Talk:Spider-Man in film

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to Talk:Spider-Man (film series)/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
Untitled Nov 2006 -

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2007). "The Spider-Man film franchise". May Contain Graphic Material: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Film. Praeger. ISBN 0275993868.

conflicting Cast info

On October 2, 2010, it was reported that the role of Mary Jane Watson had been offered to Emma Stone, while the role of Gwen Stacy had yet to be cast. On October 5, 2010, it was confirmed that the role of Gwen Stacy would go to Emma Stone.

This is a line in the second-last paragraph of the Spider-Man reboot (2012) section. It states that two different roles were given to the same actor to play the role of two different love interests in the film. I only came onto this page to read about a film, I know nothing about Spider-Man or its future films so if anybody knows where to get the correct info could they change this please? Dylan (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in that paragraph that is inaccurate. She was reportedly offered one role, then it was confirmed that she was cast in another. One sentence is based on a report, the other is based on a confirmation.-5- (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I read it wrong and didn't realise that the first statement was a report. Dylan (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Split?

Should info related to Spider-Man (2012 film) be included in this article since it is technically not a part of the same film series as the first three films? As of now this appears to be a case of scope creep. Or perhaps we could change the name of the article to the more suitable Spider-Man in film?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support a move to Spider-Man in film, though I would like to see it more modeled on Friday the 13th (franchise) (for films only) and not Batman in film. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Spider-Man in film was exactly what I was thinking. To be more in line with Batman in film and Punisher in film. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (by Breawycker (talk · contribs)) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Spider-Man (film series) → Spider-Man in film — To properly reflect the entire scope of the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support since "film series" is too limiting and implies in-universe consistency. Also broader than a "franchise" disambiguation so it can explore the background of the character in cinema without being restricted to a single studio. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly does your rationale mean - "To properly encompass the true scope of the article."? CTJF83 chat 17:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See the above discussion, Spider-Man (2012 film) is not a part of the same film series as the rest of the films.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per above reasons....helps if I read above, huh? CTJF83 chat 18:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I should have been more clear.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. As I explained above. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The reasons above are all good enough for me, especially since there's a new series of films coming up that have nothing to do with the first. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support as already explained.-5- (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support considering the scope of the article. However with reference to Erik's comments above, I personally think that the Batman in film route is a much better template to follow than the Friday the 13th (franchise) one, as it focuses more on the development of bringing the character to the screen, than on the plots of the movies. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is not very presentable when you have a paragraph for each title, even the projects that never got produced. A better approach would be to section it by director so that all of one director's films could be covered in a cohesive manner, rather than having to save the details of a director's second film for a later section. In essence, it could be more of an overview, instead of summary sections of films or non-films lined up together. We have critical analysis for pretty much each film that can go in each individual article, but there's also critical analysis of the Batman films in general or the Batman films under a certain director. This article would be the place for that kind of analysis, and an overview approach would allow that to be included with ease. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But to my mind the Batman in film article does split by director, moreso than the Friday the 13th (franchise) article. As for the paragraph/section breaks, they do follow a chronological timeline, and allow the reader to find the point in the development they wish to read about. The Friday 13th article does not allow this. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant to suggest that the article could be split by director and not split by title. If readers want to know about a specific film's development, then can't they visit that film's article? An "in film" article should strive to be more than just summary sections following a splitting pattern that already occurs with each film having its own article. The article probably focuses too much on production information when it could benefit from transitional information, how it goes from this film to that film. That's not something easily derived by reading each individual film article. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Venom

By now I think it's obvious the Venom film has been scrapped, if it existed in the first place. No new information has come out since 2007, and that's four years ago. It's not happening so take it off the page. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

New info just came out and it will tie into The Amazing Spider-Man series. Sean 11:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

infobox.

Due to this changing to a character in film article. Does this article need a infobox. Batman in film doesn't have one. And if a infobox is fine I still think we maybe need a different style on how to create them to be a little different than a film series article. More of what Spider-Man in other media has. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we need an infobox in the first place? An "in film" article will have items from serials to feature films to animated DTV films. It may be more worthwhile to figure out an in-body table that we can use for different categories of film. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I was questioning. Like I stated before, Batman in film does fine without one. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. It was never designed to present credits like that. While "Batman in film" may not have a table, maybe we could do a kind of "Overview" section in this article? We can have a leftmost column with the key characters, then the crew members that are listed in an average infobox. We can have four columns with values for the characters and crew members. For example, first column would have Spider-Man / Peter Parker, and we would have Tobey Maguire for three columns, then Andrew Garfield in the last one. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I am all for it. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On another note, also due to the name I think we should include information about The Amazing Spider-Man (film) on here as well. A small inclusion maybe but still a inclusion. What do you think? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

what's up?

