Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 1

message: Stop removing Venom from the cast lit...Sony have now released a pic of Eddie Brock bonding with the symbiote...its obvious he is in this film now so stop removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.80.172 (talk • contribs) on July 23, 2006 at 02:22 A.M.
:Picture can be found here, if anybody wants to upload it. --Nehrams2020 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Okay. Don't worry, guys. I'm on it Dayum. Topher is Venom! ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirmation

message: More than one villain? Why? The first two just have one in each of them! Why more than one? Besides, how are they going to fit the origins of all these villains into one film? It will have to be super-long just to fit three! Spider-Man films usually aren't that long! Scorpionman 02:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lizard would be a good choice, and so would The Vulture, Kraven, Scorpion, Mysterio, or even the whole Sinister Six. Sandman would be visually interesting (the sand effects, shape-shifting, etc.), but he may not have enough of a story behind him. Venom and Carnage should definitely not appear till a later film. Alexander 007 21:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Thomas Hayden Church has been confirmed into the role of the Sandman, so that removes any possibility of him playing Lizard or Venom (Dylan Baker has been confirmed to be in this new film, so he will be doing the Lizard if that villain is in here). Scorpionman 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lizard 

message: Would Spider-Man 3 be much darker like Batman Begins than the 2 previous Spider-Man movies? --Ed Telerionus 19:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darker 

message: an anonymous user has made changes to the article today "nearly confirming" that Chameleon will be on the third movie .. i have nothing against that but i still can't find anything on the web that "nearly confirms" it..
does anyone know anything about confirming anything yet? I'll change the "nearly confirm" to a "big possibility" till some prove shows up. --Amr Hassan 13:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the "confirmation" that has been made on the article 

message: About saying that Thomas Haden Church will play Sandman, and Topher Grace will play Venom... Now, this is just a speculation and I have no external source to say that, but I believe it would be much more likely the other way around. To me it looks much more natural picturing Thomas as Venom and Topher as Sandman. Even because Sandman could "get out of the crime" if there is no Wizard in the plot, and Topher always plays the good guy.
And, as people are saying, I don't believe there would be two villains unless it's the whole Sinister Six. And it's more thinkable that Venom would be saved to a later movie, IF there is a later movie being arranged. So, if this is the last movie, Venom will probably be there. If he isn't, that's probably because it is not the last movie of this saga.
Also why both actors have to necessarily play a villain? Maybe one of them are going to do something else, who knows? I just can't imagine something else...
I'm sorry, this doesn't look like a relevant discussion. I can see that now I just typed it in... But I just want to make sure it really isn't and if it's ok to leave it in here, I'd like to talk about it with anyone willing to. :P
--Cawas 19:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Actors 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Gwen Stacy's name appear on a tombstone during the closing scenes of Spider-Man? If so, it certainly warrants a mention in Wikipedia. --AWF
:i just watched the last chapter on spiderman on DVD, and i saw no headstone of Gwen Stacy... (Cablebfg 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, his first date was with Betty Brant. His first serious girlfriend was Gwen Stacy. He and Betty never became serious. It says "his first serious girlfriend". Bignole 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gwen Stacy

message: http://spiderman.sonypictures.com/ Kalas Grengar 04:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming stuff just causes problems. This is a teaser and not actually from the film. Also, there is more than just one photographer at the Bugle. The couldn't survive with just one or even two. Bignole 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is something you might find... Interesting.

