Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 6

message: *
:Early, positive review of Spider-Man 3.
*
* - 4/5 stars
* - Definitely need to include Richard Roeper when we are done.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early reviews 

message: * - Spider-Man 3 breaks opening day records in the Asian market (includes Hong Kong, South Korea and others).
*
:Wanted to include this, but wasn't sure if this was too promotional and trivial?  Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that. I'm not sure. If it's breaking records, then I say we can include as part of the "impact" of the film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included the information.  Considering that this film will likely break a lot of box office records in the US and abroad, it might be relevant to include all the preliminary factors that drove Spider-Man 3 toward the top. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: Since the film is now in the public scope, the Synopsis section can be expanded into a Plot section.  To best write the plot summary for this section, please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot, which provides guidelines established by consensus.  For example, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot."  Please be succinct whenever possible, because film articles' focuses should be on real-world context and not a textual substitution for watching the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief synopsis is usually included in the Lead, for people that just wish to see the basics about the film. It doesn't go into detail, which the plot does. It's meant to be a broad coverage of the entire film, with no real spoilers, instead of a description that includes spoilers and actual "acts" from the film. If you think it needs a bit of rewriting, go for it, just try to be brief.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section 

message: Just remember, the people in the United States haven't seen the movie yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.173 (talk • contribs) 10:47, May 1, 2007
:Then follow us and don't read the page (or atleast the plot section) until after May 4.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been averting my eyes from that section.  I'm focusing on making sure nothing erroneous is placed in the rest of the article, like Production and so forth.  I'll worry about tidying up the Plot section after I see the film myself. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry to hear that, but hey, I'd like to suggest that we conclude the discussion here.  Per guidelines, the talk page of an article is supposed to be for discussing how to improve the article.  You could probably find a lot of threads for general discussion at IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: I think a Spider-Man 4 page should be made, or at least considered. Yahho! Movies said that there would be one through an interview with someone affiliated with the movie. Yahoo! Movies also rarely posts rumors, so this could mean something. I know this is only one source, but a Spider-Man 4 page should at least be considered if not created. If you want proof of this, go to Yahoo! Movies, go to Upcoming Films, and then click on Greg's Previews, and the movie should be listed there, or it should be one of the main headlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.18.184 (talk • contribs) 21:38, May 1, 2007
:Simple Question: Who gave you the impression that they weren't making Spider-man 4? --Gundor Twintle Fluffy 13:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (MULTIPLE EDIT CONFLICTS)As we have discussed previously in edit summaries, and here in Talk, WP:CRYSTAL is in effect. Until we have some real material to work with, such as signings of contracts, or public announcements of negotiations and so on by interested parties, all else is probably rumor. we don't deal in that. ThuranX 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering that the director and the cast have yet to renew their contract for a fourth film, it would be too soon to create a film article for a film that may not even take place.  Ideally, a film article should be created when a director, the cast, and a production start date are established.  What we've heard about Spider-Man 4 is nowhere near that stage. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You're supposed to type four tildes (~) after a comment so you can leave your signature and the date that you wrote it.  That way, we know who said the comment, and when.  Give it a try. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it does NOT sound like a good idea. It's Crystal ball ... ing (awkward, I know...). Any comments about a sequel, made during the promotional period of this film, should be included in THIS article, in a Sequel section. Should a movie fail to generate a sequel, despite promotional interview comments, we simply state 'Sequel - Although durig promotional interviews, Star X, starlet Y, and Producer's gofer C said A,(cite 1)B,(cite 2) and 3(cite 3) about a sequel, None has been made.' We don't need a page for something that would not be out till 2010. Wait and be patient. We are NOT a rumor mill, and should not strive for it. It's nearly inevitable that after 3 (successful, I hope) films, the stars and the public, and the critics, and reviewers, will talk about a sequel. I've heard some great rumors already about the vulture and lizard, but I'm not looking to add them. Once we see action towards a sequel, undertaken by persons in the positions to make such actions, we can report it. Finally, there's been NO 'confirmation' of future sequels. We have seen statements of INTENT. 'We want to make 6 films' type stuff. We have not seen 'We have inked a 6 picture deal' or 'we have just inked a contract for three more installments'. Confirmation is contracts and deliberate public statements by say, the board, and intent is 'I'd love to do seven more installments as Aunt May's downstairs neighbor, cause I need to pay the rent'. This distinction is hard to keep in mind, in light of the sheer volume of rumoring out there, but we should. ThuranX 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, just like the previous editors have stated. If you really think that just because a studio says "we are going to make a movie" that we should created a page for that movie, because they obviously cannot be wrong..then I beg you to read Canceled Superman films. This article is the epitome of proof that just because a studio says they are going to make a movie, that it doesn't really mean that it WILL happen. No production start date (and that means more than just "late 2009", because that's nothing more than saying "yeah, I'd like to have John Glover play so-n-so". It's a wish, not a contract) should be a clear indication that nothing is set in stone, and an article shouldn't be created based on hearsay.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ThuranX and Bignole are right.  There's been many projects that got stuck or are still stuck in development hell.  Batman Triumphant, Battle Angel, Mortal Kombat: Devastation, Ender's Game, Captain America, Clash of the Titans, The Giver, Hot Wheels, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Shazam!, et cetera.  Three films that got articles created but ran into the same wall of development hell are Halo and The Hobbit.  The sequel to Superman Returns is similarly delayed, with the director doing another project first.  Usually, and I do mean usually, production will take place when there is a director, a cast, and a production start date.  Sometimes even with this set up, factors interfere and put the project back in development hell.  With Spider-Man 4, it's way too premature to determine if a film will even be made, especially based on the lack of contracts with anyone that's been involved with the trilogy. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spider-Man 4

