Talk:Spider-Man 3

Archives
May 2005 to August 2006 September 2006 to October 2006 November 2006 to December 2006 January 2007 to March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 - October 2008

Please read: Message to new editors

As with any other article on Wikipedia, Spider-Man 3 should have a high standard of attribution. When you include new information about the film, the information needs to be verifiable by other editors. To do this, include where you got the information from by citing accordingly. (My recommendation is to use the Cite news or the Cite web template for citing your source.) Also, the citation must be an attributable source. Ideally, the best information comes from those who are from the studio and not anonymous — the director, the producers, the screenwriters, the cast, and so forth. Sources of information that do not count as reliable sources include blogs, scooper reports, forums, etc. If you are unsure about whether or not to include certain information, just ask about it on the talk page, and we will help you determine if it's worthy of inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review)

Lead section

Why is there a plot summary in the lead section? --Codrdan (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, typically there is a brief plot summary in the lead, similar to how the back of DVDs have a small plot summary. It gives you an idea of what the movie is about without getting into too much detail. I don't know if it's a WP:FILM standard to give a small plot summary in the lead of a film article. I suggest, if it concerns you, looking into it and, if it is and you have an issue with it, bringing it up over there. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Spider-Man 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

1. The images need alternate text per WP:ALT. I already did the movie poster (feel free to reword, it was my first attempt).
2. The citation tag in the cast section needs to be addressed. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything, but if the main contributors are more aware on the incident, maybe a source can be found.
3. "The FX channel signed a five-year deal for the television rights to Spider-Man 3, which they plan to start airing at the beginning of 2009. The price will be based on the film's box office performance, with an option for three opportunities for Sony to sell the rights to one or more other broadcast networks." Can this be updated?
4. There are multiple dead links/redirects that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.

This article covers the topic well. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did alts, removed the uncited phrase, replaced refs, couldn't find anything else on FX. See if it's enough. igordebraga ≠ 18:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

quick question

I was just wondering, why is this page locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.62.193 (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter's landlord and his daughter in cast and chracters

as they both reprise their roles from spider man 2 i think they should be added as minor characters, i know the girl is Mageina Tovah and she plays Ursula Ditkovich, but i dont know who plays her father, anyway they were both in spiderman 2 also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.7.177 (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion on sequel/reboot section

I've been asked to look at the section on the aborted sequel and the reboot film.

After reviewing what has been going on for the past 2 days the following is fairly clear:

• IP 99.192.69.124 and -5- have been edit warring over the section up to the point that both broached WP:3RR.
• Neither IP 99.192.69.124 nor Rio de Janiero God have provided a reason by way of edit summary or on the talk page as to why the section was added.
• Up to this point no one has suggested or taken the initiative to discuss the matter here on the talk page. Since the section is apparently contentious, that should have happened by now. WP:BRD outlines the generally accepted etiquette here: If a bold edit has been reverted it should be discussed instead of edit warred over. General practice is for one of the following to happen:
  • The reverting editor to make the suggestion for a talk page discussion on the first reversion if it affects a fair section of the article;
  • The reverted editor, if they are familiar with the process, to take the initiative to go to the talk page if the first reversion didn't mention it instead of re-doing their edit; or
  • The reverting editor to definitely suggest it, if not taking the initiative themselves, on the 2nd revert.
• The information in the section - [1] - is unsourced statements. Even if it were retained in the article it would either need sourcing or it would eventually be removed as either speculation or original research.
• Similar sections do not exist in the articles on the previous installments of the film series - Spider-Man (film) and Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man (film series), which covers the franchise, does have a section on both the cancelled 4 and the reboot.

Additionally there are points of fall out on the user talk pages that should be addressed:

• User talk:99.192.69.124#Response - The user talk page is not the place for this discussion. -5- should have posted their reason for the removal here, not directly to the IP. It looks like it was result of the IP posting to -5- directly - User talk:-5-#Spiderman 3 - but even then the discussion should have been directed back to this talk page.
• User talk:Rio de Janiero God#September 2010 - While this is a reasonable template to use since the information isn't sourced, it is at odds with -5-'s reasoning presented to the IP. Again, this is why that discussion needs to be on this talk page. The reasoning can be pointed to as attached to the article instead of presenting an inconsistent, if not capricious, reason for removal.
• User talk:-5- - There are a couple of things here:
  • Rio de Janiero God's initial post - [2] is a bit border line. There are 2 edit summaries from -5- pointing out that the section isn't appropriate to this article. That normally would indicate good faith editing on their part which precludes calling it vandalism. But the edit summaries stop and there is no discussion on the talk page related to the section. It is possible for later edits to be seen as potential vandalism. It is odd though for a new editor though to effectively quote a warning template to try and shut another editor down.
  • The "Only warning" section - [3] and [4] posted by Rio de Janiero God. Both of those are abuses of Wikipedia warning templates and appear to only have been made to intimidate -5-. It doesn't matter if the editor originally posting them removed them - [5] - or the editor they targeted did - [6] - their use in this way is inexcusable.

The long and the short of it is that if there is a real desire to include the section, discus it here first. But take in that it is at odds with the other film articles and that it is covered, and in a better way, on the film series article.

