Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 4

message: Is the problem with my computer, or is the lead poster photo in this article screwed up? When I load the article page, I get a standard red x. I've tried to make it work, but not sure how. I assumed the problem lied with the page itself. Someone tell me if I'm crazy! Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 23:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a large moving .gif file resized for the page, viewing problems can easily arise. However, the problem itself is not likely a problem with the image or your computer so much as the way they're working together. I'd say it's more likely an isolated issue, especially when you consider that the advertage viewer would probably be quick to come here with a subject like "FIX YOUR STPUD IMAGE!@" or some such. Still, if you're using a PC as your "red x" referece implies, it could be something more. I've checked the image and the file history hasn't been changed since October of last year. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've seen the problem, as it's currently doing the same for me. If you click the image it should still be viewable. Bignole 00:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, Bignole. Glad I'm not crazy afterall. Oh well, I suppose it'll get worked out. Thanks for the response fellas. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Sorry if I couldn't be more help. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did it to me for a while a few days ago, and I mentioned it to Bignole. Now it's fine again. I suspect it has to do with the filling and resultant autodumping of my cache. try dumping your cache? ThuranX 04:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've cleared my history, cookies, temp files...go back to the picture..it's still 'X' for me. Bignole 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diddo. Did all of the above, restarted my computer... still nothing. Perhaps the current file could be removed, and a new gif of the same image could be uploaded. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 22:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that when I jumped on FireFox it looked as if there wasn't a picture there at all, no "X", just a caption. Bignole 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, tried that - with no luck. Anyway, thanks for the response. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You have to prove fair use with such things, and "low resolution" is an important one. Bignole 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, the image isn't that great. I looked a few places, couldn't find a good one. I'm busy for a while after today. Maybe you guys can look one up, or just remove the current version. Whatever you think. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine. It's just small. It shouldn't be actual size. Bignole 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new poster that you uploaded is 750x1113.  If you look at the licensing for the film poster, it says, "It is believed that the use of scaled-down, low-resolution images of film posters..."  A good example is :Image:Shooter poster.jpg, a poster image I uploaded that is only slightly bigger than its actual display in the article.  Also, I added a colon to the image you posted, since images shouldn't be visible outside of the article.  The colon turns the image into a visitable link instead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I understand. I took care of it, and thanks for the heads-up. Just when I think I know what I'm doing... Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. :)  Just one more tip -- you could have saved the image, adjusted it on your computer, and re-upload it under the same file name.  Wikipedia will ask if you want to upload over the existing version, so you can say yes.  Just something to know for the future. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster problem? 

message: Hey all, I took it upon myself to change the poster, temporarily or permanently, until we can figure out what's going on with the lenticular image. I'll keep experimenting with the other one, trying to get it to work. It's obvious from the other user responses that we have a problem. Better a different image than a broken one. I'm just being bold here. I've tried three different computers, and none display the image properly. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 03:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to prove fair use with such things, and "low resolution" is an important one. Bignole 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, the image isn't that great. I looked a few places, couldn't find a good one. I'm busy for a while after today. Maybe you guys can look one up, or just remove the current version. Whatever you think. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine. It's just small. It shouldn't be actual size. Bignole 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new poster that you uploaded is 750x1113.  If you look at the licensing for the film poster, it says, "It is believed that the use of scaled-down, low-resolution images of film posters..."  A good example is :Image:Shooter poster.jpg, a poster image I uploaded that is only slightly bigger than its actual display in the article.  Also, I added a colon to the image you posted, since images shouldn't be visible outside of the article.  The colon turns the image into a visitable link instead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I understand. I took care of it, and thanks for the heads-up. Just when I think I know what I'm doing... Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. :)  Just one more tip -- you could have saved the image, adjusted it on your computer, and re-upload it under the same file name.  Wikipedia will ask if you want to upload over the existing version, so you can say yes.  Just something to know for the future. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp poster change 

message: *
*
* (could replace broken link in article)
*
*
*
* (repost of above with re-hosted Venom images)
:Some citations that I don't think are in the article... mostly promotion and merchandise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for use 