message: With 47 reviews, it seems appropriate to include the rating now.  If anyone wants to write out some critical commentary for the film to go in the "Critical reaction" subsection, that would be greatly appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we covered this already.  To include only the US rating is biased toward the US, and the English Wikipedia is not American-focused.  And if we include all the film ratings from all the countries without any encyclopedic reasoning, then it's indiscriminate information.  There's nothing notable about the rating, which has been unchanged throughout the film series.  Would you mind removing your change? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotten Tomatoes 

message: :Image:Spider-Man_3%2C_International_Poster.jpg - This isn't an official movie poster. It doesn't have production information or studio logos on the bottom. I've never seen poster anywhere other than as promotional art and a backdrop for interviews.
:Image:Spider-Man_3_theatrical_poster.jpg - This is an official theatrical poster that's used everywhere. 
Please use this poster in the infobox, or find another one with production information or studio logos on it.
ConsoleZ 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the solution: Imp Awards.  It has the information that the current image lacks.  It has the production information and studio logos on it.  If this isn't acceptable, I don't know what is. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I uploaded the newer version with the production info on it. Regardless of whether it stays or goes, at least it has satisfied one portion of the argument.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also applied a tag so that an Admin will come and delete the old image that doesn't have anything but the title card on it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: When I said "newer version", I meant the one that Erik found with the prod. info on it...just if there was any uncertainty about what I was referring to.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spider-Man 3, International Poster.jpg 

message: Ok, I have to assume that IMDb has listed the credits from the film.  For the writing credits, these are shown:
Sam Raimi	 	(screenplay) &
Ivan Raimi	 	(screenplay) and
Alvin Sargent	 	(screenplay)
Sam Raimi	 	story &
Ivan Raimi	 	screen story
Stan Lee	 	(Marvel comic book) and
Steve Ditko	 	(Marvel comic book)
How can we best display these writing credits on the Infobox Film template without taking up so much space?  Any ideas? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd ignore the "story" part, since it's still the Raimi brothers, and just have Lee and Ditko listed as "characters".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work for me, as "screenplay" would be the more overall term. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing credits 

message: When spidey throws the Pumkin Bomb and kills Eddie, who is trying to save Venom. Venom is already a independent creature. And venom DOES die in the xplosion, at least for the plotline. Spidey does NOT fight Venom after Eddie's death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vissermatt (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already removed that erroneous inserted plot a while ago. I don't see it now. Berserkerz Crit 16:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect plot line 

message: I think we should rate this article on the Importance scale. What do you all think? -GTAGeek123 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's usually established by an appropriate wikiproject. I suggest posting to th film and comics wikiprojects and asking for such. ThuranX 03:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance Scale

message: UNder the marketing section, it is said
"Sideshow Collectibles produced collectibles, which Medicom Toy Corporation distributed.[57]"
the link clearly says that Sideshow is distributing Medicom product.  The article has it backwards.
Casval 07:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing Error 