message: Everyone is going on about Spidy's new dark suit, based on the poster that has appeared showing him sitting on a ledge in the rain. The suit looks black, sure. But anyone with some common sense can see the mood of the poster is supposed to be dark. Spidey is hanging his head, it's raining, probably middle of the night. Thus the suit isn't black, the entire poster is meant to convey darkness, loneliness, despair, etc. I'm willing to bet the color of his suit is still blue/red. From all I have heard, the tone of this new movie will be one of tough choices, between women, friends who turn evil, and so on. Spidey will have some difficult decisions ahead, this could be why he is sitting lonely on the ledge. Just a thought.Reynoldsrapture 15:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the official site claims that the poster is not black and white and that the suite is indeed black. They have not said anything about this being the symbiote (thought that would be the obvious conclusion), but, they did concur on the speculation that it is a black suite and not just a black poster. I agree that the mood is supposed to convey bleakness, but, do you think it would have looked better if it was the middle of the day in the background? Remember, when he wore the suite (after his ego trip) he was really depressed about the way he was acting. The poster could symbolize his distress over his actions while he was wearing this "black" suite. Bignole 16:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't read that the site confirmed the suit is black, but I'll take your word for it. One thing I'm confused on: Did Spider-man himself wear a symbiote suit for a time in the comics (if so, the poster makes more sense, because the pic is obviously not Venom), or is the symbiote suit worn exclusively by Venom and Carnage. Maybe you can clarify this for me. I'm not exactly a Spidey expert. Reynoldsrapture 20:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two things: yes he did, although he didn't realise what it was, then he got rid of it when he realised, the symbiote escaped, and then bonded onto Eddie Brock.  Venom and Carnage more or less ARE the suits, but only when bonded to someone (thus there have been multiple people wear the venom symbiote), Carnage is the 'son' of Venom.  Secondly, and more relevantly to this, I read an interview in Starburst magazine where Stan Lee said Venom was in the film, unfortunatly, the whole article is not on the net, however http://www.visimag.com/starburst/ has the beginning of it, although is not really much use. Alexjholt 09:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Eddie Brock could very well be in the movie, and to Stan Lee, Eddie Brock will always be Venom. He could have been saying Venom, but, it could only mean Eddie. Either way, we can't put a role for Topher till Sony confirms it. Bignole 12:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not? Filming has been underway for months. Bignole 00:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Why not? Face the music guys, Sony would make no gains from deceiving their audience. They wouldn't have released the image if they weren't prepared to do so, meaning it's not a 'tentative' black suit that's just acting as a placeholder to confirm the symbiote suit--it's the final version. If you're disappointed with the suit, you have "a year or more" to come to terms with it. Jason 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darker Suit? 

message: In the article, it says that John Jameson already has the jewel. I just watched the second film, and didn't see it anywhere in the movie. Does anyone have a screenshot to confirm this? Was this in some sort of deleted scene or something? Colin Barrett 06:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he was wearing a necklace in the scene where he and MJ are opening up their RSVPs for the weddding, and she tries to kiss him upside down. I don't know if that is the jewel from the comic. Bignole 11:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just watched Spider-Man 2 for the fourth or fifth time, making sure to pay special attention to the scenes with John Jameson, and in none of them was he wearing and sort of necklace or medallion. However, there is something odd looking on the right side of his neck, and if I recall the jewel which turned Jameson into Man-Wolf attached itself to his neck, right? So it seems it was at least there. Willpower 08:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Jameson 

message: What do u guys think of the Spider-Man 3 Teaser Site!  I think it's perdy kewl!-Jedizati 19:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Teaser Site!

message: i think the 'rumoured plot' should be removed. it's not rumours, it's more of a fan fic.
::I agree, I just placed the "(rumored)" part on it so that people wouldn't get confused and think that it is true. It has been circulating the web for about a month now. Bignole 22:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any other evidence against this plot summary aside from a lack of confirmation from Sony and its unusual length? Jason 08:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of, it isn't listed anywhere else that is a valid source (i.e. Superherohype.com or Movies.com)Bignole 11:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The version posted in the article seems to be grammatically touched up a bit. Nothing major. I just noticed a while back that a line on IMDb read as "What's Parker's secrets?", which should be either "What are Parker's secrets?" or as it's typed out on the wiki "What's Parker's secret?" Anyway, I'm probably diving a bit too deep into this, but if the original read as IMDb does, it could be further evidence against it being legit. Unless Sony's writers don't believe in proof-reading. I have to admit though, the summary does sound an approach Raimi would take. Jason 06:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Except that Sony has never released such a plot. Why is it that the plot has not shown up at any other official website? Bignole 11:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rumoured plot

message: A second unit has begun work in Cleveland for some stunt shots today.  Not sure if that's worth mentioning.  I didn't see anything much interesting happening yet.
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1145608981106950.xml&coll=2
Pimlottc 20:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleveland filming

