fine to add to the promotional section. Bignole 17:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you think Bignole. Do you trust Yahoo? I don't think they would post the pics on their main movie page without proper authority to do so. If you think they're okay, I can add a secion, and if consensous is against me, I'll remove it. Veracious Rey 17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how many more pictures we can include. See Misplaced Pages:Images#Image choice and placement, which says, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." Depending on the interpretation of that one, it may not be appropriate to decorate the film article with promotional photos just because we can. I'd suggest making that link an external link with the label that it has promotional photos. Would want to keep links like that limited, though, since Misplaced Pages isn't a repository. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to decorate the article with pictures. My plan was to add a second heading under "Promotion" , maybe titled "Promotion photographs" or something similar, and then add the pics with a description and link. Like I said, I don't have a problem with you guys reverting my edits if they don't fall under Misplaced Pages policy. I'm still a newbie of sorts. Just don't change them simply if you don't like them. This article is excellent compared to various other film articles, so I wouldn't want to detract from that. That's my main worry. Veracious Rey 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The promotional photos have been generally replaced with screenshots from trailers, since they have shown more detail (as with Sandman and Harry "Night Surfer" Osborn). It's generally not preferred to provide external links within the article, instead citing them as a reference. Which places the link at the end of the article, anyway. I put it under External links for best terms of supplementary accessibility. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there more pics of Spidey, if so we should add all of tem. Spidey looks good flying in the pics, and computers make him look good. many pages have pics, why not more here too. like they say, a pic cost alot and adds even more value. Boggydark 17:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a repository of images, and all images must be able to prove fair use. Just adding images for eyecandy doesn't make it ok to add. Bignole 17:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Children's books

Is there another way we can write out information about the children's books? The fact that it's a list and also cites Amazon.com doesn't sit well with me. The books don't seem notable enough for such a list, and citing a commercial site doesn't seem like the best idea, even if it's done neutrally. Wish that the original SuperHeroHype.com article actually wrote about the books instead of going, "Here's the Amazon link, we're lazy to go in depth about the literature." Any ideas on formatting/citing the information better? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I originally had them all separated within the same sentence. As for Amazon, we use Amazon to cite Soundtracks, it would seem just as appropriate to use it since it lists the release dates and the publishers. There are apparently more than just 4 books. I think we rewrite it to say something to the effect of "Sony is releasing several children's books through Harper Entertainment Publishing, with a due date of April 1, 2007." Then use the SHH link and this link Entire List for the list of all the books together. This will get rid of the list (especially since there are more than just 4 books). I say list the Amazon link along with the SHH link so prove that the books do in fact exist. Bignole 01:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I can go for that. I'll implement the changes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

why?

why cant I edit, you guys. I'm not hurting anything. Only helping. geeees. First I yelled at before, now more of the same. And Ass Class Shadow doesnt answer my letters. I may not be to smart sometimes, but I can help if i want too. All I ahve is this, okay, so please let me be a part. I cant stand to see them go, but if I must then someone show it. Boggydark 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're adding unreferenced information, personal opinions/speculations, and all around incorrect statements. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a place for such things. I'm sorry. Bignole 03:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Bignole. tell me this. Why is it this way, and why cant they see if its right there in the article? That's why I put it in the article Boggydark 03:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you put whatever you want into an encyclopedia? I think that kind of answers itself. Who's Tammy? Not someone in this movie. Who cares if her boobs are big. We have a section on production, so putting "this movie has computers, and that's where all the money goes" is hardly coherent let alone constructive to the article. Bignole 03:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to become a better editor, it takes a lot of understanding of Misplaced Pages's policies. There are guidelines to adhere to: neutral point of view, citation of reliable sources for verifiability, the manual of style, and more. We the editors take our jobs seriously, and we want you to, as well. Writing "Her boobs are nice!" and similar opinionated statements into the article is not useful or informative to anyone. And you better hope Ace doesn't get wind of your incivility toward him. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