message: To let people know, I removed the "Venom"s and "Sandman"s because they really weren't used in the film. "Venom", just like "New Goblin" was something in the credits, and not something that either of the characters were actually called. Marko didn't go by "Sandman", and Peter never called him that either, plus Jameson never ran stories about the character. It seems best to just refer to them by the names they use in the film, instead of ones tacked on the credits, even though we know that is who they are.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in the movie Sandman is refered to as such.  It happens in the big climax, something like "The sandman has thwarted all attempts by the police..."  But you are right about venom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.198.72.75 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that Sandman was only mentioned by that newscaster, and never in like the Bugle office with Jameson thinking of names, or newspapers going out with his name. That was something thrown in at the last second for the film's climax. Marko, in that fictional reality, wasn't even aware of the name in the extent that it had just been given to him.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Sandman should remain Sandman but agree with the change from Venom to Brock. Mykll42 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would only have any depth if you include the part that says the newsbroadcaster calls him Sandman. Any use of the name before the construction site fight would be inaccurate. It would be like going back to the plot of Spider-Man 1 and saying that the carjacker didn't kill Uncle Ben. Yes, we know he didn't now, but we didn't then and articles shouldn't retcon themselves. Or, I saw someone change the name from "carjacker" to "Denise Carradine". That was name he was given in Part 3, but not in Part 1. We aren't about retconning continuity in the article plots, that's for the film makers to do. Including the bit about the newscaster referring to Marko as Sandman is extraneous since no one else, other than someone watching tv, actually heard the name in the film. I could see adding it in the "cast" section, but not the plot. It doesn't add anything to the plot itself, just like why the info about Gwen isn't there, because her presence in the film is so limit. She barely registered as any type of wall in the Peter/MJ relationship that it isn't worth the space to mention her.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: *
:This is the review page from Yahoo! Movies, including all of the major film reviewers across the country. The current average grade is a B-. Most feel the movie was packed with too many story lines, while the main characters were underdeveloped. A couple of the reviews are downright scathing...   Veracious Rey  talk  02:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plenty of reviews to integrate 

message: *
:About the musical score. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the accompanying soundtrack.  I'll place this on the soundtrack article as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations about music 

message: I've seen on some websites and on the tv show The Soup, that Harry was in fact the Hobgoblin, not the New Goblin. Can anyone cite where he was the New Goblin?
John 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the ending credits of the actual film. Or the citation that we have in the article already.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Comics he was both Green Goblin and Hobgoblin (different continuities), in the film itself (the fictional world I mean) he's simply Harry. The credits list him as "New Goblin".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Hobgoblin"? That's only in the comics. What I said was that in the film itself, he's just called Harry, but the ending credits list him as "New Goblin". The film didn't really call any of them by their alternative names. Eddie is never called Venom (see discussion below) and Flint is only called "Sandman" once, and that was by a news broadcaster at the end of the film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Goblin or Hobgoblin? 

message: I believe we should include more information about MJ in the plot line, as the plot mentions nothing about MJ being dropped from Broadway, the crane accident that Spider-Man saved Gwen from, or the 'special kiss' between Spider-Man and Gwen. Any objections? I would add this in but I wanted to see if anyone else agreed first. Dannpm 22:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's mostly extraneous details. The entire Gwen arc is so small that it's barely noticeble in the film itself. Here being dropped doesn't play on the main events of the story, because she never tells Peter. Peter's ego and disregard for anything that happens to her period is what pushes her to Harry (which we have in the plot). Brevity is the key for plots. Wiki isn't a substitution for watching the film, and this film has so many minor storylines going on that it would just inflate the plot too much to include such miniscule detail about each character. This is also where there isn't mention of Marko's dying daughter. It's only shown in passing at the beginning, and quickly mentioned at the very end of the film, only to never actually be resolved. It could be something that could be added to the production section, where we have information that discusses how they wanted Marko to be more of a sympathetic villain. We could provide info that shows what they did to accomplish it.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the point about brevity and not being a substitution I was making. The plot reflects that Peter's attitude pushes Mary Jane toward Harry, and we only say that he makes a plan to marry her, not that he actually tries. What happens to disrupt his attempt specifically should be left for the reader to actually go watch the movie and find out. It's a minor detail that was just a compounding event in the separation of the two characters. There's also the part where she comes to him to give her support and he blows up at her, and the fact that he's trying to constantly compare his Spider-Man life to her Broadway career.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Jane information 

