Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 3

message: Originally, SuperHeroHype.com had reported the rumor of Mysterio appearing in Spider-Man 3, which came from seemingly non-notable blog.  In addition, an edit I had reverted said the following: ...Quentin Beck, AKA Mysterio. In an interview with Sam Raimi in the November issue of "Empire magazine", it is said "The forth villain could be anybody from Mysterio (who uses illusions to comit crimes - his alter ego is Quentin Beck and a character of the same name is played in Spidy 3 by none other than Raimi regular, Bruce Campbell), to reptilian rascal The Lizard.  Even if Empire magazine said this, the sentence itself is speculation and cannot be verified.  If Bruce Campbell was really Mysterio, this fact would have been more widely reported.  Until there is direct confirmation from the studio, this information is not verifiable enough for inclusion. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, EMPIRE is insinuating that Bruce is playing (in the least) Quentin, when no one has confirmed that either. Bruce, himself, has only confirmed playing a Matre'd. EMPIRE has begun to pass rumors off as facts, or at least insinuate them as fact. Bignole 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's alright.  In the future, please have dialogue with other editors when it comes to contributing to an article.  That's what these talk pages are for (both article talk pages and user talk pages).  I'm glad we could work this out.  If you have any questions about information to include or not to include, just ask, and we'll help out. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Everyone's got to learn sometime.  I did once upon a time.  You can go to Help:Contents and explore all the guidelines that Wikipedia has.  Probably shouldn't do it in one sitting (since there's a lot of them), but if you ever had a question in mind, just look for the appropriate guideline to answer your question.  Also, when you leave comments on talk pages, write four tildes (~) after the end of your comment to leave a signature that has your username and the date you wrote the comment, as you can see at the end of mine. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysterio 

message: I think there should be a mention of Theresa Russell as Mrs. Marko, the wife of Flint Marko a.k.a. Sandman in the Sandman subsection to attach to the "small-time thug" sentence.  Is this casting pair-up actually confirmed, and can anyone write in a sentence about her, citing a reliable source?  In addition, I've heard that the character Sandman had a daughter with the wife, but I don't know if this was just a rumor or not.  Anyone know if this is true?  I've also read speculation about Sandman having the life of crime to maintain his family, but has this actually been said by anyone?  Having that information would nicely reflect the ambiguity of Sandman's villainy. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm..I'd say without an actual source it doesn't belong. Bignole 14:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both your assessment of it's value to the article, adn with BigNole's view about it's validity without sourcing. a regretable crossroads. ThuranX 21:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandman's wife 

message: With the full Spider-Man 3 trailer becoming available soon, what guidelines should we have regarding details that the trailer may provide?  I'm against providing a detailed description of the trailer; a link to the trailer (which will be available online) can be provided in External links for people to view for themselves.  Further plot details may need to be avoided, since trailers may be misleading and not tell the whole story behind a particular scene.  I also suggest that if any of the currently cited characters in the cast (Dylan Baker, Daniel Gillies, James Cromwell, Elizabeth Banks) appear in the trailer, their citations can be removed since the casting would be obvious to all.  Furthermore, if the trailer reveals something extremely notable, like the full form of Venom, perhaps that could be noted, as Venom's look has been purposely secluded.  Any other considerations about what to handle regarding trailer details? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 02:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I'm not sure. I agree we don't need details about the trailer, cause it really won't be that notable once the film is released. I think that best thing to do with Venom, if he does get shown, is maybe mention where is look seems to be derived from. I.E. no symbol kind of denotes that they may get his look from the Ultimate Universe, ... things like that; especially if they take liberties with his design and add their own version. Bignole 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I just saw a link from imdb.com to the trailer on IFILM.  http://www.ifilm.com/presents/spiderman3  It appears they have the exclusive and will have it in HD November 9 at 10pm EST. I can't add the link to the article as the article is locked for now.  Dalmim 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was surprised that someone else hadn’t put it in the article. I’ve put it in external links for now. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Sandman story arc seemed more prominent in the trailer than the Harry Osborn story arc and the Venom story arc, so I think that the story arc should be explained in one or two sentences only in undisputable wording -- that the police and Spider-Man are after him because they think he killed Uncle Ben.  Not actually saying that Sandman did kill Uncle Ben, but to leave it ambiguous because there's no clear answer established by the trailer, like Sandman crushing Uncle Ben with a sand castle or something.  So I suggest we replace the last sentence in the Plot section about the "unclear role" and try to work into the body that the police had this suspect that they told Peter and May about, and Peter went after Sandman.  (That's pretty undisputable, right?) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewatched, thought it good to note something I noticed. It wasn't "any cop" it was Captain Stacy who told Peter and Aunt May "we have some new evidence, and THIS is the man that killed your uncle." Hope that helps in your decision making. Bignole 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we can explain that taking place -- say that when Captain Stacy informs May and Peter Parker that new evidence shows that William Baker / Flint Marko / Sandman killed Uncle Ben, Peter goes after the guy, and just leave it at that.  Don't indicate if it's true or not that Sandman killed Uncle Ben.  Heck, wonder if we would need to ambiguate wording on Spider-Man about the carjacker killing Uncle Ben if that particular film article wasn't such a mess.  Anyway, I had a revelation about something else -- back in Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 2#Trivia, I asked what this sentence in the Trivia section meant: "Over 600 latex 'web' balloons in the celebrations scene had to be hand-painted with a Sharpie marker."  Having seen the celebration scene in the trailer now, it's funny to see that this particular piece of information re-surface and have some validity after all.  (Still wouldn't include it based on lack of citation, though.) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 07:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did ambiguate it a bit. I also have the DVD, which helps. Technically, he was never proven to be the killer. A cop just said "carjacker". Funny. I guess Pete thinks suspicions are the word of god. Anyway, I also removed a small amount of the POV wording. I still don't think I wanna know why someone would assume the Goblin was going to rape MJ. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trailer 

message: Well, so much for a clear image of Venom. (I wasn't betting on it, though.) Instead we get this: "Sandman killed Uncle Ben." Now that is the ultimate buzz kill. I have firm stance already, though. Some guy cop says Sandman killed Ben Parker? I don't buy it. I call speculation and I recommend we either discuss this thoroughly or revert any edits by well intentioned but misinformed viewers. Maddy would be proud... Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sandman story arc seemed more prominent in the trailer than the Harry Osborn story arc and the Venom story arc, so I think that the story arc should be explained in one or two sentences only in undisputable wording -- that the police and Spider-Man are after him because they think he killed Uncle Ben.  Not actually saying that Sandman did kill Uncle Ben, but to leave it ambiguous because there's no clear answer established by the trailer, like Sandman crushing Uncle Ben with a sand castle or something.  So I suggest we replace the last sentence in the Plot section about the "unclear role" and try to work into the body that the police had this suspect that they told Peter and May about, and Peter went after Sandman.  (That's pretty undisputable, right?) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewatched, thought it good to note something I noticed. It wasn't "any cop" it was Captain Stacy who told Peter and Aunt May "we have some new evidence, and THIS is the man that killed your uncle." Hope that helps in your decision making. Bignole 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we can explain that taking place -- say that when Captain Stacy informs May and Peter Parker that new evidence shows that William Baker / Flint Marko / Sandman killed Uncle Ben, Peter goes after the guy, and just leave it at that.  Don't indicate if it's true or not that Sandman killed Uncle Ben.  Heck, wonder if we would need to ambiguate wording on Spider-Man about the carjacker killing Uncle Ben if that particular film article wasn't such a mess.  Anyway, I had a revelation about something else -- back in Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 2#Trivia, I asked what this sentence in the Trivia section meant: "Over 600 latex 'web' balloons in the celebrations scene had to be hand-painted with a Sharpie marker."  Having seen the celebration scene in the trailer now, it's funny to see that this particular piece of information re-surface and have some validity after all.  (Still wouldn't include it based on lack of citation, though.) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 07:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did ambiguate it a bit. I also have the DVD, which helps. Technically, he was never proven to be the killer. A cop just said "carjacker". Funny. I guess Pete thinks suspicions are the word of god. Anyway, I also removed a small amount of the POV wording. I still don't think I wanna know why someone would assume the Goblin was going to rape MJ. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instead we get this

message: Why is the poster shown the lenticular MOTION poster? It doen't make sense to use a boring posetr that is made to be shown moving. Am I right or is it just me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newpaltzbob (talk • contribs) 01:07, November 11, 2006
:The lenticular poster reflects the transformation that Peter Parker undergoes in this film.  If you check the talk page's archives, we've already had a discussion about the lenticular poster, and I believe the census was to keep it.  New posters will show up around Casino Royale's release date, though, so this poster may very well be replaced soon. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 05:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster 