tag teamin me hard. One last question Bignole and Erik: should the article fall below standards, what precations are going? Seriously, should this be known, then it's important, right? Just asking.. Boggydark 03:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What standards exactly are you basing this question on? I'm guess not a standard that sounds like "Good Article" status or "Featured Article" status. Bignole 03:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

what I'm saying is cant this be superimposed based on another articel. Standards would go up, I think. What's your thoughts? Boggydark 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This article, I believe, is one of the most informative upcoming film articles on Misplaced Pages. This article should be a standard used by other upcoming film articles. It's well-cited, objective, and broad in scope. The only edits that are generally made to this article are either recent information (see Footage section) or minor copy-editing. It's a good piece of work resulting from the cooperation of a group of editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

userboxes

I believe the article would benefit from those userboxes I see everywhere. is their consensos? Tid bits of info here and there would excite readers, make wikipedia better. I'm doing my best to help out Boggydark 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes are for users on their user pages, not for articles. It's not necessary for you to find a way to help out. We tend to be pretty on top of things when it comes to news about this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Boggy, these would be a mess, and they aren't designed for the articles, but for USER pages. ThuranX 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand, I guess. Nothing seems to work around here unless you guys say so. Do you get paid? Probly a good job. I guess they need to pay editers to keep things going here. Boggydark 04:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Would all those interested please leave a remark on how this articel would be better from editing. You can leave your remarks below. After couple days, we can tally the results. This will help emensly. Boggydark 04:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

THis page would be better if new editors who seek out conflict would learn how to work with other editors instead. Misplaced Pages has policies against this sort of polling. Please read them. You have used up all the patience of two editors. If you burn through mine, I'll get an administrator to review your conduct. Thank you. ThuranX 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me rules that say polls are bad. Why are you so upset with me trying to improve spiderman? I beginning to give up. Boggydark 05:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

it's in that long list of pages to read about how Misplaced Pages works left for you on your talk page, in that welcome message. For starters, please read this section, then the entire page. ThuranX 05:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot section

I have a problem. I have been putting edits on the plot that Peter is asking MJ to marry him, in place of "Peter begins to grow overconfident, neglecting those who care for him." Peter is not overconfident. He's learned too much as Spider-Man from Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Besides, if he was doing something nasty before the symbiote came into his life, we would know about it by now. I thought I'd come here and talk things out before we get into a fight. 70.58.211.220 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.43.21.130 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

First, if you look, our plot summary has citations based on what people connected to the film have said. You are adding original research, which isn't acceptable on Misplaced Pages. If you have a reliable source stating otherwise, we'd love to see it, otherwise your edits will be reverted based on Wiki's policy against Original research. Sorry. Bignole 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, if you look at the citations, we have pieced together information as objectively as possible based on the information that has been offered, especially to avoid making any connections. The latest piece of information that we added was the Sandman story arc, which we took steps to make sure that Sandman was believed by the police to have killed Uncle Ben, but not to suggest outright that he was responsible. Now, what you've included is what Bignole has indicated — original research. It's too easy for anyone to watch the trailer(s) and start assuming connections. I mean, assuming the symbiote "deciding to get revenge"? Where did that come from? I could just as easily write that the symbiote went for the nearest host, which was Eddie, or some similar speculative statement. I'm not saying the Plot section is perfect (as another editor has contested the fact that John Jameson brings back the symbiote from space), but it's what we've pieced together based on actual citation with verifiable information from reliable sources. Just realize that in less than a half year, we'll have the section fully fleshed out, and we'll be debating over what details to include or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. GIPU, and any other unregisteredpeople out there, you don't remove cited data on Misplaced Pages. You can add to data or change it as things become clearer. Hell, you can even remove the citation when the data has been proven. But never, as in "don't ever" remove cited data because you don't agree with it. That's a biased edit and goes agaiunst Misplaced Pages's policy of verifiability over accuracy. "Cite before right," as they say. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, guys, Peter says he's going to propose. I probably should have added it myself, but whatever. Just as we're taking Captain Stacy's word about the "evidence" against Sandman, we could include somewhere that Peter plans to propose. I mean, yeah, it's not the easiest detail to fit in, but it is relevant. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the rule now, but the link mentioning Peter being overconfident is no longer available. So I'm not completely convinved that statement was true. However, as you are the honorable staff, I shall give you my trust on condition that you provide a reliable source where this came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.86.69 (talk • contribs) 18:08, December 19, 2006 (UTC)