message: It seems the new, SM3 action figs were removed from the sideshow site. "Looking for our Spider-man 3 Collectibles?
Not to worry! We will be posting our Spider-man 3 Products back online for pre-sell soon. Thank you for your patience!" In the meantime, I've replaced the citation with one from Erik's grab bag. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action figures 

message: I uploaded an image I found on the Official Site. Perhaps it can be used in the article somewhere?
200px
Kalas Grengar 09:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As we're no longer using villain specific sections, we have to be sparing with images. We could put it in the "promotional" section, but I'm not sure it's important enough. Also, it should probably be cropped a bit on the left. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems like a promo shot rather than a screenshot, so if we did use this in the future, the licensing should be corrected. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Goblin Image

message: {{cite news | last = Elliott | first = Sean | title = Exclusive: DYLAN BAKER TALKS THE LIZARD FOR SPIDER-MAN'S NEXT SEQUEL Actor also tells iF MAGAZINE that his wife is playing Mrs. Stacy in SPIDER-MAN 3 | publisher = iFMagazine | date = 2007-01-21 | url = http://www.ifmagazine.com/new.asp?article=4055 | accessdate = 2007-01-22}
Wanted to bring this to other editor's attention first. Is Becky Ann Baker playing Mrs Stacy worth anything, and is his chat on the Lizard idle speculation or worth being in the article? Wiki-newbie 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...she pretty much doesn't exist in the comic world, so I'm not sure about that. About the Lizard, right now it's speculation. I think he was hinting that if Raimi does another film that Raimi might have all but guaranteed that Baker would have a much larger role than previously, but I don't think there was any confirmation of another film or the Lizard. Bignole 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if it's notable to mention that Baker's wife was cast in the film as Captain Stacy's wife.  If we had a trivia section, we could've thrown it in there. :)  In the meantime, though... I don't know if and how it could be worked into Production.  The Lizard information is also interesting, but unconfirmed.  We can save the citation to indicate an early mention of the Lizard when/if Spider-Man 4 comes around. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Dylan Baker interview 

message: Hey. Ace here. Would it make more sense if we linked directly to the "film" sections of character articles? It would definitely be a service in the case of Eddie and Harry, who both stray from the norm in their portrayals. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably be best for the linking, instead of linking to just the generic page. Bignole 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article links 

message: The printed Premiere article identified Harry Osborn's villainous persona as "NEW GOBLIN" in caps, so I had assumed that it was the title "New Goblin".  However, the online version identified the character as "Harry Osborn's new Goblin".  Is there another way we can address this adequately? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grant used the term "New Goblin", and not new "Goblin". Bignole 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok.  That takes care of it. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is also used on the movie site. I was a bit iify about it at first, but it seems to have caught on...mostly. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: eh...I'm not really digging the size, or all that space around him. It's unfornate, too. Everyone else has a close-up of sorts and he gets stuck with that crummy action shot. Feh. We need something less...constipated. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New" Goblin? 

message: Hate to be one of "these people"... but any chance we can use a shot of the New Goblin in the article?  (It's print-screened from the official site, so it's a promo shot.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: eh...I'm not really digging the size, or all that space around him. It's unfornate, too. Everyone else has a close-up of sorts and he gets stuck with that crummy action shot. Feh. We need something less...constipated. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imagery 

message: This is kind of minor but, is the Spider-Man film series article setting a bad example by using a "cameos" section? While I'd like all four articles to be distinct, this may seem contradictory. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the attempted edit to create a Cameos subsection on this SM3 article?  I'm not sure how the film series article stands out from the individual film articles -- each film has been a separate production, so it's not like LOTR.  I don't know how the film series article could be distinct, since it's really based on information from other articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're similar, but not exactly the same. I'm just wondering if I should remove the "cameo" subsection from the cast list on that article, as you guys have with this one. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What differentiates the film series article from the individual film articles?  From my perspective, the article should have the boiled-down elements of all the films.  I think that the Cameo subsection should be excluded in its entirety, as it belongs to the more fleshed-out individual articles.  For the series article, I would suggesting summarizing each film even more succinctly, and perhaps trimming down the Cast section as well to the major, major players.  People like John Jameson, Dr. Connors, and the Daily Bugle staff should be excluded from this kind of overview.  Just some suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad example? 