message: obviously, in the first spider man, Goblin was killed but keep in mind, his son returnss as him. THeyres alot to say about this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.94.180 (talk • contribs) 10:53, November 11, 2006
:Please read the Harry Osborn subsection in the film article.  It specifically says that Osborn would not be either the Green Goblin or the Hobgoblin, but "somewhere in between".  In the future, please place new sections at the bottom of talk pages and leave a signature to your comment by adding four tildes (~) at the end, which automatically inserts that information. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goblins back 

message: Hi, I edited Harry's page, telling you about the weapons he uses, but it got deleted. Could somebody please explain why, because I'm confused. Legs of boe 17:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, the subsections under the "Spider-Man's villains" section are for production- or background-based information, such as how the characters came to be and how they were designed.  Storyline information should be part of the Plot section or the Cast section (under the appropriate character's description) instead.  In the future, you can click the "history" link at the top of an article's page to see edit summaries for changes made, such as the one that removed your information. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Detailing "weapons" is ok for design of new costume, though I'm not sure of its notability. But, the inclusion of "Peter throws a pumpkin bomb at Harry" isn't relevant on any "out-of-universe" context and is nothing more than a spoiler for the film. We had this issue when the original teaser comes out and then when the trailer at the COmicCon was shown and it was clearly Peter that throws the bomb. 
Bignole 16:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The description doesn't provide anything for the article but spoilers, it's something left for a plot description when the film comes out. Bignole 12:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry's weapons

message: Well, as always, with a new trailer come new images. I had trouble working the trailer for screencaping,—damn you, iFilm—but I think Eddie and Peter would be proud. I was thinking mostly about replacing less than great existing images more than getting totally new stuff,—like Peter's surprising manhandling of Eddie. Don't see that every day!—so it's basically just shots of Harry and Sandman, along with a more full body shot of Topher Grace's Eddie Brock, Junior. Of note is Harry's gear. The suit is actually all black. The CGI must've effed up the coloring. He also has large blades on his arms, somewhat similar to the gauntlets of the batsuit, but in reverse, silvery and more spreadout. His "glider" is actually something more like the airboard. I guess that snowboarder comparison was right on. Sandman was tougher. He's always in action shots so trying to rip something from a trailer that doesn't look tense or ugly isn't easy. I did get a shot of him getting his face blasted off on a moving train—damn, Spidey—and one of his enlarged sandfisted punch. The latter is what I hid in mind to replace our current shot. Finally, back to Harry, I got this pic of him holding up some kind of spike/knife, about to plung it into a defenseless Parker. It also shows off his board a bit. Much clearer than the current shot, although it's at a rooftop angle. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the latter Sandman shot (with the sandfisted punch) to replace the existing Sandman shot.  (Though the shot of Spidey shoving Sandman's face against the train is pretty nuts!)  Not sure about replacing the current Eddie Brock picture, though... the picture of him taking a picture doesn't have the same impact as the desolate look in his eyes in the article's existing Brock picture.  Don't know about replacing Harry Osborn, either, though I think that the existing Osborn picture should be re-edited to show more of the body (even if the coloring is off) and less of the city background that takes up the picture. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 22:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with the concept of updating the original pictures.  However, the Harry Osborn "update" didn't seem like a drastic improvement over what existed before.  In addition, the picture of Sandman punching Spider-Man is currently unnecessary, as the direct shot of Sandman suits the subsection's purpose for now.  (I don't think the punch picture could replace the Sandman shot, either, because the character's face is obscured.  The ideal shot may be something where you can see him and see why he's called Sandman, which is why I liked Ace's sandfist picture, referenced above.)  The punch picture could be used for the Plot section when it gets expanded at the film's release.  Also, the picture of black Spider-Man leaping has poor contrast, especially seen without clicking through, and I don't see how it relates much to the Visual effects subsection. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Spider-Man himself has always been one of the most important priorities for the Visual Effects department. If they don't get his appearance/the realism correct, then the Visual Effects department is to blame. Spider-Man's "look" has everything to do with the Visual Effects department. Dam-itch 22:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Spider-Man 3, not Spider-Man.  Spidey's look has already been established for two films now.  Nothing in the subsection's content mentions anything about getting Spider-Man's appearance/realism this time around.  The image should match the content, such as the building tear-down that was mentioned by producer Curtis.  Otherwise, it's like making a "Romance" section and showing a picture of Peter and MJ kissing on a spider web. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this image? I just took it now. I think we need a closeup of Harry from the third film, don't we? :Image:HarryGG2.jpg Dam-itch 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I wouldn't mind that one replacing the current Harry Osborn one, but I don't think it should be added alongside what's there now.  There's only a paragraph's worth of content about his character, and half of it is a summary of the last two films.  I know the Venom subsection has two, but there's a stronger difference in the transformation -- plain-clothes Brock to this nasty-looking creature.  So basically, I'd be fine with having what you just showed in place of the action shot.  Not sure how other editors will see it, though. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur about cropping the current Harry Osborn picture.  Too much background in it, and I think we could show more detail of Harry's face for the same width setting with some croppage. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to add an image I captured from the trailer of Spider-Man punching through Sandman's chest at the end of the Sandman description. I'm not entirely sure on how to or if it's really neccesary but it is a great picture I think would fit for that section. Especially since the end of the article gives the details about how they used an amputee boxer for the effect. I think the image would be a good fit at the bottom right corner of the Sandman section. The link for the image is below.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b105/JAD51287/capture_09112006_194401.jpg
--User:JAD51287 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't sign off on this yet, let alone by myself, but I can't say I'd oppose this. Still, we shouldn't overdo it. Anyway, see Help:Images and other uploaded files and Wikipedia:Images. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So I put up the 2nd Sandman screencap. I think it works since the description above it has 2 images as well and also refers to the amputee and visual effects in the movie. Ha and is there anyway to really overdo an article on Spider-Man 3? I don't know, I don't think so, but that's just me. Six months is too much of a wait, I think I might have to kidnap Sam Raimi ha.
User:JAD51287 06:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New images 

message: It says on the page "Sandman is referred to as William Baker" and then it cites the trailer. I've watched the trailer many times and have not heard this name attached to him. When Capt. Stacy is telling the Parkers who they believe killed Ben, she just shows them a picture and says "this is the man we believe is responsible". Did anyone else hear William Baker specifically associated with Sandman, or are we just going by what his alter ego should be? Bignole 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I was confused about.  I don't know where "William Baker" came from, but we should keep it to Flint Marko and assume that it's his real name (as it is from the comics) and Sandman is just the secondary identity.  Let's just make sure it says that Flint Marko becomes Sandman after the accident to tie the two names together, though I don't know which one to use for consistency in the rest of the article. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 14:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you actually heard the Flint Marko anywhere else? I actually don't recall it anywhere legitimately, just the common name associated with the character. Maybe we should remove both names and leave it as Sandman till it is clear? I don't know. He isn't like some villains that have the same alias their whole comic lives (Green Goblin-Norman Osborn), he has many aliases. They even chose to go with Eddie Brock Jr. Bignole 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true.  I looked into it — there's IMDb (blech), the Theresa Russell article (of which I couldn't access the original Hollywood Reporter article -- they've locked up their archives to be subscription only), and the "Ultimate Superhero Preview", but his name doesn't come up explicitly in the SuperHeroHype.com exclusive interview.  I can't tell if people are just so hung up on calling the dude Sandman as opposed to anything else, or if they're purposely not mentioning his actual name.  Honestly, I'm not keen on removing it; I think we're just gonna wind up having minor editing wars about it -- GIPUs will cite IMDb and all.  Let's just keep it as it is, and if there's any information to the contrary, we'll update accordingly.  Unless this is really something over which to disagree. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that was what I was getting at. We've been running with this Flint Marko till this recent trailer when someone added "William Baker as referred to in the trailer". I know originally it was Baker, but I didn't hear that name in the trailer, let alone any time before now. The same really goes for Flint Marko, because I can't remember reading anything with that name when we first started posting. At least, I don't remember anyone attached to the film actually calling him that. OOOOHhh...does anyone have access to the interviews Raimi did at the ComicCon. He may have said the alias there, when he was introducing Church and his role. Bignole 16:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering that Flint Marko has been the name used by news sources (though not confirmed by the studio), we should probably use it over William Baker, for which there hasn't been any mention in relation to the film.  Otherwise, we could probably limit the usage of "Flint Marko" to his line in the Cast section and stick with Sandman in the rest of the article.  (Although, Bignole, I checked about the Comic-Con coverage; doesn't seem to be anything that mentioned Marko.  There are some video interviews on the Official Spider-Man 3 Movie Blog that might mention him, though.) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you hate it when you see an update on the Talk page and you go to read and find out several people have responded to various sections and you have to go back and read those first..maybe that's just me....lol, anyway..on to the subject. I agree limiting Flint to just the cast and trying to use "Sandman" more overtly throughout the article will be better till they at least tell us more info or the film comes out. Then again, I haven't watched the webblogs, so if they actually say Flint Marko in there (depending on who's doing the talking, because Grant actually called Harry the Green Goblin when Raimi has specifically stated otherwise) then I think we'll have our source. Bignole 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yeah, Biggy, I hate that, too. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandman Name 