I think the original edit was based on an "official" plot synopsis. I think what was used is similar to what can be seen here. The plot summary can be edited accordingly, but please adhere to WP:NPOV in revising the section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is becoming VERY un-reliable and false. I don't care what you say, EVERYONE knows the symbiote doesn't come back from the moon with John Jameson. Secondly, Peter DOESN'T become over confident. (At least not before the black suit)Peter is confident, but not over the top, he is very reliable and a very down-to-earth person. Information in these articles is becoming more and more false. You administraters are treating this like your own little playground. You base this 'information' on what you think will happen. You really have no idea what's going on with this movie.Template:Unsigned6

I—as my fellow Wikipedians already have repeatedly—redirect you to the fact that we cite what we write. To put it simply, we offer sources for what's in the article. You can refuse to believe or comprehend this, but please cease using the talk page to spout off random attacks at Misplaced Pages and its users. Also, I have yet to see any reliable source contradict ours. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I advise you to be more objective. You are arguing two points, plot points, in this article. We've tried to build the Plot section with what information was available since it's five months until the film's release, so excuse us if there are holes. If you have the citation and the capability of editing objectively, do the job. And who is "EVERYONE"? I keep up with a lot of Spider-Man 3 news, and I don't know for certain if John Jameson brings back the symbiote or not. But there's a magazine that cites that information. I'm not a reliable source, the magazine is. So if you want to correct this error that's just causing this article to be "VERY un-reliable and false", find us a citation (not some bullcrap blog, either) that supports what you're saying. This isn't our "playground"; you don't have a clue how dedicated we are, policy-wise and information-wise, to developing this article. Go find us a citation that tells us that John Jameson won't be in the film, and we'll compare it to the existing citation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've revised the Plot section based on ComingSoon.net's plot summary. I think that the original citation at Yahoo! Finance was summing up the film very succinctly in saying that Peter Parker has a personality change without explicitly mentioning the symbiote's influence on him. After that, I think the multiple citations of different sources disrupted the chronology of the sentences in the Plot section. Should be fine now except for your complaint about John Jameson. About that, nothing mentions him coming back from the moon. Also, this is the text from Empire magazine, the citation that provided the information of Jameson bringing the "alien life force" from outer space: "Just in case you're wondering, Venom is actually a symbiotic alien, brought back to Earth by astronaut John Jameson (son of Daily Bugle proprietor J. Jonah Jameson, last seen in Spider-Man 2), which latches onto Parker, bonding with him and becoming his new costume. After the living suit - which no one knows is alive - tries to possess Parker, and is then rejected, it foists itself instead onto the emotionally fragile Brock, becoming a force to be reckoned with, a creature with all of Spider-Man's powers and none of his moral strictures." Just give us a citation that says the opposite, especially one that's not STUFF DADDY. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Premiere coverage

Premiere had exclusive coverage of the film on pages 62, 63, 64, 65, and 118. Plenty of information to work into the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Did they say Sandman's better than The Mummy? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They basically said that the visual effects for Sandman were so far ahead of The Mummy that it wasn't comparable at all. Scoffed at the idea, basically. There's a lot of interesting and detailed opinion here that would work really well in a fleshed-out Production section, not the bits and pieces we currently have. I think I might start digging up stuff about the movie being confirmed to be made and other details to start that off, as I didn't join the article until after these events already took place. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge 'Villains' and 'Production' sections

