Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 2

message: Having rewritten the Harry Osborn section per discussion as seen above, I'm turning my focus to the Venom section.  I don't think that the section should start off with Raimi's "complex role" statement, but news about how Raimi had originally not intended to include Venom in Spider-Man 3, then producer Avi Arad convincing Raimi to write in Venom.  In addition, is there any relevance to all the "scooper" news of  Topher Grace assumed to be Eddie Brock after on-set photos of him carrying a camera?  In addition, when was the first "official" statement that Topher Grace would be Venom?  It seems more appropriate to cite that source instead of people assuming from photos.
Personally, I think that this section could be used to explain more concisely that Venom is "an amalgamation of Venom stories", especially in terms of the name he identifies himself in the Comic-Con footage.  A lot of information seems to be extraneous and could be compressed to the reality that exists now, since some bits seem to cling to the speculative roots of this article from the past.  Also, I'm not sure about the Raimi statement about "mind-bending CGI", since that could apply to Sandman as well.  Should a citation be found for this, can it be assumed that the CGI would apply to both Venom and Sandman?  Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Also, feel free to contribute to any of these sections, including the Sandman section.  The blurb about Kirsten Dunst revealing Sandman at an Elizabethtown could be moved back there if desired.  Also, another good addition to the Sandman section would be amputee boxer Baxter Humby's involvement. --Erik 13:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revamped the Venom section with stronger production information and removed the so-called original research about how Venom would be portrayed with the "amalgamation" explanation.  I also cited information about Topher Grace being cast and when the Grace/Venom announcement was made (could be earlier than Dunst, anyone able to find this out?).  Fan speculation based on the trailer or Comic-Con footage was also removed, though mention could be made of the early stage of Venom being revealed in Comic-Con footage. --Erik 15:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Venom section expansion

message: On the official site there are three released and one yet to be released computer desktop wallpaper images. When is the 4'th one to be released and do you think they should be at all mentioned in the article?
Can't speak to what's happening on that site and thus the first question; "Probably not" to the second.. This article is about the film. We've already had problems mentioning too much about what goes on at that site rather than focusing on data more closely related to the film. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallpapers 

message: I'm thinking that the "New actors" and "returning actors" subsections should be purged since they are already listed in the cast list.  If needed, the citations can be attached to the names inside the cast list.  Gwen Stacy's involvement in the love triangle is already mentioned (though I'm not sure where else it could be said that she would survive the film), and Man-Wolf information seems useless as we know the villains now.  I suggest that the Bruce Campbell information should have a place in the Trivia section, as that seems the most suitable location.
As for the Trivia section, I have issues with what news bits to keep in the article.  The "Spider-Man waking up" trivia bit seems to be original research by someone drawing canon information together on his/her own.  In addition, is it important to note the change of visual effects supervisor or when the first teaser trailer was released?  And what is the "celebrations scene" for which "web" balloons were created? --Erik 16:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These sound like good changes, although it might be worth having either a smaller cast section with trivia, like campbell and lee's cameo repititions. I like the sourcing within the chart. As for the trivia, I'm not sure how much sourcing can be found... I think there might be some leeway as regards common sense. ThuranX 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast and Trivia 

message: Look closely in this pic http://i92.photobucket.com/album0s/l8/aloumvrios/venom.jpg—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.43.131 (talk • contribs) 23:41, August 29, 2006
:Yeah, not really Wikipedia material.Bignole
:: Can someone explain to me what the heck we're supposed to be seeing in this set of pics? I can't make out a thing, other than what looks like Peter in one shot. Reynoldsrapture 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's screencaptures from the Comic Con trailer. What appears to be Venom is seen once near the beginning and once at the end. The footage was not finished/theatre quality live at Comic Con and that same per quality is deminished further on the internet. A few GIPUs like the one above have actually tried to make caps of "Venom" and suggested examining and/or adding them to article. Long story short, nothing ever comes of it. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha, thanks. Doesn't really matter now anyway, cause the pic was removed.Reynoldsrapture 18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venom Pic 