message: I think we have to include the identifier "Venom" to the article, of in no other place than the Cast section. He is mentioned in the credits as "Venom/Eddie Brock". The fact that this is mentioned in the credits and not in the movie shouldn't make a difference. Elsewhere in Wikiepdia, articles supply names for unnamed (yet noteworthy) characters that are identified in the credits. Recall that the word "ewok" was not mentioned once in the film, Return of the Jedi, but everyone with a pulse knows who they are. 
As well, the voices are different when Brock's face is shown and when Venom is 'dominant'. For these reasons, I think we should revisit the decision to avoid naming Venom. Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's never called Venom, it's just a credits thing. Just like New Goblin. Harry never once refers to himself as any type of Goblin. The only person that got a name, and that was at the last second was Sandman, which was only known to anyone that might have heard the tv. We didn't refer to Octavius as "Doc Ock" before he became Ock, and once he did he got a name in the public. The same goes for GG.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What I've done, while working on Friday the 13th, is that if it was just a "backstory" to help the actor better perform in the role, then I would label that as "directing". It's something they are doing to help better direct themselves with the scenes, but that wasn't necessarily in the script. But, since we don't have a directing section, I think development is fine. What happens in production doesn't necessarily have to be expressed in the plot section.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, I wasn't aware of where you were planning on pulling it till you did. I agree.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please be civil.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me then to, in a very civil manner, point out how incredibly... PROBLEMATIC it is to pretend like you don't know what a character is called when not only does every single piece of merchandise and commentary linked to the movie state the name, but that character is also an iconic one in popular culture.Rglong 04:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Venom

message: Is it worth mentioning that the movie styled villain toys have appeared in the games? This is the case for the Scorpion (he's in the first game for a few levels) and the Rhino (he's an early boss). The designs match --HellCat86 23:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie style villian toys

message: Make sure that information is from a reputable source, and don't put information that may be opinion based,as on one website, i saw a reference that said sandman's actual name was Charlie Trailor.Which is somewhat rubbish.(just for the welfare of the article).Wongdai clcheung 10:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think it's true.  Thanks for trying to help out, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not of much importance but... 

message: I edited Aunt May's page. Someone put that in Spider-Man 2 she had to sell the house and live with her neighbour. This is NEVER said in ANY Spider-Man film. I have no idea where that came from. She sold the house and moved into a small apartment. Honestly, where do people get this rubbish from? Dark Spidey 01:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the price of a free encyclopedia.  The malcontents can't help themselves.  Thanks for cleaning it up, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aunt May Edit 

message: On a side note, I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but remember when Dr. Connors was looking at a piece of the symbiote?  There is no further mention of this again in the movie once Dr. Connors calls Peter about his findings.  So who knows if Dr. Connors killed the symbiote piece or if it’s still contain in his lab.  If you remember the piece was moving and assuming it's alive too.  Could this be Carnage symbiote that would later escape in a future film or somehow the reintroduction of Venom?
:This is not the place for that kind of discussion. You'd be better to keep that at movie forums, or IMDb.com. But to answer you, Conners said the symbiote needed a host to survive, and with that little piece not having a host readily available, it'd die.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining Symbiote?

message: I think that Willem Dafoe (Old Goblin) made a cameo appearance as an extra sitting behind Peter Parker in the Jazz club. Can someone confirm this? Although Dafoe is actually in the movie as a sort of ghost of Old Goblin, this would still be a cameo.66.248.160.235 21:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a more attributable source than IMDb.  The trivia bits, in particular, are user-submitted.  Some of them are just flat-out wrong compared to the material in this article.  Take a look at the bit about sand: "Real sand was used in the scenes with Sandman, except where there were characters being buried/covered in sand. Real sand being possibly hazardous for such scenes, ground up corncobs were used as a substitute. It provided marvelous snacks for the cast and crew afterwards..."  Not really reliable, is it?  If a more attributable source can be found, we can see about including it under Cast. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw the movie twice now, noticed that guy both times - he looks kinda like Willem, but he's a younger guy who just happens to bear a resemblance.  Not to mention Dafoe already has an actual role in the movie, so why would he have a cameo?Rglong 16:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the movie 4 times now, and I havent noticed anyone who resembles Willem. Im supposed to go see it this week again. Ill look for him next time I watch it. -  GTAGeek123  talk  20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I know exactly the guy you're talking about, he does look a little like him, maybe could be a family member, but the guy is like thirty years younger than Dafoe.  I'm 100% certain it's not him, but keep an eye out because there is a strong resemblance so maybe it's his son or grandson or something.Rglong 15:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cameo? 