message: Should information saying a third trailer will be released with Ghost Rider be added to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Spidey (talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually reverted to a version including this omment, because it's worth addressing on two points. One, if you can cite it with a reliable source, yes Dark Spidey. Two, I welcooem this positive, article improving sentiment and hope to see much more of it, DS. ThuranX 01:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Ghost Rider trailer? 

message: Ever thought of adding international release dates? Dark Spidey 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be too listy to add all the release dates that are shown on the official site.  I inserted a sub-link in External links to lead to the release dates on the official site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: International release dates

message: *
:Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "We decided that we were going retain three of his themes: 1) The Spider-man heroic theme. 2.) The Green Goblin theme, for Harry Osbourne, the son of the original Green Goblin who takes over his Father's role. 3.) And finally, what is identified as the "Fate" theme from the second movie. All the themes for the new characters in this third movie, I am doing. Sandman, Venom, the black goo has a theme, the black suited Spider-Man, the new romantic theme, a whole bunch of new themes." —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Young 

message: Superhero Hype has posted news about new previews and trailers. I have added this to the promotion section along with when they will debut. Dark Spidey 08:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate the attempted contribution, but you need to cite your information so it's verifiable by editors and readers alike.  In addition, the Heroes clip was already mentioned in the last paragraph of Promotion.  Someone removed your uncited information, but I've re-added the second trailer information with the citation from SuperHeroHype.com. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info added to Promotions 

message: The name of that section is inappropriate I think. I changed it to Release. What do you think? Berserkerz Crit 13:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, the section will be based on how the film is received (so the when and where would be included as well).  I don't really care either way, but I don't want it to turn into a list of extraneous release information such as every release date of every country in which the film is being released. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: *
Any way we could incorporate some of these images into the article? WikiNew 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if they meet fair use rationale.  They were provided to AICN by an anonymous benefactor ("Amy Pascal"?), so I don't know where these images fall in terms of being available to public.  There's some nice production shots, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Awesome images, but even the provider says that Sony might snatch them up, so that probably means they aren't legal. I'd wait to see if someone like SHH says that they are officially released or just leaked images. I wish we could use them, but if we know they aren't official then we can't use them, and the submitter pretty much says they aren't when he makes the comment about Sony possibly taking them off the site (which says it's probably just a matter of time before they find it).   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang didn't get to see it. It's already gone. Berserkerz Crit 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They've been taken down at Sony's request (Probably a legal department 'request'). As such, they are clearly NOT fair use in any fashion, and should neither be uploaded to wikipedia at all, nor included by link in the article. ThuranX 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept art 

message: http://www.dvdrama.com/imagescrit/H_spider_man_3_46.jpg 
Could this be in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalas Grengar (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of the authenticity, or copyright of the image.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because if it was promotional then it would be released everywhere, and you'd see it on their official website. I think it's probably authentic, but just not legal. Also, I noticed a shot in there that basically confirms the symbiote is from space, there's a meteoroid landing next to Peter's bike.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bignole. The image isn't legal, and isn't supposed to  be out. Doesn't belong on the page. ThuranX 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not citable, not proof, not nothing. And I'm genuinely sick and tired of you hitting multiple sections to 'brag' about being 'right' and how we 'should believe you now'. You need to go read all those essays and policies that we have been encouraging you to read for over six months, bot hwhen you were using an IP, and since you got your account. Go read them already, so you can contribute in a positive and constructive way. Thank You. Again. ThuranX 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Venom Image 