message: From now on, to avoid edit wars about redirects, click the link and see where it takes you. If you click Cleveland and it takes you to the Indians then you know it is wrong and then you can supply the correct link name. If you click New York City and it takes you to New York City then it's fine, and you don't have to correct it to say New York, NY; because there are already redirects automatically placed to take you to the correct page. If the link goes to where it is supposed to go then changing to be more specific doesn't change it's link, thus making it a POV edit. This works both ways, so, please stop with the edit wars about redirected links. Check to see if they work correctly, if they do then leave them be. Thank you. Bignole 19:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't trying to treat anyone like a child, sorry if I did that. I am just annoyed at the constent changes that are unnecessary. I'm not casting blame on anyone, just pointing out that if it works the way it is then there is no need to correct it. Only if the link is sending you to the wrong page, like when you are trying to look up an actor, and someone else has the same name but isn't an actor. Bignole 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I agree, but it'd be nice if you notice who's right and who's wrong (and maybe mention that in the talk page comment, too. It's not bias if it's accurate). :) Ace Class Shadow 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Technically both are right, because both links go to the right page. Also, both are POV titles, one is just more specific that the other. I prefer not to take a side and say who is more right than the other, because that just fuels fire that doesn't need to be spread. All I wish is that everyone work together to make this the best page possible, and not have fight over details such as which link title is better suited for this page. Bignole 20:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ace, I think you need to assume good faith in other's edits.  There was nothing wrong in changing the link from Cleveland to point to Cleveland, Ohio.  Also, your edit summary of "Changing the link this way is not only POV but selecive misinformation (lying). Changing it back. Learn to admit when you're wrong, you'll be better for it." tells me that you might need to review what is POV and what is not and to know that piped links are not misinforming the reader, but pointing a link to where it needs to go while not cluttering up an article with the link's full name.  I think you need to learn to admit when there's nothing wrong with other's edits.  No one in this has made a wrong edit and the article has been needlessly reverted multiple times. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I just noticed on some talk pages that you sign your name as The Anti-Gnome.  Based on your description of what's POV and lying, do you not consider that deceiving others?  I personally don't because I think piped links are fine as long as they're reasonable, like the Cleveland link, but it seems kind of odd that you'd have a problem with it when you use piped links in your own signature. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I didn't start this discussion to cast blame, or to create personal attacks. The point was that no matter what your reasons, blatantly going back and forth editing a piped link is still considered an edit war. I don't care who is to blame, or who is at more fault than the other. In a 48 hour period there were 9 edits to either the New York link or the Cleveland link, and to me that's one in the same, because they both center around the same thing which is linking to the appropriate city. Both links worked exactly the same, and delivered the person to the correct page. Bignole 13:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I know this is a couple of days late, but things need to be clarified. Fixing a link so it goes directly to the page instead of bouncing off of a redirect is perfectly acceptable and in no way pushing a POV, lying, or anything of the sort. It's just a trivial edit to make things flow slightly smoother. There's certainly no reason to edit war over such a trivial matter. Saying you're in the right to revert such an edit, however, is certainly a flawed statement. You're only compunding the situation by wasting more space (however little) on Wikipedia's servers instead of just leaving it be. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not misinformation. What about all the links to movies with (200X film) in the name? By your logic, piping those links is lying to the reader. Same goes for your signature. You're lying to people by piping the link to omit the "User:" and changing how it reads. You are basically arguing against link piping here, so you must see why you're wrong. As for your last comment, don't be so melodramatic. It won't kill you to pipe a link instead of using a redirect. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I started this was to end trivial edits that didn't need to be changed. If someone links "Cleveland" and then later someone changes it to "Cleveland, Ohio"; GUESS WHAT!? they both go to the same damn page. The only difference is the at the top it doesn't tell you that you were redirected. I could see if you put in Cleveland and it sent you to somewhere else, but if the link works correctly then changing it is a needless edit that is only going to piss someone off and cause them to change it back, so forth and so on. If the link works then leave it be, that was why I started this page. As long as you are taken directly too the right page, whether it be because the link contains the exact page name, or because it was AUTOMATICALLY redirected there then it doesn't matter. Now, let's stop bickering about who is right and who is wrong. Everyone that had a hand in the link changing was right and everyone that had a hand in the link changing was wrong. They were right because both links went to the same page, they were wrong because they were fighting over who's link was the best; if you didn't pick up on that that is what makes it POV. The same thing applies to the New York link. New York City; New York, NY; and New York, New York are all the same damn thing. There is only one. Bignole 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New York is the new Highlander?! ACS (Wikipedian) 20:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that changing a redirect isn't really necessary, but changing it back is even worse. Someone fixing a link is technically in the right, since it's a small matter of good bookkeeping to do so. That whole edit war in favor of a redirect is just ridiculous. As for the POV thing, there's absolutely nothing POV about fixing a link. ACS was the only one fighting the link. The other two each only chaged it once and cited decent reasons in their edit summaries. ACS misused the definition of POV as a reason. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: IMDB's Full Cast & Crew list shows Rosemary Harris as May Parker/Carnage.  WTF?  Dr Archeville 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been why I have said that using IMDb as a valid source is not enough. I mean, that is probably just some idiots vandalism, but, they do tend to put more speculation on their website than most. Bignole 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And now ths listing's gone.  As it should be.  Dr Archeville 12:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aunt May as Carnage? 