message: * John Dykstra, who won an Oscar for his work as visual effects supervisor on Spider-Man 2, declined to work on the third film. Scott Stokdyk took over as visual effects supervisor.
* Over 600 latex "web" balloons in the celebrations scene had to be hand-painted with a Sharpie marker.'''
Is the first trivia bit really trivia?  I don't see how a change in the crew is interesting unless there's a story behind it, as with the composer change.  Also, what is the second trivia bit referring to?  This "celebrations scene" seems vague, and I can't seem to find any reference to it. --Erik 22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I'd like to change section Background to section Production, since that's really what that section focuses on, the mechanics of the film's making.
:I'm fine with that.  I wasn't sure if the word "Prodution" accurately covered all the subsections, but if it does, go ahead. --Erik 02:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background/Production 

message: Shouldn't this film article be rated future-class (at the top of the talk page)? --Erik 01:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's find oen of those guys and ask. It may be that since we KNOW the film's in post, it gets a regular rating, instead of the more vague future class. Not sure how calls are made, or who makes them.ThuranX 01:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment scale

message: Is it actually verified that this is what the character is called in the movie?  Otherwise it seems based on the movie character's similarity to Ultimate Venom.  WesleyDodds 22:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edward Brock, Junior, to be exact. And me believe me, Biggy makes sure speculation stay out of the article. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eddie Brock Jr.? 

message: It seems that the period has been added to the "Flint Marko / Sandman" image because the other images (with the exception of the poster image) have periods.  I did some research, and according to Wikipedia:Captions#Complete sentences, "Sentence or not, watch the stops: if the caption is a single sentence or a sentence fragment, it does not get a period at the end. If the caption contains more than one sentence, then each sentence should get a period at the end."  In accordance with this, I'm removing all periods from all images' captions (since none have more than a sentence). --Erik 00:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image captions 

message: I've recently requested this page for semi protection due to the fact it's being subjected to vandilism by both anon users and registered ones. Discuss if you wish. Link UnDeRsCoRe 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary.  This film article hasnn't been as active in terms of vandalism and useless edits since the summertime.  You can see how quickly reverts are made where they're needed -- there are editors like myself who watch this page closely.  I suggest removing the request; vandalism at this article isn't as bad as some others. --Erik 01:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right. This page is heavily "guarded". (Thanks to good users like you). I'll remove the request link, hopefully it won't be needed anytime soon. UnDeRsCoRe 01:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection?

message: I've expanded parts of the article using information from Empire's "Ultimate Superhero Preview" coverage.  Not sure if it's OK to extensively quote the parts on page 81 from the coverage that I've implemented into this film article, but here it goes:
* Venom - "The brittle and snidey Brock is the flipside of Parker.  When Parker beats him to photography gigs and then starts sniffing around Brock's girl, venom begins to run in his veins."  (Good wordplay, yea?)
* Sandman - "Marko is a small-time thug who finds, following a terrible accident, that he can turn his body into malleable sand."
* Harry Osborn - "Harry is obsessed with getting revenge on Peter for the murder of his father, the Green Goblin.  Using his dad's technology, Osborn becomes the Night Surfer and upends Peter's world." (This one is not quite related, but I'd like to rephrase the sentence in the Harry Osborn subsection better.)
I also re-worded various sentences in the article, as you can see in the history, and wiki-linked some items.  If you feel there is too much wiki-linking, feel free to de-link. --Erik 02:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the Venom stuff to his section. It looked majorly out of place in the plot. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultimate Superhero Preview

message: I was going through this article's external links, and according to CanMag, there is an official plot summary posted.  It's a bit more detail than what we have in the article based on bits and pieces, so I was wondering if we could just purge that section and rewrite the article based on this link, if it's considered valid enough.  (If we decide to go ahead and do this, let's be wary of <ref> tags that might screw up in the edit. --Erik 00:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read something similar to that awhile ago. It seems that they've stolen some of that faux plot that circled around, and then added a bit extra. I don't know. I think if you want to add a bit more that's cool, but I wouldn't copy and paste that thing just because of plagarism purposes. Bignole 00:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our plot is better than anything some speculators could put together. Hell, it's better than the short and sour excuses for synopsis that studios are willing give out, too. Keep this unless we can quote something better from a valid source. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Official Plot Summary"?