message: I am removing any pertinent information about leaked photos and footage on the grounds of notability issues.  It is simply not notable to mention that the merry copyright-infringing Spidey fan base of the Internets got access to such resources unless this provokes a public announcement from the studio regarding the leaks that have taken place.  There has been no such press release or quote from anyone involved with the studio addressing these leaks -- they've attempted to plug these leaks without causing attention.  So unless the issue is addressed by someone from the studio (via reliable source), this information just isn't Wikipedia-worthy as opposed to all the rest of the information we have on the article. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, I found this TMZ.com citation that could possibly be used to discuss the leaked Comic-Con footage, though I'd prefer something from the studio... --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Leakages 

message: The pic labeled on the article as "The symbiote envelops Eddie inside a church" is wrongly titled.  That image is actually showing Tobey Maguire fighting the symbiote suit, probably at the top of the church tower above Eddie Brock.  When I saw the picture itself (the enlarged version) I fixed the caption there, but since it's locked and I had to create a new user, I can't edit the front page.  You can tell it's Parker because of the Spidey suit webbing along the shoulder and because at this point we've seen the trailer where the picture is pulled from and it's obviously Parker in the symbiote suit.  If somebody who isn't on a new account can change this or delete the picture if it doesn't add anything to the article when properly marked, I don't think this is going to require a whole lot of discussion, but if someone thinks I'm mistaken I'd love to hear why.  Kapper26 12:42, 15 November 2006
:Um, because this is the promotional poster that Sony released for Venom. Because it has Topher's hair. Because Tobey (Spider-Man) while enveloped by the symbiote doesn't have pointed teeth like Venom. But I'm pretty sure the best reasoning as to why you may be "mistaken" is because Sony has issued this poster out as "Venom". When they did their "use your mobile to text Sony for the first image of Venom" this was the image they released. Also, I wouldn't go by the "web design" theory, since the possibly accurate, leaked concept photo of Venom shows him with vein-like web strands over his body. Bignole 17:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the above.  All signs point to Grace. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, if it was officially released as the promotional venom poster than i understand the choice.  i'd still say it's certainly not the clearest image, but i guess until a better image is released for use by Sony this one will have to do.  also, i don't think my brain even registered the sharpened teeth in the image, so, my bad.  i saw somebody already rolled back the edit i made (i was just on my way to switch it back after the comments), so thank you to whoever did that.  Kapper26 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing good to say, except that this image was big news when it was released around Comic-Con, 2006. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Symbiote attributed as Eddie Brock 

message: This makes no sense. If Baxter Humby was born without his right hand, how does he help with the effect of punching through Sandman's chest when he doesn't have a right hand? 70.58.211.220
:He doesn't have a right hand. So, he places his arm against Church's chest, and they digitally create Spider-Man's hand on the backside of Church. So, it really looks like a person has their arm through the chest of another person, from the front angle. Bignole 14:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording makes sense to me (since I wrote it), but if you have any suggestions about clearer wording to describe how the technique worked, let me know.  I'll edit it accordingly.  Just don't see where the confusion was. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No sense