message: I know a lot of changes have been made lately, because anonymous users believe them to be true. Most are merely speculation. SHH.com posted an email they recieved from someone that claims to have talked to Raimi and that he devulged info to them that he and the executives still haven't released to anyone else. They claim that the teaser will be with Superman Returns, that Venom will be in the movie, that Topher will be in a suit, and that the teaser will be like a minute and some change. Sorry, but I honestly don't know what SHH.com would even post such garbage. I'm sure Raimi is a great guy and would talk to fans, but I highly doubt he would slip up and release information that he wasn't supposed to, with exects standing right there (according to the email). 
Also, these set pics, I have seen the set pics. They are rather awesome, but nothing in there has confirmed anything more than Tobey wearing the black suite (so yes, that is confirmed, it wasn't just a play of the image, it is a real suite and you can see for yourself), and that Topher is a photographer. You have to assume the photographer is Eddie, but with the changes from the comic it doesn't mean that he is "Eddie" in a literal sense. (I personally believe he is Eddie, but my opinions matter not when it comes to the accuracy of this page). Also, the chair pieces that contain the logo...sorry, but they are simply the spider that is on the back of the original suite. Granted it may look a bit different, but rememeber they have changed the suite before, but it is still of virtually the same design, and not the same as what Venom has on his chest and back. This major assumption comes from the fact that it is white and sits on a black background. From there we should take into affect the fact that Avi Arad has specifically stated that the suite is a representation of Peter's mood, and since they are playing on the suite heavily in the poster, the color scheme is nothing more than that. Also, in the original movies they didn't have the blue/red color scheme on all crew equipment. Anyway, we all need to work together to keep this article accurate to date. If you find an actual verification that any of these rumors, or any others are true (made by people that count, not fans who claim to have talk to someone, but actual interviews that are circulating around to other news organizations) then please change the page accordingly. But, until that does happen, let's work together to revert edits made by people who do not take the time to assess the speculatory nature of their claims. Thanks. Bignole 12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember seeing a post on the SHH boards about how the top legs of the spider on Pete's chest, in the image of him opening his shirt, actually bend inward like seen in some illustrations of Venom--or the symbiote suit, I can't remember which. My best judgement tells me that they weren't being delusional. So the logo could have been changed a bit for the purposes of the symbiote storyline. Jason 16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me a link where Raimi, Topher or Avi Arad have said that Topher is playing either Venom or Eddie Brock. I have seen the pictures of Topher, and the problem resides in the fact that no one has actually stated his particular character's name, except for Church and Dunst and I'm sorry neither are comic savvy and merely go with what the public tells them. Point being, go look at X3, there are several characters who's name was changed in the film from their comic counterparts, or their powers where changed. So, as I state, unless the 3 important people actually say so then it is nothing but speculation. Avi has said the Venom, Sandman and GG and a 4th villain will be in the film (unless that was some elaborate prank), but I don't recall anywhere in there where he stated who was playing what. Bignole 22:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Go to those particular pages on Wikipedia. The symbole wraps around his upper body. It isn't just a chest symbol when he or Venom wears the symbiote, it's an upper body symbol because it really doesn't end. That wasn't what was on his chest in the picture, and not what was on the seats. Bignole 16:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmations in general 

message: http://www.doubleagent.com/video.php?v=985&ct=70
Contains "footage" of Hobgoblin and Venom.  Most of the shots look faked (using footage from the other films and editing some digital stuff in), but the one shot of Venom looks promising.  GreatGatsby 06:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trailer?  (Footage) 

message: I saw what surely lookked like a trailer for S3 on Youtube.com by searching Spiderman 3 trailer. It had all the real actors and showed spidey in the black costumeas well as the Hobgoblin in a yellowish variant of the original Green Goblin version. Someone (more experienced than me) should check it out or maybe include a link to it or something. Robocoppitiesthefool 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was fan made, it said so on the title. It wasn't too bad. Bignole 01:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trailer 