message: I finally have proof!
http://www.dvdrama.com/galerie/spider_man_3_/48/H/
That's a shot from Spider-Man 3. That's Peter's moped bike. That's the comet with the symbiote on it. Do you believe me NOW? Dark Spidey 03:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem is that even I'm assuming that the meteroid is the symbiote. I mean it's the logical assumption, but it's still an assumption because I don't think the foreign site gives it a caption, let alone would that caption be "reliable". For all we know Jameson does "bring it", but unknowingly and it just vacates his ship before he lands. I highly doubt that, and I'm pretty sure that it just fell on its own, but I can't put that in because it's my opinion. Though, at least we know where he picks it up, those are the woods that he and MJ are making out at while in his webbing. Notice the second helmet? Again, that's my assumption, based on the images, and not reliable sourcing.   BIGNOLE    (Contact me)  04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As we've said for months, DS. No cares about you being 'right'. We care about Citation. That image is NOT citable. Further, we aren't interested in your conjecture about the movie based on half a dozen stolen images. We care about legitimate citation. ThuranX 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's cool. Adjusting plots for inaccuracies, when the films are released, is fine (be warned not to make the plot overly long, 600-700 words, if you attempt to write the whole thing). The thing is that Wikipedia isn't about "truth" it's about verifiability with reliable sources. Empire is reliable, a foreign website that uses illegal leaked images...eh..not so much. The point is, we can't verify, with no actual source or text, what the meteroid is or how it even comes to land there in the first place. You know what it is, I know what it is, but we can't put that in Wikipedia on the basis of common sense.   BIGNOLE    (Contact me)  04:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Aaaaaaaaand we're back. It's clear that despite your time away, you still never bothered to read any of wikipedia's policies. THe sources aren't legal. they'er not publicly released by the production company. End of story. ThuranX 11:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They must have taken the Venom pic down anyway, cause I don't see it anywhere on the above links. I'm sure when the third trailer is released online, that will provide a decent pic. Remember Dark Spidey, patience is a virtue.   Veracious Rey  T  C  20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it's the WonderCon trailer where all you really see is that same old ground closeup of his mouth opening and later his hand grabbing Spidey's head.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True.   Veracious Rey  T  C  02:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you mean using the image, then no. I haven't seen any reliable site actually post the images, only a link to where you might find the images (which are quickly removed once Sony finds them). As for the information, we'd be assuming that Jameson wasn't involved. The only information we have is that EMPIRE, which is considered a reliable source, regardless of whether they are right (verifiability/reliability over truth) is that Jameson brings it to Earth, which he could very well do still, since we are only seeing a small scene from the film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)Did you NOT read the very section you posted in? Please read this section and the few above it. Thank you. ThuranX 02:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Only the fact that it's "alien" in origin, which we have. It doesn't show anything but a buring object falling. It doesn't show if it's a meteoroid (rock based object) with the symbiote inside, or just the symbiote itself falling. It also doesn't show where it falls from. For all we know it falls off a shuttle, thus Jameson would have brought it back with him. I'm not trying to deny that it probably just fell from the sky, just that we have to go with what our reliable source says. Unless you can find a reliable source that debunks the current one, which would be like an interview with someone explaining the origins.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I won't link them here, since they are fora, and therefore unreliable, but the novelization is currently available, and many posters have said that it proves this. I'm probably going to take a look at the first few pages just to get this straight. Valaqil 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The novels ready already? That's cool, but we can't use that as a source for the film. Novelizations generally take some liberties with films. Superman Returns had different elements than the novel. In the novel, Jason IS Richard's son, not Superman's.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the last two Spider-Man novelizations, they were mostly accurate with only a couple of things missing from the movie.  Jason being Superman's son was supposed to be only revealed in movie. PureSoldier 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't compare previous entries to every entry, especially something so delicate as the symbiote's origin, which they have chosen not to overtly reveal. The novelization could be 100% correct, but that doesn't make it any reliable when compared to a film that hasn't been released yet and so verification cannot be made.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. PureSoldier 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that the image just shows it landing, and we are assuming that what is landing is the symbiote. I'm positive it is, but it isn't like there is an after shot of it oozing out or something, and even if there was, there wasn't a pre-shot that showed where the thing was falling. For all we know there is some lab explosion at a genetics testing facility and it shoots into the sky and falls 10 miles away. It's a stretch, but the point is that we aren't seeing where it's falling from, and we are assuming it's falling from space.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: First, let's correct that. There is an image of a flaming object coming out of the sky. Please read my previous statements. We don't know if it's a meteroid, or just something that comes flying through the air. Second, also read my statements about using a novelization as a source for a film. Novelizations are generally written slightly different so as to leave something fresh for the film (e.g. Jason White IS Richard White's son in the novel, but not in the film). If you use a picture as a source, especially one that doesn't definitively identify itself, that's original research; and using a novel is just unverifiable.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems like this is close to "logical conclusions" that don't constitute OR, considering what we know about the history of the symbiote, but I have to agree with   BIGNOLE  on this one. The rebuttals presented are strong enough to suggest that we wait. To quote BN's comment directly above yours, "I'm positive it is, but it isn't like there is an after shot of it oozing out or something,". I think that it is almost definitely the symbiote, but Wikipedia guidelines trump my hunches. Sorry to have revived this discussion. Valaqil 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of symbiote comet origin! 