message: I noticed that this article has been nominated as a "Good Article". I think that it has the criteria to be a featured article. 
  GTAGeek123  talk  20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but I think Erik and the guys want to do it step by step. Or not, I don't know who nominated it for GA. Berserkerz Crit 06:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think it would be best to do it step by step because the film is still going strong in the box office, both domestically and internationally.  According to this, it's the #2 most visited page on Wikipedia.  I think we could pursue Featured Article status later in the summer, when other franchise films have taken up the spotlight. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is also a time factor, and many editors will oppose the film strictly on the basis that it hasn't been out long enough.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 10:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: I think Sam Raimi tried to resamble the cult movie Night of the Creeps as long as the scene from the simbiot arrivinge the earth is quite similar to the first scene of that movie, and the simbiot in some scenes resables the creeps form this movei.Altought i was hint about this beacause of Jonah screaming Trill me!. As long as a character from the night iwas named after Raimi, i think this would be a good adition to the so far non existent trivia section.
Cripty
:*Please note the WP:TRIVIA - which states that trivia sections should be avoided.
:*Please sign your post using four tildes(~~~~)
:*Please provide a source for what you say if you expect to get it added to the article, the encyclopedia could care less what you think - it's about what is true. Now if the New York Times said something or other ... then ... who knows, it would probably be added.danielfolsom 20:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Night of the creeps resambling

message: Did anyone else notice a man bearing striking resemblance to Willem DaFoe sitting behind Peter Parker and Gwen in the jazz club scene? If that's him, it certainly should be mentioned in the article. Steveo2 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we already discussed that (see four sections above this one), and it doesn't seem to be him.  No attributable source has been found to confirm this information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willem DaFoe cameo? 

message: The article meets all of the criteria, I'm going to go in and make some corrections that are minor, but it easily meets the criteria. It's well written, sourced adequately, comprehensive, and doesn't have any significant MoS violations. Please note the changes I make and the edit summaries I left to indicate where there were errors. Quadzilla99 13:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: Hi, the release date for Spider-man 3 in Australia was May 3, 2007. Many websites list this information; here's one: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/Spider-Man+3/movie/17415/
Please update this Wikipedia entry accordingly. Thanks! AJ 10:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia release date - May 3 2007

message: Look at all of this! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/trivia I think somwhere in the article we could use some of this trivia. Like the different plot lines, like the one about Sandman killing Venom, which I don't ever think could happen, seeing how the symbiote would revert to bonding with the solid sand particles that make up Sandman, or like Vulture originally being a villain or Spider-Man 3 and 4 originaly were going to be back to back, because of how long the plots were. I mean come on!! Just look at this, someone please eneter it. This is so cool. Thanks alot!!! ManofSTEEL2772 May 25 11:13 p.m. 2007
:You should read two things. First, the many sections above that deal with trivia. Second, this page. To sum them both up, trivia should be avoided, and all relevant information (i.e. encyclopedic information) should be worked into the appropriate sections of the article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that many of these bits actually came from the film's Wikipedia article, and the rest of the bits are extremely trivial.  "While being in the Venom costume, Topher Grace didn't drink any water during his breaks because he couldn't use the bathroom with his costume on."  Like, really... that's not very encyclopedic.  If citations can be provided for any of the bits, then they could be integrated into the article.  However, looking at the list, I don't see anything worth hunting for. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: IMDb is not a "source", it's a collection agency. Some of what they have is stolen from us, almost verbatum.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that trivia is exclusively user-submitted.  Thus, not everything may be accurate or attributable or notable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LOTS OF TRIVIA

message: I think it's important to include the Emo-Spidey hype that's crossing the internet the past month. Critics, fans, ytmnd-ers, bloggers, vloggers, fora, and especially webcomics are constantly making jokes about Emo Spidey. For the ones who don't know what it means: it the Jared Leto/Goth look that Toby Maguire wears half the film. Many people don't consider it to be 'darker', but 'lamer'. Especially the moment Toby trows his hair back is considered really terrible. 
Most of the jokes on the internet are about Spidey have 'issues', 'missing his Linkin Park-cd's' or 'blogging his fleelings about MJ'. 
It's actually quite a hype. It completly defeated the 300 jokes that were very popular in the past months. I think it should be included in the article. The article is mainly about professional critics, so it's good to read a thing or two about the cultural reaction too.
:Got a reliable source mate? As it is, the term emo or goth or whatever we call grungers these days is very blurry. Alientraveller 15:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cultural reaction is only notable if someone other than the culture actually mentions it. In other words, if USA Today has an article about it, then it's more notable than say if you read on a forum that someone didn't like it. Most of the "jokes" are trivial, and not verifiable beyond a couple people.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo Spidey