message: They still need to be refitted better with the text.
::Yeah, and make sure all their info is correct, cause we don't want to lose them. Bignole 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Since editors of this article haven't read WP:CITE, let me give you a quick lesson on what to do.
* First of all, start a reference directly after a fullstop/period, do not leave a space
 .
* Not
 .
* When you write a link you do this -
 .<ref> Link summary/title/header Example.com. URL Accessed Julember 22, 2089
* No adding the link to the title, no adding extra spaces, got that?
* Oh and, will people stop linking SuperHerohype.com? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 07:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SuperHeroHype is a reliable source, therefore there is no reason not to cite it. --Madchester 07:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying don't cite it, just don't link to it every time you mention it. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 11:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Somehow, I think the posssobility of Carnage appering in this movie  is very high,or at least the origin.Does anyone else agree?--24.58.254.58 21:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt Carnage will be in the movie, but I think the origin is possible.
I must disagree. Carnage didn't appear until late in the game, even in the Ultimate line of comic books, he was pushed all the way back to the 60s, and well after all the "classic" Spider-Man villains who showed up from 10-20s. Besides, the Carnage of the comics needs Venom in play for at least one movie before another symbiote creature (or monster) can appear, and the mainstream Carnage is a serial killer, decidedly not a family-friendly villain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.192.71 (talk • contribs) 02:31, August 2, 2006 
Remember: Wikipedia is not a forum. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Carnage

message: I am marking that this article has spoilers. I saw no warning at the top, so I read on. This article just ruined part of the movie for me. I am not happy about this.RoryS89 04:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...Dude, this is straight from the trailers. Kinda...common knowledge. I admit, warnings might be in order, but unless you dig your head into the sand—(man) aka Flint Marko (real name: Willaim Baker) played by Thomas Haden Church—you're bound to find this stuff out eventually. In a theatre near you, most likely. ACS (Wikipedian) 06:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what the "Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow." warning is supposed to mean then? No plot details? Spoiler-free? No ending details? Stop me when I get condescending enough. You warning was poorly placed and an eyesore. Use  (on the page already) next time. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy, dude. It's not like he vandalized the thing. Besides, never fear. The Ace-Man is here. I took care of it, at the cost of your version/edit(s). >.> ACS (Wikipedian) 07:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the fact that some of you are being flat-out jerks, I didn't see a warning at the top, where I've found it in many movie articles. So, I just scrolled down through the page. And what I saw was NOT common knowledge from the trailer. Saying what main character dies is NOT something you'll find in the trailer.RoryS89 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll want to check out this discussion since you have such strong feelings about the issue Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. CovenantD 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's alright, I don't need to read an article on it.RoryS89 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an article, it's a proposal to do away with spoiler tags altogether, all across Wikipedia. CovenantD 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. Thanks, Cap'n. >.> Back on topic, Ror, could you cite the version which both stated a character would die—likely speculation, BTW—and lack of warning before such information was stated? Oh and BTW, I personally admit these warnings are small. You could have easily missed it. However, I double checked the version before your edit. No sign of any "death". (At least, not before the warning, placed right under "Possible villains, characters, and storylines". Also, forgive the jerkiness. We all enjoy a good Slim Jim. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that link don't go nowhere. Also, I support the use of Spoiler tags, and I support that Rory added one here. There's no need to dogpile him for whining a little that we missed one here. He fixed it, which is demonstrative of the good intentions wiki idea, and he started a talk to discuss it. Not the big deal it seems some see in it. leave it there, and enjoy the page.ThuranX 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: He was likely referring to the relevance to the link, though that's probably just wishful thinking on my part. I should point out that this section is the evidence equivalent of steak for the spoiler debate. Now, as to what Rory complains about, I believe, if anything, the user refers to this. In the version the user read, it may well not have been marked properly (I guess "a big Spider-Man 3 plot twist" isn't quite enough), thus the user's complaint about spoilers. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Is is just me or does it seem like they had multiple takes? Bah. Bah to the multiple takes. Anyway, is that it? I get it. He falls. "He's dead, Sandman. Uncle Sam is dead!" Still, didn't we all already know this? Ah well. Thanks for filling me in, Someguy. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am guessing. Could very well be something else. It's equally likely that he refers to Spider-Man 3#James Franco. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to your link to the discussion about the use of the spoiler tag, ACS. It wasn't working earlier. I think it's getting bounced around druing their long debate on things. And no, I didn't run through the whole history list on this, like I usually do. I looked at the state of the page, adn it seemed fine, so clearly the problem was 'fixed'. However, again I reiterate. you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill. The page probably should've had the spoiler warning a while back. He's wrong to whine about it, but the dogpiling is unneccessary as well. Just fix it to the template and move on. This is ridiculous.ThuranX 05:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I refer to this (Obvious possible spoilers follow): "Rumors have surfaced of Harry becoming a "good Goblin" shortly before dying at the end of the film. It has also been confirmed by Franco that this will be the last Spider-Man movie his character will be in." Now, maybe I read it wrong, and the "dying" part is part of these "rumors". If so, I'm sorry to jump on everyone. But I still say that any possible spoilers, rumor or not, should be marked better.RoryS89 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I thought, the same spoiler warning I somwhat joking added here was visible there. I'll show you a screen cap.  Anyway, the spoiler warning was visible. As I stated earlier, they're small. One can miss them, but they were they. As for Cov's suggestion, I think he meant that if you feel spoiler warnings are necessary, (and perhaps that the template should be changed,) it might be in your best interest to join that discussion. If the "spoiler warners" side loses, there will be no official warnings on Wikipedia altogether. And I'm afraid unsightly warnings like the one you made will never be allowed. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPOILERS 