message: At what point shall we replace the lenticular poster with a new poster. Which poster shall we call the "official" poster? The lenticular is just a teaser poster, so it will obviously have to go, but I think we need to find a link to it on the web so that we can move it to the "Posters" section of the article. Sony just released two more posters, but I'm reluctant to use either of them because Sony released two, and that says that neither is probably the final "official" poster. Bignole 04:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we wait. They'll decide on a poster eventually--SUIT 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no reason to change it. There's been no 'official' poster yet. One we see one, we can discuss it, but until then, leave it. ThuranX 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That was why I dropped a link/reference to the release of the two new posters. If you go to the reference it takes you to the two versions of the new poster. Bignole 05:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure. I thought they were supposed to release them "with" Casino Royale, but maybe they were going to do it afterward. Bignole 14:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this site the two new posters are merged together and cycle through just like the one in the infobox right now. If agreed here, I'm sure that one could be added. --Nehrams2020 19:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it isn't something released by Sony, it was something someone created. Bignole 19:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the one in the infobox currently created by Sony, or was that created by a user here? --Nehrams2020 20:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the copyright tag on it to find out, but as I recall, it was from a Sony approved promotion. JoBlo is NOT a sony approved promotion. Further, as a composite image, it's usage might be different, as you not only have to credit Sony and it's designers, offices, etc., but the person at JoBlo who comp'd it up. I oppose it's use. ThuranX 20:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course not. I would never even dream of trying to use the one with the negative background. I just don't think that either of them is the official final poster that Sony will release for the film, I think they are more teaser posters. Bignole 20:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SuperHeroHype.com identified the new posters as teaser posters.  This isn't about matchmaking the new theatrical trailer with the posters that come out at the same time, thus labeling them as "theatrical posters".  If sources showing the posters identify them as teaser posters, they should be identified as such. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 02:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, like I was saying, it's the most recent release. The most recent poster should always be used until the final poster is released. Then we use the final poster for an infinite amount of time. Until then, use what Sony hands over to you. Dam-itch 02:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that is a rule, and I do believe we are discussing this and that means you can't just go about editing as you wish while others are still debating. Please show a little respect. I am going to revert you till we have a clear consensus as to what we are going to use. Bignole 02:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am still a little confused about this whole poster thing. In the poster sections it says that "On November 17, 2006, new Spider-Man 3 posters were advertised to the public for the release of Casino Royale", and then 2 more posters were released on the 21st. So how many posters have been released? And did anyone read about the rumor of a sneak peek of Spider-Man 3 during Spider-Man 2 on FOX on Thanksgiving? (http://superherohype.com/news.php?id=4938) It's probably too late to mention it now and it might just be a rumor since it's not mentioned in Grant Curtis' movie blog, but I don't know. User:JAD51287 06:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just corrected the poster section. It's pretty clear these are the posters Sony was going to release with Casino Royale. As for the sneak peak, Sony sent a text message indicating that sneak peak (i know, because I got it). To Dam-Itch, you cannot simply ignore discussion and edit as you wish, there is a thing called respect and courtesy. Also, just because one page does one thing doesn't mean that everyone should follow suit. If that was the case we'd have tons of irrelevant film pages that contain nothing but plot summaries and trivia. This "rule" of using a new poster each time one comes out is unnecessary, if it even is a "rule". First off, they released 2 posters, so who gets to decide which we use? Secondly, what happens if they release 30 posters between now and May, do we continuously upload new images? Seems rather a waste doesn't it. Until Sony releases an "official" final theatrical poster, there is no reason constantly upload new images every single time a new poster comes out. Bignole 02:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've had this lenticular poster for months now! I mean, this is the first poster in five months. I'm sure it's worth something. Besides, the first teaser is as much of a poster as the lenticular one is. If that's your logic, why bother changing the poster in the first place? Let's just revert it to the first poster. No, that logic is blind. I say we use the new poster, not just because it's new, but because it shows us more than just a black-to-red picture of Spider-Man's chest. If we were to choose between the two new posters, I'd choose the first one (the one I used). The second one is too dark, and the first one is preferred to the second one due to the color schemes. The second one should be placed in the "Posters" section as an alternate poster. Maybe remove the "animated series" image as it is now somewhat irrelevant to the film (that one shot makes no difference).Dam-itch 03:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dam, you're getting fairly aggressive in your comments. While we all appreciate the effort you put into the revisions you made, we're all MORE upset by the fact that you ignored the discussions about this issue, and that you continue to ignore all the efforts of editors here to find something we can all agree on. You insult our ability to think, and our stances simply for not being yours. Go cool off, enjoy Turkey Day, and then come back. Finally, if 'new' is all that matters, then as Bignole postulates, almost all Future-film pages will suffer a ridiculous amount of non-informative edits for no other value than being 'new'. and if a newer, but less visually impressive poster arrives, should we substitute it? From the design perspective, the smoothly aminating image is a solid choice. The newer two-shot flipping .gif is more jarring and less ignorable once seen, which makes page legibility suffer. ThuranX 04:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the fact that you debate about which still photos you should add to the article, but this is a poster! Obviously, the normal everyday readers of this article would like to know about the progress of the film. If you keep the major updates (such as a new poster) away from them, there won't be any point in updating the article at all. We're not just looking for ways to revise our old information. We're here to add new, important information. The new poster is very important, and therefore is necessary to maintain the quality of this article.207.216.163.163 04:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's actually neither very important, nor particularly salient to the quality of the article, to add every poster. It's already been established that Wiki is not an advertising site, not a repositiory of links or images, and not a poster site. We do NOT need to catalog every psoter which comes out. Again, good design and reader accessibility suggest NOT changing, as does the general tone of WIkipedia's policies nad guidelines against too many images, and too much commercialism. Poster galleries are NOT a recommended idea. Rotating posters on a release by release basis is a grea way to wind up with editors soon insistign that if the iamges exist, they should be used to create a gallery. let's avoid setting up for future fights, let's preserve inviting design, and let's NOT change the image to a jarring, ugly, and poorly made .gif. ThuranX 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ThuranX, who ever said anything about making a gallery or promoting? I just wanted to replace the poster, in the same way every outdated poster is replaced. Now, Bignole... are you saying we're going to keep this poster from June for at least another five months? We wait for months and a new poster is released. Why would the new posters be revealed if they weren't meant to replace/take over the job of expressing the ideas of the film? These posters take quite a lot of work to create, and to not use the first poster to come out in five months is really disturbing. This new poster is the new teaser. It should be set in place of the old one for the remaining five months. If you refuse to listen to my opinion, then that is foolish judgement. You believe you need to make the final say in everything about this article. This is an "anyone can edit" encyclopedia. If it contributes to/updates the article, then that is all you are looking for. You are not here to contemplate whether to use one or the other. If it contributes to without destroying the article, then that contributor is doing a favor. Please accept the contributions people make if the contributions have an understandable meaning behind them. Add to them if you must, but don't destroy what has value. Dam-itch 05:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't call Bignole's perspective "foolish judgment", that's not civil.  We were in disagreement with your spontaneous edit of adding the new teaser poster because we need to be selective with images especially on film articles like these.  If you look at the article's history, we've reverted a lot of attempts to add unnecessary images to this article.  I personally am fine with the new teaser poster being added, as the studio has not been prolific with posters at this time.  I think we just wanted to discuss and reach a certain census about adding this poster, a trend that we would continue if there were indeed multiple posters that come out closer to the film's release date -- like poster line-ups of Sandman, the "Night Surfer", Spider-Man, etc.  You are wrong about us not being here to contemplate whether which one to use; that is the point of Wikipedia.  It's not the fact that anyone can edit, it's the fact that anyone can edit under agreeable terms, a.k.a. editors' census.  There are policies to adhere to.  Ultimately, I'm fine with having the new teaser poster added.  It's just a shame that we can't somehow keep the original lenticular poster, as it was user-created and can't really be referred to via citation or external link.  Maybe we can just have a description of the lenticular poster in the Poster subsection to at least reflect the interesting feature it had. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 06:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it that everyone that new editors always think that they can do what they wish with no regard to other editors? I know that when I go to a new page and start editing, and go to make a big change to it that I personally go to the talk page to discuss it first with the other editors that have spent the time polishing the article from the getgo. Why also do people feel the need to insult me, and other editors, for having a difference of opinion and requesting that (which this request had been brought about the moment the images surfaced Dam) it be discussed by a group of editors? Changing the lead poster every couple months, i'm sorry, is not "doing a favor" to anything. To me, that's going to open the door to other editors (probably more the Anons than anything) to come in and change the image to any teaser poster they feel they like more, because "THEY" feel that it is the "better" poster. The new poster doesn't add anything new that the current one doesn't already offer, it's simply "new". It isn't an "update" because I'm sure they won't just remove the lenticular poster from the theaters any faster than they will put those new ones up. Why do I know this, because neither of the theaters here in Tallahassee, Florida have either of those posters up, the lenticular or the new ones. You say "it contributes without destroying" but what exactly does it contribute that the current one doesn't? I'd say it doesn't contribute anything new, it's a poster, it isn't some special announcement. This isn't a regular image that actually corresponds to some text in the article, where updating it would be necessary if something that would better illustrate the text was available; this is just an announcement poster. Bignole 06:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why even have a section on posters? Posters mean nothing, as the image will not have the same effect on people if described in words. Therefore, this renders the posters section quite useless. It's just a blotch of text. Why waste space on words when they are worthless? I am not insulting you, I am stating what is true. It isn't a better poster. It is the most recent poster. Using visuals, it explains the progress the developers have made, and the evolution of the film itself, from the small idea to the highly detailed result. It may not contribute in your opinion, but to the reader it extra information, not in the form of text, but in the form of a visual masterpiece. That's all I can say. If you continue to persist, then obviously you have a problem with the new poster. I will not bother with this nonsense any longer. It's either a yes or a no. Just remember that you're not the only one visiting/admiring the article. You're writing this for others, to share information, not for yourself. Dam-itch 06:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Dam-itch, Bignole isn't trying to be selfish with keeping the lenticular poster.  He's expressed his reasons about keeping image usage static because unlike text in the article, there's a limited use of images to adhere to fair use rationale and not serve as an image repository for article visitors.  Please don't make this between you and Bignole.  If you review the discussion in this section, there were other editors iffy about actually including this new teaser poster.  Your defense was that your contribution wasn't destroying the article, but your spontaneity in updating the new poster with a live discussion on the talk page undermines editors meeting a census about poster image usage.  While I support updating the teaser poster, generally based on anticipating future attempts by non-frequent editors to upload the new poster and that the poster reflects the dual nature of symbiotic Spider-Man, I think that it's only appropriate to discuss any and all images to be used in these articles.  Your preference is not the gospel truth. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 07:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dam-itch, First off, I didn't say WE were building a gallery, I said that by rapidly replacing each poster with the 'newer', we create a cache of images on Wiki, one (at least) of each poster, which will easily allow some new or IP-anon editor to build a gallery on the page. That gallery would violate fair-use, and probably lead to an edit/revert war. Such actions are undesirable. in this discussion, we have five editors asking to wait for a Sony announcement, one who suggested a .gif extension animated file which violates fair-use, and who hasn't replied since, so I assume he's either cool with what was said, or is off for Turkey day. (By the way, all editors, have a good Turkey Day.) Finally, we have you. You continue to insist that our judgements are 'foolish', and that we generally don't get it, that we're all protecting the page, and so on. Let me assure you that while Erik and I agree quite often, we still have different theories about good pages, and BigNole and I argue as often as we agree, finding ourselves at loggerheads on a NUMBER of issues on many pages. To assert that we're operatign as a bloc is innaccurate. we all just happen to agree on this issue. ThuranX 14:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Poster 

message: Do we have any official source saying that John Jameson will bring the symbiote back? I know Raimi has said the symbiote will be alien in origin, but I don't recall him explicitly stating that John would bring him back (ala The Animated Series). I'm wondering if people are just interpreting, EMPIRE magazine included, Raimi's comments about it being alien, and with the John Jameson character returning, that it means Jameson will bring it to Earth. Does anyone have an official source backing EMPIRE magazine's information up, or are we just assuming that he will bring it back based on Raimi's comments about it being alien? Bignole 19:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the quote with me, but I'm positive that Raimi said that himself in a quote as he described the symbiote as an "alien life force".  Maybe you can tap Wiki-newbie for the direct quote from Raimi; didn't he say he had the issue that had the Ultimate Superhero Preview? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No no...I'm not doubting the "alien life force" part, I'm asking about the part in the OUR plot section that reads "During this time, astronaut John Jameson brings back an "alien life force" to Earth with him." The only part of that statement that is quote is "alien life force"...so are we just assuming John Jameson is bringing it back? Is EMPIRE magazine just assuming that? My question is about the Jameson part, not the alien life form part. Bignole 21:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This thread has the information from Empire, but the magazine doesn't seem to state the symbiote's origins in a speculative tone.  What do you think? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 21:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, articles don't usually quote people from the studio at length when it comes to basic information and instead tend to quote the more opinionated perspectives, such as Raimi saying that he appreciates the character of Venom now.  We've quoted the character descriptions from the same issue, so I don't think it's inappropriate to mention that John Jameson brought back the symbiote.  Empire mentioned this information as fact instead of saying, "It's possible that John Jameson will bring back the symbiote..."  If the information is wrong, we'll change it, but we have a citation to point to.  This isn't someone's assumptive edit based on what's seen in trailers; it's information published in a magazine that sought to cover superhero films, including Spider-Man 3. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 21:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Biggy, Kolchak is the Nightstalker. Harry might be the "Night Surfer" *cringe* Anyway, I consider Empire fairly reliable and I'd agree with Erik that they wouldn't present speculation as fact. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, oopps..my bad on that. My problem is the same one I've always had with EMPIRE, and that's why is it that ONLY "EMPIRE" uses this name, or this plot point. Why hasn't anyone else used this stuff from interviews with Raimi and the cast. Why hasn't anyone interviewed Daniel to ask him about his character in this movie, they interviewed just about everyone else...including Elizabeth Banks. Remember, even reliable sources can make mistakes. BoxOfficeMojo, to this day, still reports Superman Returns' budget at 270 million, when Singer has gone on record saying it's 204 million. They still claim Pirates has a budget for 225 million, but no one has actually released that little tidbit of information about the two sequels; so to me that begs to say that even EMPIRE could be doing a little "jump the gun" speculation. Bignole 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows?  Maybe Daniel Gillies is a private person and avoids interviews.  Maybe the magazine's content is too premium for sites like SuperHeroHype.com to quote at large.  Empire qualifies as a reliable source, so even if there's the possibility they're wrong, we the editors are not exactly as reliable as them to make any assumptions.  When someone from the studio specifies the symbiote's initial transporter, we'll update accordingly.  No biggie.  Burden lies with them to get the facts right, not us. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: According to the FOX footage, Spidey hangs upside-down with his actual reflection in the window, not the reflection of the red and blue suit. I think that this shot was unfinished at first. But now it has been finished post-production. Ggctuk 12:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Black Costume 

message: This was sent to me by a friend. How authentic do you guys think it is?
    