message: Why does it seem that this article primarily covers the 3 villains and really nothing about the established characters from the first 2 films.  And what about Gwen Stacy?  There have been images of her in the film so why are they not here? 69.119.252.174 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was cirmised that nothing truly new, notible or relevant could be added in regard to them Everything known about Gwen has already been stated in the article. The information released about her just doesn't have much depth to it. And a single picture is fairly meaningless. We cannot include every little screenshot. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally, the characters from the first two films have been established in previous film articles.  Harry Osborn, the recurring character that has his own subsection, undergoes a transformation to be some kind of villain ("Night Surfer" or whatever).  Spider-Man himself does undergo a transformation as well, but he's the star of the film and will get his own coverage in the inevitable plot summary.  The villain subsections are more about production information -- how they came to be, what kind of interpretations they are of the characters from the comics, etc.  Since they'll be the primary sources of conflict for Spider-Man in this sequel, I think they're more prominent than Gwen Stacy.  And speaking of her, there was not notable enough information about her to warrant fair use of these images of her.  If you'll note, there is an image for each major villain because there is substantial coverage of them in their respective subsections. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  villian info overload? 

message: It could happen. The cast said Harry would be between the two, so that's my best guess.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.17.245 (talk • contribs) 01:35, October 21, 2006
:Thanks, but it's recommended that we not speculate. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry: The Green Hobgoblin!

message: I saw the link was removed. I can half agree with this. What I think is that we could create a "Merchandise (and/or Promotional Material)" section, cataloging what the makers do to promote the film and bring in additional revenue. Nothing says "out-of-universe" information like "money made". Bignole 17:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with that.  I just reverted because it seemed out of place. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, that's why I was like "I can half agree", cause I agreed with the removal from that spot, but I think that a nice section about the Promotion/merchandising would be good. In my opinion. Bignole 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SuperHeroHype.com has an article linking to three pictures.  Not sure how we can implement this information into the article... seems underwhelming for a Merchandise section.  Well, here's a stroke of genius -- we can move the "Making of" book to that section, too!  It's merchandise, after all. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was going to create the Promotion section using the SuperHeroHype.com article, but the article's gone now.  I have suspicions that the images were not supposed to be out on the Internet.  How should this be handled?  Someone's already put up references to three statuette pitures in the Venom subsection. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your time. The best edits are thought through and take all sides into conssideration. I removed the "citations" for now as they were misleading and ultimately inappropriate. Nothing concrete enough to release toy has been revealed and I'm starting to develop doubts about this "kids47life.com" Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was just going to create the Promotion section between the Production and Sequel sections and move the Footage and "Making of" book subsections to the Promotion section to start it off.  Would that be agreeable to all? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well the link to the magazine pages scans originated at SuperHeroHype.com, people are just listing the hyperlink and not the source that provided the link. Are we going to have a Promotional section and a Merchandise section, or a section for the both? Bignole 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest two sections.  Make the Promotional section fairly hands-off material, nothing you can generally buy -- trailers, promotional posters, promo events.  Merchandise can include stuff like the Spider-Man 3 video game (its link is at the top) and the statuettes and the book. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the Production section details the actual creation of the film.  Merchandise and promotional materials are supplementary in nature.  I'd go with just creating new sections, since the Production section has enough subsections as it is. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cool. Maybe we should keep them together though, the promo and merch stuff underneath the "prod" stuff. Bignole 00:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a 'Promotion' Section, with subsections like 'posters, toys, tie-ins, and junket coverage' would work better. Production should focus on bringing the film to the screen, not auxiliary activities. ThuranX 02:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with X. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venom Toy 

message: This Toy Fair coverage mentioned interactive Spider-Man 3 toys (which I've implemented in the article), but it also mentioned "Marvel Movie Posters in a 2,500-count edition for Spider-Man 3" in another paragraph.  This seemed like such a miniscule bit of information that I didn't implement it, but if someone wants to do that, feel free. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 16:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we going to go back and include those statuettes that first sparked this discussion of Promo and Merch sections? I didn't see in the article before, but I may have missed it. Bignole 17:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links to the images should be in the page history, and I guess we can attach the relevant image to that appearance paragraph in the Venom subsection.  I just wish there was a more valid citation explaining the statuettes.  I'll see what I can dig up. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to use the SuperHeroHype.com article, but I can't find it anymore. Does someone know if they removed it? If they did then maybe it was a fake, or they weren't supposed to know about it so soon. Bignole 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I linked to it in the Venom Toy section, and now it's gone.  I have a feeling that it's the latter of the two reasons you mentioned -- the information's not supposed to be out there.  Maybe we can find another citation. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. Right. Like the comic-con footage. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toys