- J Greb (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was also asked to weigh in on this because I have worked ont he page in the past. J Greb has the right of the information in question; the reboot belongs on the film series article and is already well sourced there. We've long had a WP:CRYSTAL problem with this article (even before the announcement of the reboot) and this particular round of edits feels like an escalation of that issue. Millahnna (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My reason for reverting the edit is because normally, when a sequel is announced to a film, they start talking about it on the previous film. Since the film was cancelled, i felt the topic should be talked about what would have happened if the film was made. Now i have no problem with editors removing information, but -5- had no warranted reason to remove useful information. Rio de Janiero God —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

If this had been a standalone film instead of part of a franchise, then having a section on a sequel might make sense. But such a section would need to have reliable and verifiable sources for the information. Lacking that, it would eventually get pulled out as either unsourced or original research.

However, since this is part of a franchise, and there is an article on the franchise, the need for a section on the sequel is much, much less. Since the franchise article covers the aborted sequel and the reboot in more detail and incorporate reliable references, the need for the info to be here drops to nil.

There is also a big concern about edit warring on the article instead of discussing the inclusion. Bluntly: if the inclusion is contested, the material is discussed on the talk page to see if there is a consensus to include it. You do not get to keep adding it in while it is being discussed. If the consensus is to have the material here, fine, it can be added back with sources. If the consensus is that having the info at the franchise article only, also fine. Clear enough?

- J Greb (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Epic Fail

the picture of the movie is flipped. it should be regular spidey looking at black suited spidey in the window — Preceding unsigned comment added by D joker27 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So the DVD got it wrong too then? Sean 21:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs)

To archive

• http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/spiderman3/titleSite.swf
• http://www.sonypictures.jp/movies/spiderman/images/flash/header_player.swf
• http://classic-web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.spiderman3-lefilm.com/push.swf was not successfully archived, so the French site is lost

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Plot length

The plot summary is currently 786 words. Granted this is over WP:FILMPLOT's guideline of 400-700 words, but that is a guideline, not a requirement, and there are many film articles with summaries more deserving of attention than this one IMO. I already made a pass at this summary and I'm not sure how else it can be shortened right now. Frankly, 786 doesn't seem too bad to me, especially given that it was much longer before my pass. If anyone would like to trim it further, please go ahead, but I don't think it's productive at this point to tag the summary without also making an attempt to reduce the summary, or at least suggest how it can be shortened. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; I hadn't seen this post. We need to have the tag there to alert editors to the fact it needs to be done; otherwise, it's too easy to let it slip through the cracks. As to the distinction between guideline and requirement, we're supposed to adhere to guidelines unless there's some specific reason not to, such as a convoluted non-linear film or Berlin Alexanderplatz. The very large range of 400 to 700 words is designed so that we have the very flexibility we need. Most plots need much less than 700 words; 700 words is a limit we're asked to respect. And Spider-Man 3 really isn't so complex that we can't tell the plot in fewer than 700 words.

Also, it doesn't matter if other film articles violate guidelines; that doesn't mean it's OK to do it, just that they haven't been attended to yet. Also, we want to voluntarily adhere to guidelines since it prevents arguments — because everyone who's a fan of one movie or another would like to have the longest plot synopsis possible. Finally, as a general courtesy, we don't summarily remove other editors' tags that adhere to guidelines. As a community, we want to foster respect for guidelines, which have arisen after, in many cases, years of trial-and-error consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of all this, but my point is that if you're going to tag it, then at this point, I have to ask...do you have any ideas as to how the plot can be further reduced? I took a stab at it, and I'm not sure what else can be done. As it is a guideline and not a policy that we're talking about, I feel that as we're only talking about 85 words now, it's not unreasonable to ask that anyone advocating the tag also be willing to contribute to helping foster conditions under which it can be removed.

In other words, and I'll admit I'm probably not being entirely objective - this seems like a case where being slightly longer than guidelines recommend seems reasonable to me. If you're going to advocate that it isn't, I feel you should also be able to come up with ideas for what can be trimmed down at this point.

I apologize if I haven't worded this as diplomatically as I ought; I hope I at least got the gist of my meaning across alright. I'm certainly not meaning to antagonize anyone, and would very much like to hear from other editors as well. Doniago (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem; I write and edit for a living, so I'll give it a shot. It's just that we're all volunteers and it's not always easy to find time to do it all oneself — that's why we put calls out, via tags, to our fellow editors. But as I said, no biggie. I've got some time now. And may I say thank you for your graciousness and calmness in this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. It's just a Plot tag, certainly not worth getting bent out of shape about. Anyway, I see you trimmed it down further; looking good! Thanks for working with me on this! Doniago (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Always my pleasure to work with congenial, collegial fellow editors! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Cast section concern

I haven't had time to read all the article but I do have some concern regarding the cast section. The cast section used to have more information then it does now that was encyclopedic. Did they get moved on somewhere else on the article? Also that image of Harry Osborn doesn't seem to meet the requirements of fair use images. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a revision example. I haven't checked all of the revisions but where did these useful commentary go? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see what you meant at first, but you seem to have been talking about the longer paragraphs citing how Church, Grace and Howard got their roles and background on their work. Yeah, you're right — that sort of brief backgrounding is typical of at least WPC movie articles, such as Iron Man 2. Some of the stuff in the older version you link to really needs polishing and a little rewriting, though — some of it's a bit puffy and fan-magaziney, and that might have been the reason someone trimmed them way back. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Trilogy vs. Franchise

"A reboot of the trilogy was released five years later."

Should be changed to:

"A reboot of the franchise was released five years later."

Anyone looking up the definitions will agree. The specific trilogy was not re-created, nor is it being recreated. The FRANCHISE has been rebooted, bearing too many differences to be specifically re-doing the original trilogy.