message: Stop removing Venom from the cast lit...Sony have now released a pic of Eddie Brock bonding with the symbiote...its obvious he is in this film now so stop removing it.
:Picture can be found here, if anybody wants to upload it. --Nehrams2020 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what I find funny is all you users who don't know the difference between encyclopedic guidelines and opinions. The vast majority of us knew Venom would probably be in the film, but what we believe is not considered valid. Only actual sound sources can be used to verify information, not deductive logic. So please, keep your insults to yourself. Bignole 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, from what I remember, the second the teaser came out and we saw Topher in the bell tower we adjusted his credit to Eddie. No where in that trailer did you see Venom. Now, there is an extended trailer shown at the Comic-Con, but no one other than them have seen it, but apparently you get to see him in that. Recently Sony released images of Topher and the symbiote, and Raimi finally acknowledging Venom in the movie. Coincedently, we have adjusted Topher's credit to include Venom. So, I really don't see where we were denying anything. We were simply going by the guidelines which say that you don't state something is fact unless it is backed up, and it hadn't been till recently. Bignole 05:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've read your bio, Lordofchaosiori. You're a teenager, wet behind the ears, who's main interest is playing Nintendo. And if you'd read closely my last post, I said common sense is a good thing. I'm not going to get into a pissing match with a teenager, nor should anyone else. Nuff said. Reynoldsrapture 03:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Glad someone noticed. This need not go any further. We have our confirmation, so we're happy. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of us KNEW a long time ago that Venom would be in it. It was never speculation to me, I always could tell he'd be in it.RoryS89 05:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for backing me up RoryS89 :) Lordofchaosiori 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I've dealt with this situation at another website before. One guy actually refused to believe it until a few weeks ago when Avi Arad said Venom was in it. I had always suspected it, and I knew it the second I saw that first teaser poster. It makes me happy, because Venom is my all-time favorite comic book villain.RoryS89 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly!! Man this movie's gonna rock :) Lordofchaosiori 01:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Venom

message: "It has since been revealed that he is playing Eddie Brock. Photos of Topher carrying a camera during shooting scenes led many to believe this was the case long before the confirmation. Sam Raimi has previously stated he dislikes the Venom character and claimed that as long as he's directing Spider-Man movies, Venom will never be in one as a villain, but that's no longer the case, as the symbiotic foe has been confirmed."
I know I've seen this before now, but it is still unrefrenced. It should have one. JONJONAUG 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raimi even acknowledges this at the CC. When he is asked why he finally decided to show Venom. He states that after the second film the producers explained that even when he was making the first film people wanted to see Venom. At the end, he stated that since making this film he has come to like the character. Now, I don't have a link to the above statement, but his recent statement (in the audio interviews which can be found at SHH.com) suggests that that was the case. Bignole 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link that I found stating what Raimi said about Venom.  --Meph1986 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refrence Needed 