How come it says that Flash Thomson is in the 3rd movie? last time I checked he wasn't D joker27 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

He had a cameo during Harry Osborn's funeral, and the actor was also credited in the end credits.-5- (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Flash was in the funeral scene at the very end of the film. It was pretty brief, though. JAR Head 23:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Venom

Brian Michael Bendis (The Avengers/Alias/Powers/Ultimate Spider-Man comic writer) was involved with the Venom film in the sense that he was approached to do a draft for it sometime after The Amazing Spider-Man reboot was announced. He turned it down. He gave some interesting news on it, though. He said that the film spin-off would indeed be in-continuity with the Spider-Man film series (Most likely, the Sam Raimi films). He says that he regrets passing up on the opportunity because he doesn't see himself being a possible consultant on The Amazing Spider-Man, now because of it. Link: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/joshw24/news/?a=19015 JAR Head 23:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foretboy3000 (talk • contribs)

annouciation of Spiderman 4

Didn't in the 2010 Macy's New Years parade they say that Spiderman 4 was comig out in 2012 or 2014? 166.82.187.246 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Main image

File:Spider-Man Film-1.jpg was changed by Webslingspiderswing (talk · contribs), but I changed it back. I think that the collage of Maguire and Garfield is more suitable for this article than the 2012 film's promo picture. Do others agree? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree but that's no surprise. I done a lower revision because my current version was kind of large and that helped with deleting all that unnecessary revisions. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing : Reboot Justification

Great article, but I think it needs to do a better job of answering the question, "Why the reboot?" Frankly, there will NEVER be a spiderman better than toby maguire. One has to wonder if sony pictures was being cheap or if stan lee decided to go back and do high school films or if they just didn't think they could do a big-budget sequel without Sam Raimi or if he alone was the one keeping Toby & Kirsten employed? I wish the article had more information on this critical question. SystemBuilder (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Followup : I added that Raimi purportedly went through 4 iterations of the script with different screenwriters and still "hated it". I guess if a director cannot come up with a satisfying script after a year or two, maybe Sony had no choice but to do a reboot .. SystemBuilder (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I think we are off on a good start to answer the question. If there's any sources that we missed out explaining that than it's welcomed as long as it's reliable. Do you know of any other? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Massee

I'm posting this here before any tries to start an edit war; there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest The Amazing Spider-Man's "Man in the Shadows", portrayed by Michael Massee, is Norman Osbourne. Indeed, the way the character is portrayed and his actions actually suggest him to be an altogether more mysterious character, but that's beside the point. Let's leave his name off the chart for now. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We are not supposed to know who he is yet. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Campbell in the cast and characters table

This article contains a table covering Spider-Man characters and the actors who portrayed them as well as creator Stan Lee and then for some reason, Bruce Campbell. He had cameos in all of Raimi's films, but beyond that played no one from the comics and will likely have nothing to do with the series in the future. His connection to the film has more to do with Raimi than it does the franchise. I've edited this out, and while I don't feel it was at all a contentious edit, one editor has reverted, with the justification that it's been in the article for years. Am I crazy or should this go?--Williamsburgland (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And it appears that the current version was created less than a week ago by the user I mentioned above. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Same editor performing the same exact change in May, reverted here a month later. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the earlier versions, Campbell previously had individual entries for each film, which was consolidated to one line in the edits you mention above, a sensible approach if you ask me. If the table is for recurring cast and characters, then Campbell has as much right to be there as Stan Lee, as Lee's roles are also just cameos. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Stan Lee created Spider-Man, meaning he's related to the franchise outside of the films, and he's had cameos in two of the three film series. Campbell has no connection to the franchise outside of cameos in one of the three series, and that is due to his friendship with Raimi, nothing more. He's the only person in the chart that isn't a character from the comics or the creator... my suggestion is to remove him. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Ditkovichs, Mr. Aziz, and Rosalie Octavious are not from the comic books either.