message: Is there any word as to when the most recently released trailer for Spider-Man 3, which was attached to the release of the movie "300" will be released onto the internet like apple.com? - RVDDP2501 14:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It was one of the images snatched up by Sony when it was original released. If it's not on the official website, chances are it's not legal to show.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   It should be legal, its on the official blog, http://www.spidermanmovieblog.com/archives/2007/03/new_venom_pic_and_outdoor_art.php  , so shouldn't it be ok? Teeple12 01:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was just released on the 22nd, before that it wasn't allowed by Sony.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spider-Man 3 300 trailer 

message: I changed the information about the trailer with 300. That trailer, with Venom grabbing Spidey, is there; I watched it tonight myself. On a side note, the "First Look" for Spidey 3 said there will be 1 final trailer coming out, and that you can view it on a Comcast website (not only the website, but when it comes out). I don't know how you would cite that, and I can't remember the precise wording for it to be well used, just thought I'd inform everyone so they can keep an eye out for information pertaining to that.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''300'' 

message: How much do we want to cover in terms of what songs will be included on the soundtrack?  If we make some mention of it, where should it belong?  Here's a couple of valid citations about Snow Patrol having "Signal Fire" in the film:  and .  Not sure about the other musical artists involved, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack information 

message: Can be found here: http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid=29899
(Sorry. I'm a bit too lazy right now to add it in. I figure someone else can do it, and probably do it better.) Valaqil 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link doesn't seem to work.  I'll try again later in the day. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It works for me now.  I've created Spider-Man 3 (soundtrack).  Feel free to expand on it, and I'll create a link to that soundtrack article from the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job! I did notice one thing though: Apparently, "Spider-Man 3 soundtrack" and "Spider-Man 3 (soundtrack)" now exist. I copied Erik's comments to the one that already existed. My bad. I'm sorry to have created confusion. Valaqil 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the website is titled after the second option, I've moved it accordingly.  Let me know if this is an issue. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack List of Songs 

message: In the Spider Man 3 Novelization it is stated that is was not John Jameson who brought the simbiote to earth, but a meteor.-SSJ Gokan 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read previous discussions, especially ones that are only a couple sections above. Film novelizations are not sources because they can and usually do change information. Superman Returns had many differences from its own novel, most notably Jason White being Richard's child.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We'll find out for sure when we see the film, won't we?  Don't worry, there's no conspiracy or cover-up here.  Just a lack of reliable sources directly tied to the film, not to its novelization.  If the symbiote comes to earth via meteor in the film, we'll make that correction.  In addition, we know that there's a picture of a meteor impacting in the park, but it can't be absolutely verified that the symbiote came in that way.  Think of it this way: If you're being introduced to the film and its franchise for the first time, it's not going to be immediately and verifiably clear what is going on in that picture.  It's original research to surmise what it could be. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been a big spidey fan for a while and I know of Venoms origins. In addition, I am sorry I should have read the previous discussions before making this.-SSJ Gokan 23:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries; thank you for being civil.  If the information is proved wrong, I'm sure it'll be corrected right away. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we aren't trying to deny what is probably true, just that there are no reliable sources that can debunk the only reliable source that we have right now.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simbiote