The Villains section is something from the days when nothing was concrete and there are lots of interesting information on writing choices and special effects that would benefit a nice plump Production section. I've been having fun doing this lately for 300 and The Dark Knight. Wiki-newbie 20:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to say that this article really has come a long way from that particular revision. Secondly, I think that the Villains and Production sections should remain separate. My reason for this is that the villains are relatively unique in their creation, especially Sandman and Venom. I'm pretty positive more information about their design will come to light as we get closer to the release date and beyond it. However, I do believe that the Production section can be stitched together, combining subsections a la 300 and The Dark Knight. The Villains section has demonstrated enough material, especially at this "minimal information" stage, to warrant its own section, which will continue growing. However, I welcome other perspectives to see if Wiki-newbie's setup or another redesign setup would work better for the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A follow-up thought — Batman Begins has a Design section with subsections for Gotham City, the Batmobile, and the Batsuit. These subsections are pretty comprehensive and work well separate from the Production section. The same concept could be applied not to just the villains of Spider-Man 3, but the re-design of Spider-Man in wearing his symbiotic suit. That way, it would take a more objective light (no more "Villains" in the section name) and trace all the components (origin, character interpretation, visual effects, etc.) in a character's specific subsection. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your last point as with say, the dinosaurs in a Jurassic Park/King Kong film in that the multiple superpowered smack downs are integral to the film. Essentially the 'Mutants Featured' section in X-Men being very well developed. Well, ok, shall we get dig up some stuff on the black costume? Wiki-newbie 21:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to negate your suggestion per my comments. We can see what other editors have to say. Maybe they have something different in mind. I do understand what you mean by a "plump" Production section (FA-class Star Wars articles have 'em). We could expand by the Production section by finding citations about when Spider-Man 3 was officially confirmed (Googling for site:variety.com "Spider-Man 3" could work). So I guess if you wanted to pursue the black costume stuff, we can change "Spider-Man's villains" to "Character design", have a "Symbiotic Spider-Man" (or something similar) subsection, and maybe drop the information below the Production section? It's somewhat secondary, but barely. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I have a weird way of thinking. But I think some mergers can take place. I think portions could go into "casting" and other portions into "visual effects". It seems that there is the special effects that are being used for both Sandman and Venom, and that could be used to beef up the "visual effects" section of Production. Then the "Church was approached" and similar talk could be added to the casting section. It could be placed in a new paragraph just below the list of cast. A portion of the Venom info could go into the "Promotion" section, seeing as his quick glimpse at ComicCon and on FOX are really more on a promotional scale. I don't think everything could go into one section, but I could see the "Villains" section being divided among multiple sections, but that's just me. That would both require the moving of some pictures and the removal of some. The "Sandman being punched through the chest" image could go down to "visual effects" seeing as it is that in the Sandman section. Something like that. I don't know. Bignole 00:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're suggesting dissemination of the "Spider-Man's villains" section into the rest of it.

• Sandman visual effects information → Visual effects subsection
• Harry Osborn, Venom, Sandman casting information → Cast section
• Venom promotional information → Promotion sectiion

Something like that? I would be fine with it. The "Visual effects" subsection could use some fleshing out, maybe break it out into its own section as we get more information. I would be fine with that as well. It seems like pretty fair distribution. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was saying. I'm sure we'll eventually get some more word on what this new technology they created for the CGI is, and we can add that. I think the "Visual Effects" section will eventually be a large section (depending on what they release) because of the nature of the CGI and it being this "holier than thou, ground breaking new programming", or as they are saying it is. Bignole 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So does anyone clearly want to say 'yes' or 'no' to getting my digital knives out? Wiki-newbie 11:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with Bignole's suggestion as seen above. Obviously, retain all the article's information and watch the multiple references when you shuffle stuff around. Not sure, though, if the "Visual effects" section can exist on its own yet with the current information available, since I assume you plan on writing the "plump" Production section. I'll leave that up to you. I'll try to add some development information eventually that will help start off the Production section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of these merges have been interesting, but the recent comination of the production and promotion, I think goes too far. the two are totally different parts of the process. One section, Production, refers specifically to MAKING the movie, while Promotion refers to SELLING the product. To combine these two is making a soup of the information, insted of keeping it a cleanly organized article. A lot of the section merges seem to work decently ,and we'll get feedback soon enough, I'm sure. ThuranX 17:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't combine Production and Promotion and Merchandise. Wiki-newbie 17:40, 17 December 2006(UTC)