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7963/spideyandvenomhz4.png
: Obviously a fake. Both figures are Spider Man, one red/blue, the other black. Veracious Rey 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiderman and Venom? 

message: 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
What?--SUIT 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (talk/contrib) @ 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erik, looks from his comment like he's just speculating. "there might be new clips", "they might be showing new stuff or...[not]". Frankly, this looks like something a pre-adolescent wrote. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (talk/contrib) @ 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: 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 (talk/contrib) @ 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (talk/contrib) @ 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: christmas eve

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I beleive we've covered all that. Now you're being deliberately abusive. ThuranX 03:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venom vs. Captain America 

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

text: 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)

text: Please see Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.  We want to avoid general discussion about topics that do not help improve the article.  You should read Wikipedia'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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Article cleanups 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Footage comparison 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  John and Tobey 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 Wikipedia 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)

text: 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)

text: Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  Production photos 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I can go for that.  I'll implement the changes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children's books 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: If you want to become a better editor, it takes a lot of understanding of Wikipedia'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)

text: 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)

text: This article, I believe, is one of the most informative upcoming film articles on Wikipedia.  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)
thread_title:  why? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  userboxes 

message: 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)
replies: text: THis page would be better if new editors who seek out conflict would learn how to work with other editors instead. Wikipedia 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)

text: it's in that long list of pages to read about how Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  Poll 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Promotion vs. Merchandise

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: This issue should be resolved now.  Jkelly 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAGE IS FOULED! DO NOT POST TILL ADMINS FOLLOW UP! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sectioning 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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". Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: I support this.  This honestly seems to be the most appropriate measure to take, as no guesswork is involved.  The importance can be determined upon the film's release.  Saves us the trouble of figuring out the relevance of each upcoming film.  (I reverted to make sure "Mid" → "Future" would be agreeable to other editors.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, the change from "Mid" to "Future" actually just expands the leftmost Future-Class column across the whole thing (see edit).  Doesn't actually mark the importance as "Future", but rather negates it, since it's an upcoming event whose impact can't be determined. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that clearly, but I don't agree with the opinion that an event's status as "future" to negate any sort of importance rating. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: By "priority" or "importance" of topics for a static version of the encyclopedia, we generally mean to indicate the level of expectation or desire that the topic would be covered in a traditional encyclopedia."
To me that says it can be "high" for one person and "low" to another person. It's based on what you "expect" the film's importance to be, and that doesn't have anything to do with how much money it makes. The fact that this film is using state of the art, never before used CGI techniques says that it will be important for future films that use CGI. I don't think it's a "Top" rating, because it isn't needed in paper, but it certainly already provides a depth of knowledge (as per the "High" rating) and will almost definitely provide more knowledge in the future. The scale says nothing about what it does currently, but what you "expect" it to do. That's my change in this subject, how it turns out is another story. Bignole 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't a setting other than "Future" border on original research?  We're using historical basis to make our own predictions about how this film could turn out (as you can see from the earlier discussion).  I mean, would you want to edit into the article, "Spider-Man 3 is likely to be as successful as its predecessors"?  That's pretty much what we're saying when we mark it with "High", "Mid", or something else.  To be fair, though, Category:Film articles by importance doesn't mention anything about using "Future". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Newb, I think you need to chill out a bit aznd take your own advice. You ouright rmoved any rating from The Dark Night. I mean...really. Anyway, it's not speculative to judge the article's current status. Just because we don't know every detail of plot, production, et cetera, doesn't mean we can't rate the article based on what we do know. I'd settle for no lower than "'Mid: Subject fills in more minor details". Honestly, though, I'd prefer "High" This is a good article, regardless of how the film is received. Also, what's good for this article isn;t necessarily good for others. I think we all can agree SM3 is higher than TDK, if only because it's closer to release. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a comittee or some official Wiki group should decide an article's importance, instead of regular editors or admins. Left field thinking? Maybe. But if we ask ourselves one question: "Would a print encyclopedia benefit from this article?", there is really no good answer. Other than leaving a mid-importance rating as is, I think the best option would be to edit the main template, and post a statement saying future class articles negate importance ratings. Put these words (however written) right in the template itself. Instead of saying "unknown", it might say "undetermined due to future class status" or something similar. Veracious Rey 19:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I keep trying to tell you people, "Future-Class" should not negate an importance rating. We're not debating what a print encyclopedia needs. No one claims this article is Top-Importance, so why even mention that? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I never mentioned anything about top-importance. As far as print encyclopedias go, I mentioned it because this was quoted in Bignole's last post. Uhhhh, never mind. Veracious Rey 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biggy's point was that Top-Importance is for printable articles. I'd imagine such articles are already featured and about a brittanica kind of subject. I feel we need to be asking ourselves if "future" negates or lessens the quality of the article in any way. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the question, then my answer is no. I mean, this article is future class for the very fact it hasn't debuted yet. Now we can argue what "future" means here till were blue in the face (kind of like Bill Clinton and the word "is"). But all in all the rating doesn't detract from Spider Man 3. Most people won't even notice. And those who do are probably like us and can't make up their minds either. Hopefully Erik hears something soon. Veracious Rey → talk to V Rey 20:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Erik. Let's pray it does. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my biggest point was that if you look at the page that "importance" is defined, it says that it's about "the expectation of importance" and that it's really a subjective grading scale. Bignole 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sense some of us are on two different pages here. Let me clarify. Most of us agree the article is future class, but do not agree on the importance rating, correct? These are two seperate things. Reading some of these posts, I'm not sure this is clear in the midst of discussion. Hey, someone had to state the obvious. Veracious Rey → talk to V Rey 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be the case to me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Rey, no one seems to be confused; maybe newbie. Anyway, I would also like to point out that "Class" does not dictate "Importance". Thus, "Top-Class" doesn't mean "Top-Importance", etc. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill, Ace.  People have the right to ask about such information.  This discussion's actually giving me a headache, as we're debating over just a color and some letters in a corner of a talk page that few people probably check out.  Whatever we figure out from this, it had better be implemented in a widespread manner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Diddo. Ace, no offense, but I think we're failing to connect. No matter. I'll agree to agree with you if you agree to agree we all agree no one completely agrees. Agreed? Veracious Rey → talk to V Rey 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While we wait, I think it's worth a quick note/opinion regarding the OR fears. THis is the talk page, opinons get espoused on talkpages all the time regarding the attached articles. The importance scale is meant to be a guide to the inclusion editors, not some sort of status regarding the article for most of the wiki-reading audience. I think it's often abused, as it's often placed by vested editors. It's also abused due to conflicts in subject matter categories; Spider-Man's both a comic and film tied property, so each community may palce different importances on this. Against Casablanca, Seventh Seal or Battleship Potemkin, Spiderman's lower. Against swamp thing and the 70's marvel productions, Spiderman's higher. It IS relative, and that's ok. It's a guide. my thoughts. ThuranX 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This comment seems a bit spiteful to the article, its subject, and perhaps Wikipedia at large. Try to keep your comments more focused and productive, or just keep them to yourself. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no guarantees, unfortunately. Veracious Rey ◦ talk to V Rey ◦  03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I see now the importance level has been lowered - after my main comments. Veracious Rey 15:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: V-Rey's 2 cents