message: Someone please clean-up the pictures in the article. Pho3nix-
:Yeah, I agree. Let's decide what we should keep, because I assume you mean clean them up as in remove some? Bignole
Yes. Pho3nix-
::Well, obviously the infobox one should stay. I believe the first promo (Spidey on the church top) should stay, because it a little relevant to the outburst in fan speculation and joy as to whether it was just a black suit or the symbiote. I really don't see a point for the Gwen Stacy pic, we don't have one of Mary Jane, so why her? I don't think we need 2 THC pics. I think the new promo of TG changing into Venom is enough for his character, so the other could go. I think there should be no more than 1 picture per side character. Bignole 15:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't you just leave them? Why are you worried about the number of pictures there? I think it looks great. People can see more pictures this way. Why do people look to change everything they can in this article?RoryS89 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people keep trying to add one more picture, and one more picture, for things that they liked. This article isn't that big and we have more pictures than other articles twice our size. Bignole 21:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can ask people to stop posting pictures. But the current pictures don't necessarily be deleted. RoryS89 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But we don't need two over everything. Like the picture of Spider-Man hanging in front of the skyscraper window; what exactly does that provide for the article? It isn't in a section of importance. We already have a picture of him in the suit, and one of just the symbiote. Bignole 23:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah. I just think we can leave a good amount of them up.RoryS89 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hence the reason why Pho3nix came here, to address the issue. The pictures are starting to get out of hand and we need to figure out which ones are necessary for the article. Littering an article with pictures doesn't make it better, it just hides the flaws with flash. Obviously the infobox picture and the first promo picture have reason to be here, they were the first photo and official poster released. The Eddie Brock/symbiote promo has a reason. At least 1 Sandman picture deserves a spot, and Harry picture. I don't think we really need a picture of Harry and the pumpkin bomb, but it doesn't do anything for the article other than create more spoiler. I don't think we need the Gwen Stacy picture because we already know she is part of a love triangle with Peter. I think that once the article becomes large we could use some of these pictures (or different ones) but the size of it currently makes them do nothing but take up space. Bignole 00:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: repositioning is hard, cause not everyone uses IE. Some use Firefox, and some people have different resolution sizes. That's been a problem, cause people see different gaps in the page and try and correct them, which creates gaps for other users. I personally have a huge gap where the Tobey Maguire promo picture is, but people that use Firefox don't. Bignole 11:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics. 

message: Well, here it is ladies and gentlemen, still a little blurry but you can make out most of it. http://youtube.com/watch?v=jf6A97aDCLw&search=spider%20man%203%20trailer Pho3nix-
-- "This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Sony Pictures because its content was used without permission." --71.118.168.253 05:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found the Comic-Con 2006 Extended Spiderman3 trailer 

message: In the San Diego Comic-Con Trailer, we witness Spider-Man in his Black Symbiote Costume throw a Pumpkin Bomb from the Room(Exactly the same in the Trailer) at a figure(That looks EXACTLY like Harry, in the exact same scene) VERY similair to the Teaser Trailer. This is almost concrete confirmation, and should be taken without a doubt, even though the Teaser Trailer scene showed a more close-up figure of Harry recieving the Pumpkin Blow(He got practically Symbiowned!). The only possibility of this being wrong is if their is two Scenes, and one is a Preminition of Harrys.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The One of All (talk • contribs) at 21:15, August 5, 2006
O...k. Well, did you see a definite trailer or something, because I missed that scene. >.> ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...'kay. That's a new one. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm pretty sure everything with Harry is real in the movie. The only thing getting in his head is the symbiote.RoryS89 06:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Franco

message: * In the footage of Harry as a villian in the teasers and the way Sam Rami was talking about it at the Comic-Con makes me think that some of those scenes maybe in Spiderman/Peter's head as the suit is trying to take over.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.144.50 (talk • contribs) at 04:23, August 3, 2006
:Uh...'kay. That's a new one. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm pretty sure everything with Harry is real in the movie. The only thing getting in his head is the symbiote.RoryS89 06:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  theory 

message: I think that this article could be cleaned up in terms of excess "lead-up" information.  There's a lot of sources and speculation that have led up to what is now confirmed -- the symbiote, Topher Grace as Venom, etc.  The "Official announcements" section seems spammish -- is it really necessary to mention that Sony Mobile will let you download pictures of Venom on your cell, or what wallpapers are now available for download?  In addition, there seems to be speculative writing in the "Possible villains, characters, and storylines" section -- examples include:
*Theory about Dr. Connors helping Spider-Man with symbiote
*Cromwell's involvement in the movie due to Doc Ock being gone
*Harry supposedly being killed by a pumpkin bomb in the teaser
And so forth.  The lead-up history to Topher Grace as Venom, should be significantly shortened, but not necessarily purged.  I'd tackle this monster of a page, but I wanted to run a revamp possibility by other editors first.  Let me know what you think. --Erik 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing. It kinda looks like one of those "UPDATE!" sites that lists old info along with the new as it comes in. I'd be happy to look into it. I'll come back with my findings in a bit. I could probably summarize without moving the important stuff, but I'll hold off. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I looked. I'll fix what I can, but maybe you should handle it, because I honestly don't see much to correct. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is to say, certain things need to be cleaned up, but over all, things like the downloads refer more to what was confirmed and when. It's not an attempt at "free advertising on Wikipedia". Spec is well founded in general, though I'll remove stuff that looks too much like POV. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's okay. A little shallow and matter-of-fact, but okay. I, without speaking for the project, have no objections at the moment. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to clean-up the article a bit. I swapped "Official Anouncements" and "New Cast" because it didn't make sense to officially announce when they came aboard after the fact. I also removed several "official announcements" that were not announcements at all, or were more speculatory announcements that don't make sense any longer. I removed more "speculation" in the character bios, seeing as they have all been confirmed and thus speculation is irrelevant. It still needs a bit of rewording to sound more present tense in some places. Bignole 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up the article