Think he means Promotion and Merchandise. And I agree with his perspective. They're similar, but distinct enough. The fact that it's called "Promotion and merchandise" indicates two different things. Let's expand on them separately. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do believe X was confused. "Promotion" doesn't make the movie, and certainly merchandise can help advertise it. I'd kee

Actually, I relied on the edit summary Wiki-Newbie wrote, in which he stated he'd combined production and Merchandise. Check the history. When I checked the difference, I missed the line that combined promotion and merchandise. Even so, This merging seems to be getting a bit excessive. Erik, Ace and I had ben working for quite a while on a standardized format, which we'd managed to get many articles into. Now, that's been set aside, but I think that this reversal of all that effort, to turn articles into larger, more hodge-podge sections is going to bite us. This dissemination of the work on the characters being split up into various sections will probably result in an upswing in GIPUs adding redundnat information faster than we can revert it all out, and in another three months, just before the film releases, we'll wind up wishing we had tighter sections. ThuranX 17:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, newbie, your summary of "Merge Production and Merchandise" didn't help matters. Work on the excessive caps and focused spelling. (Unfocused spelling is correcting writing/typing the wrong word.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Promotion vs. Merchandise

Looks like we need to discuss this more clearly. Obviously, there are some related notions, such as what Ace mentioned about the poster. But it seems to be that footage such as trailers and TV spots are more directly promotional of the film, where the merchandise tends to be more supplementary, "milking" the film's success. I understand that it can work the other way around; but this seems to occur (in my mind, anyway) to a lesser degree. Wish, though, there was some word besides Promotion and Merchandise that can encompass both... hmm... how about Marketing? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Bignole, Wiki-newbie, and I have been discussing putting Spider-Man 3 up for peer review. We'd obviously like to continue improving the article, and suggestions from external editors would be useful. Since this is still a future film, it's uncertain if the article can achieve GA status before the film's release based on "lack of stability". This is something we can ask during the peer review when it is underway. We hope to put this article up for peer review within the week, after we can address any changes on our own, especially with the recent restructuring. If anyone has any suggestions or comments regarding the peer review, leave it here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I noticed that the sources for the appearances of various actors within the film are being removed. despite their visiility inte trailer, despite the facthey'll be in the film, there continue to be wiki-editors who will demand citation, claiming that they lack convenient access to the film, and thus need external citation. I had a run-in about this a couple months back, wish I could remember where... But be absolutely sure that any actor whose citation is removed is clearly identifiable at a glance, even to non-fans; otherwise, I receommend keeping the citations in till the the film is released. ThuranX 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

PAGE IS FOULED! DO NOT POST TILL ADMINS FOLLOW UP!

We need to get an admin in here, the page is mis-updating significantly, dropping my comments for erik's ,erik's for mine, and half the pge for either of ours. I tried to fix it, it spawned more dulpicate sections. I'll get an ADMINThuranX 18:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue should be resolved now. Jkelly 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning

Since the talk page should be fine now, I think we should discuss connotations of sectioning vs. non-sectioning. Working with superhero and comic book films at first, sectioning initially seemed to be a good way to break up the information to make it extremely readable. However, there tended to be a lot of subsections with only a handful of sentences, which I found to be frowned upon in looking at peer reviews of other articles. Also, I've noticed that FA-class film articles have consistently had low sectioning, rarely going beyond the primary heading (==Section==).