message: 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)
replies: text: I support this.  This honestly seems to be the most appropriate measure to take, as no guesswork is involved.  The importance can be determined upon the film's release.  Saves us the trouble of figuring out the relevance of each upcoming film.  (I reverted to make sure "Mid" → "Future" would be agreeable to other editors.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, the change from "Mid" to "Future" actually just expands the leftmost Future-Class column across the whole thing (see edit).  Doesn't actually mark the importance as "Future", but rather negates it, since it's an upcoming event whose impact can't be determined. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that clearly, but I don't agree with the opinion that an event's status as "future" to negate any sort of importance rating. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: By "priority" or "importance" of topics for a static version of the encyclopedia, we generally mean to indicate the level of expectation or desire that the topic would be covered in a traditional encyclopedia."
To me that says it can be "high" for one person and "low" to another person. It's based on what you "expect" the film's importance to be, and that doesn't have anything to do with how much money it makes. The fact that this film is using state of the art, never before used CGI techniques says that it will be important for future films that use CGI. I don't think it's a "Top" rating, because it isn't needed in paper, but it certainly already provides a depth of knowledge (as per the "High" rating) and will almost definitely provide more knowledge in the future. The scale says nothing about what it does currently, but what you "expect" it to do. That's my change in this subject, how it turns out is another story. Bignole 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't a setting other than "Future" border on original research?  We're using historical basis to make our own predictions about how this film could turn out (as you can see from the earlier discussion).  I mean, would you want to edit into the article, "Spider-Man 3 is likely to be as successful as its predecessors"?  That's pretty much what we're saying when we mark it with "High", "Mid", or something else.  To be fair, though, Category:Film articles by importance doesn't mention anything about using "Future". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Newb, I think you need to chill out a bit aznd take your own advice. You ouright rmoved any rating from The Dark Night. I mean...really. Anyway, it's not speculative to judge the article's current status. Just because we don't know every detail of plot, production, et cetera, doesn't mean we can't rate the article based on what we do know. I'd settle for no lower than "'Mid: Subject fills in more minor details". Honestly, though, I'd prefer "High" This is a good article, regardless of how the film is received. Also, what's good for this article isn;t necessarily good for others. I think we all can agree SM3 is higher than TDK, if only because it's closer to release. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a comittee or some official Wiki group should decide an article's importance, instead of regular editors or admins. Left field thinking? Maybe. But if we ask ourselves one question: "Would a print encyclopedia benefit from this article?", there is really no good answer. Other than leaving a mid-importance rating as is, I think the best option would be to edit the main template, and post a statement saying future class articles negate importance ratings. Put these words (however written) right in the template itself. Instead of saying "unknown", it might say "undetermined due to future class status" or something similar. Veracious Rey 19:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I keep trying to tell you people, "Future-Class" should not negate an importance rating. We're not debating what a print encyclopedia needs. No one claims this article is Top-Importance, so why even mention that? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I never mentioned anything about top-importance. As far as print encyclopedias go, I mentioned it because this was quoted in Bignole's last post. Uhhhh, never mind. Veracious Rey 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biggy's point was that Top-Importance is for printable articles. I'd imagine such articles are already featured and about a brittanica kind of subject. I feel we need to be asking ourselves if "future" negates or lessens the quality of the article in any way. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the question, then my answer is no. I mean, this article is future class for the very fact it hasn't debuted yet. Now we can argue what "future" means here till were blue in the face (kind of like Bill Clinton and the word "is"). But all in all the rating doesn't detract from Spider Man 3. Most people won't even notice. And those who do are probably like us and can't make up their minds either. Hopefully Erik hears something soon. Veracious Rey → talk to V Rey 20:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Erik. Let's pray it does. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my biggest point was that if you look at the page that "importance" is defined, it says that it's about "the expectation of importance" and that it's really a subjective grading scale. Bignole 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sense some of us are on two different pages here. Let me clarify. Most of us agree the article is future class, but do not agree on the importance rating, correct? These are two seperate things. Reading some of these posts, I'm not sure this is clear in the midst of discussion. Hey, someone had to state the obvious. Veracious Rey → talk to V Rey 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be the case to me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Rey, no one seems to be confused; maybe newbie. Anyway, I would also like to point out that "Class" does not dictate "Importance". Thus, "Top-Class" doesn't mean "Top-Importance", etc. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill, Ace.  People have the right to ask about such information.  This discussion's actually giving me a headache, as we're debating over just a color and some letters in a corner of a talk page that few people probably check out.  Whatever we figure out from this, it had better be implemented in a widespread manner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Diddo. Ace, no offense, but I think we're failing to connect. No matter. I'll agree to agree with you if you agree to agree we all agree no one completely agrees. Agreed? Veracious Rey → talk to V Rey 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While we wait, I think it's worth a quick note/opinion regarding the OR fears. THis is the talk page, opinons get espoused on talkpages all the time regarding the attached articles. The importance scale is meant to be a guide to the inclusion editors, not some sort of status regarding the article for most of the wiki-reading audience. I think it's often abused, as it's often placed by vested editors. It's also abused due to conflicts in subject matter categories; Spider-Man's both a comic and film tied property, so each community may palce different importances on this. Against Casablanca, Seventh Seal or Battleship Potemkin, Spiderman's lower. Against swamp thing and the 70's marvel productions, Spiderman's higher. It IS relative, and that's ok. It's a guide. my thoughts. ThuranX 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance scale

message: My two cents: look at A Streetcar Named Desire (film) and A Trip to the Moon (film), some really top importance films that need lots of work that nobody is going to put up. Than look at all the time and energy spent on this long pointless discussion on a not-yet-launched flick. So, OK, put there Top importance, Best film in the world, in the Universe even - WHO CARES. It won't make the film more important nor this WP edits any more usefull AdamSmithee 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment seems a bit spiteful to the article, its subject, and perhaps Wikipedia at large. Try to keep your comments more focused and productive, or just keep them to yourself. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unproductive comment

message: Spider-Man 3 has already featured on the cover of Empire magazine which is the film bible of the UK. For them to give it a cover slot, to me anyway, guarantees high importance. Mallanox 01:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no guarantees, unfortunately. Veracious Rey ◦ talk to V Rey ◦  03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Productive comment (hopefully!)

message: Reading the article a bit today, I notice that the flow we had was definitely lost with the merger of "Spider-Man's villains" into various sections. The Dunst's confirmations now feel out of place; perhaps we could remove them. That then brings me to the Church "work out" citation. This seems like something for "production", though I wouldn't know where to fit it in. Certain more plot like data may need to be moved or rewritten. I also want to stress that using sectioning which doesn't fully conform wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the flow is lost.  I think what's become obvious with the de-sectioning is that we have no actual "beginning" to the production.  The sectioning just provided places to put specific details, but I think when we took the sections out, there were obvious gaps.  We need to work a beginning into the Production section such as this Variety article, so we can have a beginning all the way to the end.  I'll see what else I can dig up on this and also try to repair the information to have a stronger flow. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've shaped the Production section to have some sort of beginning, and tried to fit the character development information to be part of it.  I think that the paragraphs beyond the first two could still use some work, but this seems like a good start right now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good call, but what about Sideways getting the studio's attention about Church?  I noticed that detail was missing.  It's not often that a reason for the casting is mentioned. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate it when things get lost. Oh well. I re-added that by rewording Church's first mention in production. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regaining the flow 

message: I think the list of cast and characters is too long... some minor characters can be removed for tidyness... Lordofchaosiori 06:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones do you think should be removed? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dylan Baker as Dr. Curt Connors, Daniel Gillies as John Jameson, Bill Nunn as Joseph "Robbie" Robertson, Ted Raimi, Elizabeth Banks as Betty Brant, Tim DeZarn as Philip Watson, Michael Papajohn as Carjacker, and Bruce Campbell, are all minor characters that I think are unnecessary to this list, because, for example, the usher from Spider-man 2 is not a major character and appears for about 2 minutes in the film. The carjacker appeared in a flashback that lasted at most 30 seconds, I think the cast and character section should be limited to the main characters. Feel free to add or remove from this list. ^_^ Lordofchaosiori 16:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it's a cast list. Leave it be. Wiki-newbie 16:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Editing conflict... looks like I said the same as above.) Recent FA-class Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope doesn't extensively list all the characters in the film -- Owen and Beru Lars, Biggs Darklighter, General Dodonna, Jek Porkins, etc. aren't mentioned.  I think Lordofchaosiori has a point.  I think that Dr. Curt Connors, "Robbie" Robertson, Hoffman, Betty Brant, Philip Watson, and the carjacker could be removed.  Maybe more, but these seem to be the prospective minor players.  The cameos should be kept, but not necessarily in bullet form. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Feh. I'd just limit to JJ's staff. Conners might help Peter with the symbiote, Watson must be "coming back" for a reason, and the carjacker is about as "unimportant" as Joe Chill. I might reconsider with Philip, but the "C"s should stay. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, makes sense.  Might be too pre-emptive to remove some of them.  I'll take off Robertson and Hoffman, and we'll wait for the release to determine the notability on the rest. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a suggestion. Might the cast list look cleaner, more succinct if major and minor character sub-headings were created under the main cast and characters heading? As it is, the list is still daunting. Two sub-headings might help break up the info, and be more pleasing to the eye to new observers. Just a thought. Veracious Rey → VReyT  18:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a possibility, but it also creates an issue of deciding who would be considered major or minor.  At this point, some characters may be on the fence.  Would Gwen Stacy or her father be considered minor?  How about either of the Jamesons?  It's difficult at this point to determine their roles based on the trailers and news articles.  I mean, the top players (Maguire, Dunst, Grace, Church, and Franco) are clearly the main characters, so we could section them that way.  I just don't know if sectioning the list would create unintended editing consequences. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast and characters