Rob is right that these entries were previously three separate entries and the user who consolidated them had done it previously. When Christianster94 changed it back into three separate entries he did not explain that change, but he did still keep them in the list. Stan Lee is included in the list for his notable co-creation of Spider-Man, but his cameos in the films are shorter than Bruce Campbell's cameos. Yes, he was added to the films because he's friends with Raimi, but how does that association make them non-notable? I think Bruce Campbell's cameos should stay. Spidey104 13:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Usually these tables are used to demonstrate recurring characters and main cast members. It's irrelevant in the context of this table that Stan Lee is the creator of Spider-Man, as the emphasis should be on an actor or a role. You shouldn't give special consideration to Lee just because of who he is. Personally, I think that as both these actors have appeared in more than one of the films, albeit in cameo roles, then they should stay. However, if Campbell's cameos go, then so should Lee's. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not saying it's not notable, I'm saying it doesn't belong in the table - it's already noted in the section covering the Raimi series. I'm also not arguing solely against Kurt, other than to say simply having this content for a long period of time doesn't justify its continued inclusion. Finally, while I have less of an issue with Stan Lee's presence and I think his inclusion is somewhat justified, I'd be just fine removing him as well, as well as any one off, non comic related characters (like Randy Savage's Bone Saw). --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As this article is about the films, it's not to do with whether they are comic-related characters or not, it's about recurring and main characters in the films. To be honest, I don't really think Mendel Stromm belongs just because he's a comics character. However, on balance, I think the table, as it is, has it just about right. You can't please everyone! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't say simply because someone is not from the comics they do not belong here. I said one-off characters, meaning they were bit parts unlikely to appear in any further media (making a table useless for their purposes)... but that's beside the point. My original point was that Bruce Campbell has nothing to do with the Spider-Man media franchise outside of being friends with the director of one of the series and having unrelated cameos in each of those films. He is one of two people in the table listed by his real world name, and the other is the creator of the source material, is in two of the series and is known for having cameos in films based on his material. Because of this, I do not feel that Campbell belongs in the table. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Full disclosure (edit conflict) - I've requested the input of a third party. I respect the opinion of the editor in question, but I've also disagreed with him several times so I do not feel this is forum shopping. If any other editors involved wish to do the same thing by all means please do. I feel strongly that I'm correct here, but if consensus is against me so be it. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange that you chose an editor who doesn't seem to have edited the page for at least three months. You'd be better off asking at the film project page, or a more recent experienced editor like User:Jhenderson777 or User:Tenebrae. Or even User:Kurt Parker. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to be snide or assume bad faith. I very clearly spelled out my reasoning for selecting that user here and on his page, which I linked in my disclosure. I also invited you to solicit the outside advice of anyone you'd like as is both our rights per dispute resolution. The fact that you chose to do so via the film project page is your prerogative, but how I choose to proceed is mine. Further, Kurt is the one who requested I open this discussion, one would only assume that he'll join when he's available. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Campbell has cameos purely because he is friends with the director, Lee has cameos purely because he created Spider-man. Both of their cameos are inconsequential and unrelated. So, if one goes, they both should. But, I don't think you'll garner support for that, and, all in all, I'd say it was fairly notable that Bruce Campbell had a cameo in three of the films, no matter what the reason. Like I said, the balance is about right. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I never said it wasn't notable, I said it does not belong in the table. It's already in the Raimi section of the article. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But he is a recurring cast member... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The table is based on characters, not cast members. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ummm "Cast and characters". But then, like I say, If Campbell goes, then Lee should go. We should judge on the same criteria. Not that I'm advocating removing either. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead column is characters and the lead row is films; the output is the person that played each character in each film; the basis is characters and films, the output is the cast who played those characters. Lee and Campbell are the only two that do not fit this formula, but again, I have less of an issue with him than I do with Campbell. That said, if you're proposing a compromise of removing both than by all means I agree. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not proposing that compromise, I'm suggesting that they need to be judged on the same criteria. At the moment, three editors seem to be advocating that they are kept, with only yourself advocating removal. Of course this may change, but if Campbell does go, then Lee should too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've said my piece all I can at this point and it seems our interaction is taking a turn for the negative, so at this point I'm simply going to wait to see what outside editors have to say. As I've already said, while I feel I'm right I'll abide by consensus. At this point I feel that you're assuming bad faith, so I am going to step away.--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should be getting involved with this, but my main concern is that there seems to be a lack of clarity in terms of what this table is designed to cover, i.e. what the inclusion criteria are. If this were a standard film article, then failing a consensus I would argue that only those names that received primary billing should be included, which would exempt Lee and Campbell. Maybe they should be mentioned in prose but not in the table. If the table is designed to cover only "significant" roles...what makes a role significant? Just some food for thought. In any case I agree that it's likely either Lee and Campbell should both be included or both excluded. Doniago (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and involvement, and I feel you make a good point in regards to inclusion criteria... I should have researched that thoroughly before initiating discussion. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