message: 12.218.21.163 is posting information about Natalie Portman doing the role of Black Cat, and i can't find any record of that on the web.. can anybody confirm that or delete the post cuz i already deleted it once and he/she posted it again.. -- PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 23:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to find soemthing referencing this too, but couldn't. given that both of us are mystified, I reverted it out. ThuranX 23:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with all the Natalie Portman doing the Black Cat role mumbo jumbo!!! 

message: "Starting July 22, a picture of Venom has been downloadable on cell phones from Sony Mobile."
Two things: First, the link that confirms this goes to an unrelated article, one talking about the pictures already on the official site. Secondly, does anybody actually have the picture? And can it be uploaded to here? --71.118.168.253 02:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Venom picture is the one that is already on the page, it's the one of Topher and the symbiote. That was what was released. Bignole 02:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What the hell is that supposed to mean? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is wrong? I went to the link, it works. Bignole
to quote what the link says...
"First Pic of Venom in Spider-Man 3 Online! 
Source: Sony Pictures
July 22, 2006
Sony Pictures has updated the official website for Spider-Man 3 with the first photo of Eddie Brock changing into Venom! You can view the photo in wallpaper form at the official site by selecting 'Desktop' and then 'Wallpaper 2'. A third wallpaper of Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker with the black suit has been added as well.
Another poster, featuring Sandman, was also revealed during the Comic-Con presentation and can be viewed here!
Spider-Man 3, directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace and Bryce Dallas Howard, opens in theaters on May 4.
"''
That has nothing to do with the cel phone pics. --71.118.168.253 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then remove the link. The information is fine, the stuff on the page was just updated, or the wrong ling was provided. Bignole 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Venom Picture

message: Anyone remember the citeless "Eddie, Peter and Gwen" love triangle rumor? Well, it's been there for days, uconfirmed. I think I'll remove it. It seems too contradictory to the established love triangle between Peter, Gwen and MJ. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citeless 

message: Does anyone mind the gif images that I added? --71.118.168.253 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:00sym.gif  :Image:THCSandman.gif
Sandman's cool. Not sure about Peter sleeping, though. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The one of Peter seems to be more about the symbiote than him sleeping.RoryS89 05:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be, but moves slowly and doesn't really give you much to look at in the way of the symbiote. Heck, we have to separate images for the sym touching his hand. That image really doesn't serve as a good replacement. That's my point. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, the Sandman one still works quite well.RoryS89 06:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like it.. it keeps looping over and over and over and at some point it stops being cool and becomes really annoying.. even if it was played once, by the time i scroll down it would be done played.. and what if someone tried to print this article? it's not gonna move on paper! and it's gonna look really ugly with it's one low resolution frame.. i say the old images come back and those can be added as external links..--PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 16:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All gifs get old. It's a moving image in a loop. What do you expect? And print out an article? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Remember that. Now, I say we keep Sandman and add that picture of him with the kid. It's on Wikipedia. It's in his article. Might as well put it here. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to print the page, they press that button in the toolbox that says "printable version". You don't print the raw page. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, i know about the printable version. still, i don't think that an animated gif from the trailer really belongs here.. illustrations using jpeg images are okay, and if somebody wants to see "sandman in action" then they should check out the trailer.. i say that the animations should be replaced by the old jpegs.. adding the gifs as external links is probably ok but i'm still not very excited about it since it's already available within the high-quality trailer..--PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 00:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gif Images 

message: Has anyone noticed that the pic with Harry and the bomb next to his face has more bombs on a shelf behind him?  He is obviously in his dad's secret backroom.  He also has the same shirt on while riding the glider, but it seems torn up or blown up.  The mask he is wearing is probably to cover up his scarred face from that bomb exploding.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.148.166.5 (talk • contribs) at 19:48, August 15, 2006
It's a possibility, I guess, but just speculation at this point. I wouldn't recommend adding it to the article. Oh and remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Osborn Pics