message: I watched edits being done lately. Poor shape, form some people. I told you guys I was woried about this. Im looking at these areas, and will complete when its ready. as far as the asteroid, I think venom comes from the mmoon. Boggydark 04:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop! Boggy, we've told you repeatedly that you're attempts to "help" aren't working. Your writting alone is a big issue. If you want to discuss changes or areas which, objectively speaking, need cleanup, do so. Do not, I repeat, do not edit the article. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Boggydark, what do you think is the problem with the article, and how are you planning to improve it? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im going to add a table, and solve the problem with cast actors. They can be cleaned up this way. Boggydark 04:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boggydark, the table isn't necessary.  If you look at Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, which is a film article that achieved Featured Article status not long ago, the cast layout is the same as what we're using here.  This allows more detail about the film's characters, since they cover several films.  If you insert a table to replace the list, you will most likely be reverted because the current format fits.  There's not an issue with it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, Bog, there's the matter of a single, personal opinion vs consensus. Eirk, X, Bignole and myself discussed changing the cast section to the way it is now. We agreed upon it. You may not agree, but that doesn't mean you can simply assume the cast section is "broken" and "must be fixed". Helping, in the truest sense, is doing something to aid someone. Your idea of "helping" seems to be little more than arbitrarily finding "problems" and changing content as you see fit. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Bog...only you think a table would "look nicer". That's the problem. We don't agree that the table would look nicer. We could discuss it, but I don't want you to get your hopes up or miss the point. Despite all you might want to do to make the article "look nicer", please try to consider we other people might think. We're not trying to...uh...stiffle your creativity; we just want the article to be a reflection of changes we all can live with. So far, you've wanted to change the article in ways that you like, not ways we all agree on. Also, I've reverted your edit. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Bog, are you selectively reading my comments? Like...are you only registering what you want to and disregarding the rest? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Boggydark, the previous two Spider-Man film articles' cast layouts were copied from the layouts of film articles that had Featured Article status.  This allows greater deal about the character to be given.  A census was reached by several editors to make the change from a layout similar to what you tried to change to the one that exists now.  Basically, the cast layout does not need a change in terms of how it looks. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: When I say layout, I mean the way that the cast members are displayed.  Right now, the cast is shown in a list.  You had tried to edit the information into a table, which was not necessary.  The format that's used for the cast members does not need to be changed; it matches how cast information is presented on film articles that have achieved Featured Article status.  (Meaning that we're trying to be like them by matching a successful design.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The way that the cast members are displayed in the film article is fine.  Like Ace mentioned, editors decided to change the format to what it is now.  The format used to be similar to a table that you tried to add, which is why your change was removed.  It's like going back to the Model T car when you could be driving the latest BMW, if that analogy makes sense.  Basically, the way that the cast information is presented, does not need to be changed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Boggy, your interest in improving the article is appreciated, but it's not necessary.  Your recent addition just repeated what was already in the first paragraph of the Sequel section.  "In an August 2006 interview with MTV, Marvel producer Kevin Feige anticipated more sequels to the Spider-Man films 'because of the wealth of stories in the comics.'"  That in itself implies more villains and more storylines to follow.  It doesn't need to be re-hashed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This was your edit: "A sequal would be warranted because many other enemies are still out there for Spiderman to fight. This is known more than other Comic book bad guys. So due to this fact another movie might happen. Please see the above remarks from Toby Maguire."  Like I mentioned in my previous comment, Marvel producer Feige said that there were more stories from Spider-Man canon to tell, which would make it easy to have more sequels.  You are basically re-stating what was already said in the first paragraph, Boggy.  The information does not need to be repeated, that's all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Plus, your addition read like a comment being made in the article space. Like the "comment" templates say, adding original research or personal opinions in the article space is inappropriate. Why does the reader need to see you say "there are more villains to use; I'm just folowing Tobey's satement"? Really, Boggy, I'm having trouble assuming good faith here. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to stop you here, Bog, and remind you that you are being uncivil. I recommend you stop editing this article till after the holiday season so you can cool off. a number of editors have all tried to counsel you on the right way to edit, the right things to add, what not to add, how to work together, and links to the articles to read. Your response is permanent misbehavior. Vulgarity is distinctly hostile. Should you edit the article or the talk in the next few hours, I will get an admin to examine the situation. Everyone here had had their patience used up with you. I really cannot be any more straightforward than this: Try to work with us, or deal with administrator intervention. Thank you.ThuranX 06:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the administrator would be brought in to review your disruptive behavior, not to back you up against consensus of the editors of the page. ThuranX 07:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Thats probably a good idea, thuran, is get the admin to talk to me. Maybe hell see the page needed, i mean table, and fix the problems. To much arguing here to do it. If then its done, then great. But who knows. ONe thing is the admin cant tranistion this to the better of everyone. Boggydark 08:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boggy, ThuranX said that the administrator would be brought in to review your behavior.  Just because one person wants to see a change to an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean that this change has to take place.  A group of editors need to reach a consensus to change or keep a certain aspect of the article.  So far, other editors have contested your desire to add a table for the cast.  This is a consensus to keep the cast layout the way it is now.  The layout isn't a "problem" in the eyes of other editors.  Not all editors get their way on their own, Boggy.  Everyone, including myself and other editors trying to help you, has attempted to change an article at some point, but found their edits removed.  What you need to do is understand why we have reverted your changes and comprehend the policies we have presented to you.  We have been concerned that you are not doing this, leading to unnecessary acts of incivility such as insulting another editor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  administrator 

message: Shouldn't the poster of Spider-Man on the ledge with the window of the building reflecting his other costume be shown in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.186.32 (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had bothered to read the page instead of having a revert war with the OTHER vandalous editor of this article, Boggydark, you would've seen the LONG debate about the posters. Please take the time now to read through it, and add any thought out opinions there. ThuranX 13:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: X, for the record, you're talking about an archive. Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 3#Lead Poster, I believe. I think we could all benefit from chilling a bit. Thanks for posting a fairly civil comment, 222. Though, it'd be nice if you didn't still need assistance in signing your comments. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the new poster be added to the page? 

message: I will be contacting an admin regarding this page today. Last night, both 222.152.186.32 and Boggydark got into a revert war here.  Bignole, Erik, Ace Class Shadow, User:Wiki-newbie, Veracious Rey, and myself have all counseled both editors on things like civility, citation, the difference between being bold and a vandal, and more for weeks now. Neither makes an effort to change, both call us all names ,  for working hard on the page and not wanting POV edits added, and it's time for it to stop. ThuranX 13:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just posting the [link] to the Admin Noticeboard regarding this page and the issues going on. ThuranX 13:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the name calling was directed at Boggy, and not yourself. Bignole 03:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the implications that we're actively conspiring to keep IP User from editing were directed at us, and the truly vulgar names directed AT IP were from Boggydark. Both of you have multiple incidences of incivility, POV, OR, and so on. It's my hope that an admin will be able to do SOMETHING to force you both to learn some basic wiki-etiquette. Neither of you has any right now. ThuranX 05:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One, read the guideline, you'll see i'm well clear of biting, as you've been civilly spoken to many times. Two, your use of WP:BITE in some sort of snide reversal of warnings only supports my previous assertion that you're a troll, not a new editor. Three, and admin you try to call is going to have to look at your long term behavior here, your total refusal to listen to anyone, your constant complaints that the page lacks info which is only unsubstantiated rumor, and so on, and will be more likely to pursue administrative action against you and boggydark than any other editor here. ThuranX 14:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin 

message: There's been some response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Importance scale.  The preferred importance scale for an upcoming film is "Unknown" as expressed by three objective editors, since the long-lasting impact of the film can only be determined after its release.  Feel free to ask further questions there.  I think that the hard part of applying the importance scale would be deciding what factors assist the impact of a film.  Perhaps we can discuss a guideline between now and the release of SM3 to gauge the film's importance.  The project could also help us explore the necessary focus the film article should take in response to meeting specific criteria of importance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance scale revisited 

message: Forgive me for making yet another section, but in light of recent comments, I'd to address single opinions versus consensus and a changes.
Mentioning each article point by point in order, let's start with the infobox poster. As discussed in the archive, the gif is meant to immitate the official poster which changes from the black costume chest to the regular. Some on Wikipedia have denounced this as a stretch by "fair use" standards and unappealing. A few unfamiliar with the 'pedia wanted to replace the poster with a new one released in November, '06. Ultimately, that it was agreed that this poster would remain unless something more concrete came along. No reason to chanbe the poster event other month.
Plot: Issues taken are with its status as "unofficial". However, everything in it is verified. Based on interviews, previews, press releases, trailers, etc. we've compiled information together. Nothing, I repeat, nothing was speculated, taken out of context or mis- interpreted/appropriated in any way. Wikipedia is fiercely against speculation and firsthand additions of data. In other words, we don't take the word of "scoopers" or anyone else who claims to "know" unless they can offer an external resource. A newspaper article, a video file—with exceptions—and even TV or film can count as a reliable source, but one non-notable individual with no proven ties to a subject cannot be trusted blindly. In essence, users have only been making themselves look bad witth this "John Janmson" thing. How, exactly, can we be "making stuff up" by citing Empir magazine, and why should we remove data based solely on one person's protest?
Cast: As discussed in what's now an archive, the cast section was changed to match a "winning format". Not every article uses this method, but featured ones have. Templated/tabled casts only offer names and, occasionally, links. Most film characters don't have articles and can benefit from a bit of detailing. For all intents and purposes, this is fine, just like the plot.
The remaining sections aren't masterpieces, but the article is definitely in good shape. While no one is opposed to changes, they should reasonable ones acceptable to others and not "change for the sake if it." Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'll change it then. Empire's willing to publish it, so they're sure they can support it. Stop trolling here. ThuranX 03:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaints versus problems 