He guys I am glad that this has been settled down. I didn't know there was a heated debate going on or I would have helped. That being said the keeping of the characters that were in cameos doesn't bother me too much. The amount of inclusions would be the main reason why I would be concerned about that and yet we can probably fix that (in the future) with having it's own article in the future as seen here. That's my two cents. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish this hadn't become nasty as well. I don't see a clear consensus (though there are certainly more 'votes' for keeping), and the user that originally reverted hasn't yet joined, but I'll respectfully retract my complaint... it isn't worth it. If someone else brings it up in the future I'll join that discussion. --Williamsburgland (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel I should apologise for assuming bad faith. I can see you're a good editor, and I must have been having a bad day. Sorry. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No sweat Rob, we all have them. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who kinda started this discussion by my revert I apologize that I have not been present for the discussion, but this is the first time I've been back on Wikipedia since I made that edit. I'm glad things came to a solid conclusion, but I do have to disagree with Williamsburgland on his comment "I don't see a clear consensus" because he seems to be the only voice for the removal of Bruce Campbell. He has been very vocal in this discussion (I'm not saying there is anything wrong in what he did or said), but it still is him (1 / one) against the rest of us (5 / five). I think that counts as consensus, but I could be wrong. I'm not trying to restart the debate; just give it a solid conclusion since Will has already agreed to leave the information alone until something possibly resparks the debate. Kurt Parker (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• As it stands both Stan Lee and Campbell should be removed; the column is called "characters", and and neither Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell are characters. It's misleading and confusing as it stands, this fanboy bollocks should be kicked into touch. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point Better (more to Campbell than Lee). Kurt - could you tell me where there are 5 editors in favor of "keep"? It seems there's you, Spidey and Rob strongly in favor of keep, myself in favor of remove, Doniago seems to be in favor of removing both (and more clearly defined criteria), Jhenderson seems on the fence erring towards keep (did I read that wrong?) and now Betty in favor of remove (though she posted after you did and would thus not be counted in your statement). For this reason I felt there was no clear consensus. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I counted 5 in favor of keep because Doniago specifically said "either Lee and Campbell should both be included or both excluded" and I interpreted that as leaning more to keep than exclude since he didn't specifically say they should be excluded. As you said yourself "Jhenderson seems on the fence erring towards keep". So I counted the "leaning towards keep" as "keep". However, whether my interpretation of 5 for and 2 against or your interpretation of 3 for, 2 neutral, and 2 against (which I would agree is no consensus) is correct does not matter, because Wikipedia policy is that the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change.

The status quo is that Bruce Campbell and Stan Lee are included. Kurt Parker (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable having my vote characterized in such a manner. I was waiting to see how the discussion panned out. Unfortunately it hasn't panned out in a manner that, to my mind, established more clear inclusion criteria. That said... Doniago (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I did not mean to characterize your statement as a solid vote, I simply wanted to convey that I didn't see a consensus while conceding that I was in the minority. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see better defined inclusion criteria too. I've just removed Billy Connors, who wasn't even featured. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Should Lee and Campbell be included, or excluded? Doniago (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Include

• Kurt Parker (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• I think my previous statement was fairly clear. Spidey104 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Exclude

• Williamsburgland (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral at this time, though I feel that either both should be included or both excluded, unless a compelling reason to include one but exclude the other is presented. Doniago (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

• I don't feel that a simple vote is an appropriate way to resolve this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a binding vote; it's a straw poll to see where the involved parties stand. I think it's reasonably clear what your position is, but I think participation would still be helpful.--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't count as a binding vote. Discussion matters. A clear vote in one direction can be overruled if there are policies or guidelines that go against the vote, but that probably won't be the case here since Kurt already showed one guideline that supports inclusion. Spidey104 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)