Now, ThuranX has doubts about using this, saying, "This merging seems to be getting a bit excessive. Erik, Ace and I had ben working for quite a while on a standardized format, which we'd managed to get many articles into. Now, that's been set aside, but I think that this reversal of all that effort, to turn articles into larger, more hodge-podge sections is going to bite us. This dissemination of the work on the characters being split up into various sections will probably result in an upswing in GIPUs adding redundnat information faster than we can revert it all out, and in another three months, just before the film releases, we'll wind up wishing we had tighter sections." I originally supported multiple sectioning, but seeing peer reviews and FA-class film articles, it struck me as more encyclopedic to tie content together. I don't see the concern about GIPUs adding redundant information, though — is this something that's actually been encountered? It rather implies that GIPUs are incapable of scanning the article structured in "hodge-podge sections", making it difficult for frequent editors to maintain the page. Thoughts on how to section appropriately are welcome here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion then is to keep it to {===Section===) then if you feel it'll make vandalism easier to get rid of. Still, my intention was certainly for some films without a lot of information to be made well written. Wiki-newbie 18:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to say right now what would be best, because every article is different. Revenge of the Sith isn't structured the same as Halloween (film). I think we should break them down into general sections until the point where we have enough info to warrant a new subsection. Like, I'm almost positive that if they release everything, there will be enough notable information for a "visual effects" subsection. Bignole 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're unique in being ambitious regarding an article about an upcoming film. It's a challenge to compare this film to the in-depth articles of films already released. We're left to predict what information we would get, such as visual effects information. There's no policy (as far as I know) that explains how any article about an upcoming event (in this case, a film) ought to be structured before all the information should be released. So I doubt there's a right or wrong answer. I see the wisdom in extensive sectioning, especially when only bits and pieces about a film's production is released — better off to segment. However, I guess there's a point where the information should be tied together. For example, 300 was sectioned with a bit of information in each subsection, and it seemed appropriate to tie it together. On the other hand, the gun has been jumped with The Dark Knight, which might be tricky since Nolan prefers secrecy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think as long as we are clear and concise it won't matter to much, just so long as we don't have a dozen sections with 5 sentences in them each. I know that when I read an article and don't have time to finish, I'd rather be able to stop at a subsection, then try and guess where I was in some overly long primary section. Right now, I think it's ok, reading wise, but once we get more information we may have to create subsections for easier reading. It's like any book, you need some chapter headers to be able to stop and distinguish between different points. 20:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Rating

I really don't get why this is a high-rated article. Tons of speculation; this article won't become stable at all until the film is released, which won't be until next year. We have no clue how it will be rated (whether it'll shine as a great ending or a crappy tack-on), critics' reviews, box office, etc. I disagree with the other Spiderman's high-rating, but they bave something because they're among the biggest grossing movies. Biggest budget doesn't mean anything; look at Waterworld, which is of mid-importance. Hbdragon88 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For starters, you're the only one protesting, and you admit clear basis against any Spider-Man film being listed as "High Importance". That alone should be a bad sign in your case. Second, a rating isn't speculation. Whether the film "bombs" or not, it is currently subject of much anticipation and media coverage by the standards of the genre. Third, it's in great shape and very "stable". Misplaced Pages insists that even featured articles can be improved. The only place for this article to go is up. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Notice how i stated my POV but also stated the objective facts. Both Spidey films have a much greater rationle for their high-importance as some of the top groessing films; this does not have such a rationle. What relevence does this "I'm the only protester" have? I'm putting my two cents in. If I am wrong, I expect something more than "POV importance demotion" as a reason for reverting. I would like a reason for why I am so wrong about my assumption instead of an extremely unhelpful comment, treating me as if I should know what is going on here. Of course, your comment was in no way helpful besides rebutting every single letter; Erikster actually presented a sound reason for why he thinks that this article is of high importance. And, while I might not fully agree, I'll leave this rating be. Hbdragon88 01:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll throw in my perspective, too. I understand what you're trying to say about a rating for this film being pre-emptive, since we don't actually know how Spider-Man 3 will be received, but based on the reception of the previous two films, it is likely that this film will be similarly notable. If a film like Namor was made, then a high-importance rating would be questionable because there is no basis for that assumption — superhero films can be hits or misses or anything in between. Here, though, I think it's appropriate for Spider-Man 3 to receive the rating because it is part of an ongoing franchise that doesn't show any signs why it would not be important in terms of box office performance, visual effects, critical reaction, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I side with HBdragon. Reading through Ace and Erik's replies, I'd suggest a compromise at mid-level. We know that as the biggest budget and third in one of, if not THE biggest series of the genre (not sure how superman or batman stack up), it's got a lot of fiscal notability, as well as popularity and ties to a major pop culture figure, etc., etc. I'd be good with mid, with hte opportunity to go to high after release, but I DO object to Low on the ground that erik and Ace have already stated. ThuranX 01:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with such a compromise, as it's always possible that SM3 will be a stinker. Who knows — too many villains, not enough story, etc. Mid-level works for me. There's probably a few more upcoming films who might need a similar demotion in the importance scale (*cough* Dark Knight *cough*) if we're going to go along with this reasoning. I don't think this is anything to argue over until the month in which these films debut. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm okay with a compromise, but HD did give up, however insultingly. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