message: is anyone going to watch it tonight if you want know what time it's at theres a link to it above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.231.60 (talk • contribs) 17:48, December 24, 2006
:Let us know if there's anything useful in the clips that could be added to the film article.  We'll have to figure out the citation deal if there is something substantial to use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, remember this is not a forum. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; discussion should be about adding anything useful from the clips to the article.  According to WP:TALK#Wikipedia-specific help, "The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play... In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject, even though they may seem inextricably linked."  Uncontributive comments will be deleted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We know. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What? And sign your comments. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, January 2nd... this is what you're looking for. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christmas Eve ''SM3'' clips

message: I'll use the same info but sorry to say it's slightly boring and I just want to write something great, like this: http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=4663
222.152.186.32 02:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. You may not. Your contributions thus far have ignored wikistyle, and you continue to provoke and be incivil. Further, that article is full of adjectives while effectively saying NOTHING. It is far more vague than what's here. It's not cited. It's full of WP:Weasel words. You've yet to demonstrate any understanding of HOW wikipedia works. You won't even get an account so we can leave talk page messages for you, as your IP changes each logon. It's far beyond time for you to get with it, learn how wikipedia works, and THEN come back. ThuranX 03:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you cannot "spice up" a plot summary because it's "boring". Plot summaries are Wiki should be boring, because Wiki is not a substitution for watching a film. Wiki is also a non promotional site, and "spicing up" a plot is an indirect way of promoting a film. It doesn't keep with the neutrality policy of the site. BUT, you are more than welcome to help write the summary when the film arrives in May, so long as it conforms to Wiki's policies (i.e. neutral, isn't long in length, isn't detail for detail, etc). People tend to forget that Wiki is an encyclopedia and not an entertainment website, and that it must attempt to keep its neutrality on every topic, this includes films. People may want to write "With the tension rising, Venom slaughters.......yadayadayada", but we can't because we are creating dramatic tension and thus losing our neutrality. I know it sucks, because plots can read rather childish, but that is the point. The articles should be about what went into the film, not what happens in it. Bignole 03:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Comingsoon doesn't have the same rules as Wiki. It isn't a non-profit organization aimed at creating a neutral online encyclopedia. Bignole 13:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your recent postings have NOT been civil. Your use profanity regularly, esp., in regard to the symbiote origin, in that section. Also, I note that despite multiple editor replies, you've singled me out in this and other sections. Combined with your use of WP in casual context lately, I continue to see evidence bolstering my belief that you're a long term wiki-user trolling here. I'm going to ask you again to register for an account. ThuranX 14:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I rewrite the plot? 

message: I plan to archive the talk page after the month is out.  Others are welcome to beat me to the punch.  Question, though: Are there any particular discussions that shouldn't be archived just yet — such as the admin issue or the Jameson dispute?  There's plenty of wording on both topics, and I just want to see what should stay or not.  Also, should the existing sections be combined into the talk page's third archive, "November 2006", and re-titled "November 2006 to December 2006"?  Or just make a fourth archive called "December 2006"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everything but the "Symbiote origin" and "Admin" have been concluded, as far as I can remember, so you should be able to archive those. I'd add it to the November archive, if it isn't too large (just to keep with the standards of the archives). If November is a long list, then you can make it its own page. Bignole 20:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, first off, I gotta warn you that section header numbers can be misleading. This whole page is "134 kilobytes long", last time I checked. I'm for a new, separate archive. Everything up to "Symbiote origin" is done. After that, I'm not sure. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving December

message: Since every other thing is being talked out these days, I thought I'd comment on Wiki-newbie's new images. While seemingly well intentioned, they do not help the article. The "proposal" image looked odd in the cast section and adds nothing. The Harry image was less out of place, but still unnecessary. Also, both images had captions which were either speculative or just plain wrong. Harry is not the GG, so him "becoming GG" is highly inaccurate. The Nov. trailer mentions Peter's proposal while showing a scene of him and MJ descend from one of his webs. However, it cannot be assumed that the recently released still from that scene has anything to do with a proposal, chronology-wise. Trailers are not and never will be clear indicaters of scene significance and/or order. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about those, but I have been trying to get this image without the "pots n pans" watermark on it, because it would be a better image of Grace and Raimi for the "Production" section, than the one of Grace taken from the trailer. It better illustrates Raimi's growing admiration for the character, than the other. Now, could we use it with the watermark, since they obviously released the image to SHH for public viewing? Bignole 21:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Newbie had good intentions.  He was just trying to represent the major characters -- Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, and Harry Osborn (particular the latter undergoing the transformation to the New Goblin).  I've never been crazy about image usage; too many arguments regarding the aesthetic appeal of them.  I think that it would be more helpful to have production stills in the Production section (shouldn't have to explain why).  Since we're trying to improve the article to be pretty top-notch, all images should be discussed to see which ones can have maximum purpose.  For example, the Peter/MJ shot isn't particularly engaging; the characters aren't doing anything, and there's no background.  What should be considered when choosing images are detailed representations of the main characters that are partaking in some major plot point.  For example, I think that when the Plot section is fleshed out, we should have the image of Black Spidey looking at his reflection in the skyscraper window.  That reflects who he used to be and he is now (at whatever point in the film), and the inner "dark side" or whatever.  A picture speaks a thousand words, right?  We should try to choose a picture that speaks the right thousand words. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And to respond to Bignole's suggestion, I'm not crazy about that particular image.  It doesn't strike me as very engaging, though you have a point with Raimi's acceptance of the character.  I'm just not sure if that point needs to be driven home with an image, like the Sandman image helps drive home the unique punch-through-chest approach.  It's too bad we can't tap the Comic-Con footage... there were some nice "under construction" shots, especially in regard to Sandman. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go through the archive footage at SHH, you can find links to images for the ComicCon footage.Bignole 21:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie images 

message: Hey, does anyone have any new information on the fourth villian?  One site from the references talks about J.K. Simmons saying his on-screen son MIGHT become the fourth villian.  Does anybody have anything on this? Teeple12 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you're talking about.  Your citation says: "Talking to TV Guide magazine, the thesp was asked if his character’s son - Daniel Gillies’ John Jameson from Spider-Man 2 - might become the unannounced villain. Simmons seems convinced it’s not happening." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably not a good idea, Boggy. Boy, I relish the day when you finally understand warnings around here. Let me make it plain: quitting editing the Spider-Man 3 article! You refuse to follow Wikipedia guidelines, so just stop. I'm very suprised you haven't been blocked yet. I have a funny feeling you're on your way though. And by the way, I'm reverting your most recent edit. Who the heck is "hawkman avendure"??? Are you okay bud? Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 08:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: More than likely this is a lost cause, but if you're game Boggy, check these links out below. Read them nice and slow. Should help you realize your edits are way out of line (if that's possible anymore). Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 09:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth villain 

message: I think Boggy seriously messed up this talk page. Somehow it's been disconnected from the main article. I'm not real sure how to change or figure this out. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 08:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I figured out how to move this page back to were it should be. Something really needs to be done about Boggydark, and quickly. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 09:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Somehow I'm not too worried. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 09:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: He could have meant Vulture (comics), but that's besides the point. --Jamdav86 20:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I don't think our warnings are helping much. Boggy seems to come and go every few days. Makes me think he's smarter than he seems, like he's screwing with us or something. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Well, he does claim to be a harvard grad. Above all, I'd recommend we consider the language barrier. I know at least one seemingly persistant vandal who was actually more fluent in spanish than english. They still believe too much in IMDB, even adding inaccurate data to the Spanish Wikipedia long after IMDb corrected their mistake, but I'm just sayin'. On a side note, this convo doesn't seem very...good. Like, no offense or anything, but this could be seen as slightly bad faith. Plus, it's not exactly SM3 related. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And hell sells freezie-pops. Ace just lectured all of US on Wikipolicies like bite, AGF, and language. NYE resolutions, Ace? just having fun. ThuranX 16:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That was uncalled for. Anger issues ThuranX?--Shut The Eff Up 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ace and ThuranX have worked together as editors, Eff.  It's in good humor.  No worries.  Have a happy new year, folks, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My mistake. Happy New Year, everyone.--Shut The Eff Up 23:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy New Year. That ends this discussion. Veracious Rey  talk↔contribs 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page?!