V-Rey's 2 cents

I'm not a contributing editor to Spider-Man 3. I've done some piddly stuff here and there, had a few opinions, but nothing substantial like Bignole, Ace, Erik, and a few others. Before I explain my position, here's my conclusion: the article probably should be lowered to a mid importance level. First, let me provide a quote from the importance page used for Spider Man 3:

Importance or Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another.

So, this article's importance is not black and white, but instead an evolving shade of gray. We all know this. If it was two weeks from the release of SM3, then I'm willing to bet my next paycheck we wouldn't be having this discussion. But we have to remember a few things. First, this movie is almost 6 months from release. A lot can change between now and then. Secondly, the buget is HUGE, and no amount of fan acclaim may be able to bring home a substantial enough amount of bacon. Fan turnout is a funny thing, and other better movies may offer surprising competition.

But getting back to popularity, here's an example. When The Matrix debuted it set a gold standard for movie effects, and took home the Oscar over Episode I. It was a cash cow no one expected. The Matrix Reloaded was equally popular, and everyone (myself included) couldn't wait for The Matrix Revolutions. What happened? The final film dropped 70% in its second week and was generally panned by critics and a majority of fans alike. So if history is correct, there are no sure things. Third time isn't always a charm. Now it could be two films in one year doomed the Matrix to fan burnout. Maybe the storyline burned out on it's own. Who knows. But we have to be realistic here, no one, including the experts here and elswhere, really knows if SM3 will kick butt or not. Personally, I was underwhelmed by both the teaser and first trailer. I think Ace would agree, based on his own comments (sorry, if I'm wrong, Ace). I might add that out of all three movies, only the first Matrix is rated high.

You know, when I post this, I won't be completely at ease with my response. There is so much to be argued here, and both sides have completely valid points. But, for me anyway, this argument comes down to none of us knowing with certainty how SM3 will be welcomed by the public. We have to ask ourselves, especially in light of the many heated arguments going on this talk page, how much do we really know, and can we be sure, even with references? Veracious Rey 06:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Matrix trilogy is a good example to cite. The sequels, compared to the original film, tried to do too much at once and fared poorly as a result. (My opinion, of course.) The same thing could happen with SM3, since there's more than the usual villainous presences. Is the importance scale relative, anyway? I've never really noticed how the scale applied to bettering Misplaced Pages film articles. There really should be a blurb about how the importance scale should apply to upcoming films (if there's not one that I missed somewhere). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 08:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You know Erik, the importance scale is a mystery to me too. I'm not sure why we even use the thing. But if we are to follow the given criteria, then do you think SM3 leans toward a mid-class article? For now I believe it does. Veracious Rey 08:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh... why are you even pontificating here AFTER all the involved editors agreed to mid-level BEFORE you arrived? weird.ThuranX 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A comment like that might discourage further input from other Wikipedians. But not me. What I was doing was trying to be useful, adding my thoughts, trying to help in the matter. I don't see any post declarying this topic mute, nor do I see that this article was dropped to mid-importance last night (still high as far as I can tell). Had it been lowered, then I agree my comments would have been utter "pontificating" and useless. I don't see a problem trying to clarify another user's comments. Most would appreciate the chance to step back up on that ol' soapbox. Veracious Rey 14:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see now the importance level has been lowered - after my main comments. Veracious Rey 15:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Figured that if we really did decide to go with mid-importance, we may as well make the actual change. Your thoughts are welcome, however slightly belated. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Importance scale

In case you're wondering, I've decided to give importance and quality scale ratings the Future class for those films yet to be released. This will settle the debates. Wiki-newbie 18:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed film articles
• WikiProject Film articles