Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mysterio 2 Sandman's wife 3 Cast section renovation 4 Trailer 4.1 Instead we get this 5 The "leaked pic" 6 Poster 7 Goblins back 8 Harry's weapons 9 New images 10 The Venom Picture 11 Sandman Name 12 Notability of Leakages 13 Empire magazine information 14 Image of Symbiote attributed as Eddie Brock 15 Baxter Humby 15.1 No sense 16 Lead Poster 17 The Fox trailer 18 Plot 19 FOX clip that shows Venom 20 The Black Costume 21 Spiderman and Venom?

[edit] Mysterio

Originally, SuperHeroHype.com had reported the rumor of Mysterio appearing in Spider-Man 3, which came from seemingly non-notable blog. In addition, an edit I had reverted said the following: ...Quentin Beck, AKA Mysterio. In an interview with Sam Raimi in the November issue of "Empire magazine", it is said "The forth villain could be anybody from Mysterio (who uses illusions to comit crimes - his alter ego is Quentin Beck and a character of the same name is played in Spidy 3 by none other than Raimi regular, Bruce Campbell), to reptilian rascal The Lizard. Even if Empire magazine said this, the sentence itself is speculation and cannot be verified. If Bruce Campbell was really Mysterio, this fact would have been more widely reported. Until there is direct confirmation from the studio, this information is not verifiable enough for inclusion. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, EMPIRE is insinuating that Bruce is playing (in the least) Quentin, when no one has confirmed that either. Bruce, himself, has only confirmed playing a Matre'd. EMPIRE has begun to pass rumors off as facts, or at least insinuate them as fact. Bignole 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited out mention of any kind of role that Bruce Campbell has in his cameo, based on the removal of the maître d' reference in the video interview on the official movie blog. Until the specific role of the cameo is confirmed by the studio, the cameo should be left undefined. This means no maître d', no Mysterio until verifiable information comes out in the form of a reliable source -- not a blog or a magazine's purposeful speculation. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise to everybody here for my edits. Um.....I don't know what to say. I thought the rumors thing mighta helped, obviously not. I will not edit the Spiderman 3 page again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legs of boe (talk • contribs) 12:50, November 3, 2006 (UTC)

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

To be honest, I didn't know how to use the talk page, that's why I didn't come here, lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legs of boe (talk • contribs) 13:06, November 3, 2006 (UTC)

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

Thankyou everyone for being so understanding Legs of boe 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boeLegs of boe 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandman's wife

I think there should be a mention of Theresa Russell as Mrs. Marko, the wife of Flint Marko a.k.a. Sandman in the Sandman subsection to attach to the "small-time thug" sentence. Is this casting pair-up actually confirmed, and can anyone write in a sentence about her, citing a reliable source? In addition, I've heard that the character Sandman had a daughter with the wife, but I don't know if this was just a rumor or not. Anyone know if this is true? I've also read speculation about Sandman having the life of crime to maintain his family, but has this actually been said by anyone? Having that information would nicely reflect the ambiguity of Sandman's villainy. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm..I'd say without an actual source it doesn't belong. Bignole 14:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both your assessment of it's value to the article, adn with BigNole's view about it's validity without sourcing. a regretable crossroads. ThuranX 21:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a citation for the wife and the daughter, but making the comment that it makes him less of a villain is probably original research. Until an independent, reliable source can make this observation, readers of this article can surmise what they want from the facts. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cast section renovation

I'd like to change the Spider-Man 3 Cast section to be similar to the one at X-Men: The Last Stand. Most of these characters have existing articles, and each of their roles can be properly described in a sentence or two. The layout seems more appropriate for a film franchise like this, so it defines each person's film role more clearly. I won't edit it today (don't want to violate 3RR), but probably in the course of the weekend. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 17:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the format. Citations might need to be provided (or just moved from another part of the article) if any of the descriptions for the characters are questionable. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Was it established the Gwen was Eddie's girlfriend, or just a girl that Eddie was in love with? Do we need the part for Gwen's father that describes her infatuation with Spider-Man? It reads as if he is the one purusing Spider-Man as a love interest. Other than that it looks good (i'll re-read it again to make sure). Bignole 20:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right about Gwen's father-- I fixed that. Also, Talk:Spider-Man_3/Archive 2#Ultimate Superhero Preview says, "The brittle and snidey Brock is the flipside of Parker. When Parker beats him to photography gigs and then starts sniffing around Brock's girl, venom begins to run in his veins." The citation for that is already in the Venom subsection, but it's a <ref name="ultimate" /> tag, so I don't know if I feel up to shuffling citations right now. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that line, but I wasn't sure if that actually meant she was his girlfriend or if "Eddie" felt she was because of his feelings for her and her possible flirtations to him. It seems that if she's going after Peter than maybe they weren't together in that sense....I don't know..it's vagueness just didn't sit well, but I'm cool with whatever you leave there. Bignole 20:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "his girl" is pretty ambiguous. I changed it from girlfriend to girl based on the cited sentence from Empire, so it can be up to the reader to surmise just what exactly that means. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. Bignole

[edit] Trailer

With the full Spider-Man 3 trailer becoming available soon, what guidelines should we have regarding details that the trailer may provide? I'm against providing a detailed description of the trailer; a link to the trailer (which will be available online) can be provided in External links for people to view for themselves. Further plot details may need to be avoided, since trailers may be misleading and not tell the whole story behind a particular scene. I also suggest that if any of the currently cited characters in the cast (Dylan Baker, Daniel Gillies, James Cromwell, Elizabeth Banks) appear in the trailer, their citations can be removed since the casting would be obvious to all. Furthermore, if the trailer reveals something extremely notable, like the full form of Venom, perhaps that could be noted, as Venom's look has been purposely secluded. Any other considerations about what to handle regarding trailer details? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 02:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure. I agree we don't need details about the trailer, cause it really won't be that notable once the film is released. I think that best thing to do with Venom, if he does get shown, is maybe mention where is look seems to be derived from. I.E. no symbol kind of denotes that they may get his look from the Ultimate Universe, ... things like that; especially if they take liberties with his design and add their own version. Bignole 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I just saw a link from imdb.com to the trailer on IFILM. http://www.ifilm.com/presents/spiderman3 It appears they have the exclusive and will have it in HD November 9 at 10pm EST. I can't add the link to the article as the article is locked for now. Dalmim 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)dalmim

I was surprised that someone else hadn’t put it in the article. I’ve put it in external links for now. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instead we get this

Well, so much for a clear image of Venom. (I wasn't betting on it, though.) Instead we get this: "Sandman killed Uncle Ben." Now that is the ultimate buzz kill. I have firm stance already, though. Some guy cop says Sandman killed Ben Parker? I don't buy it. I call speculation and I recommend we either discuss this thoroughly or revert any edits by well intentioned but misinformed viewers. Maddy would be proud... Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Sandman story arc seemed more prominent in the trailer than the Harry Osborn story arc and the Venom story arc, so I think that the story arc should be explained in one or two sentences only in undisputable wording -- that the police and Spider-Man are after him because they think he killed Uncle Ben. Not actually saying that Sandman did kill Uncle Ben, but to leave it ambiguous because there's no clear answer established by the trailer, like Sandman crushing Uncle Ben with a sand castle or something. So I suggest we replace the last sentence in the Plot section about the "unclear role" and try to work into the body that the police had this suspect that they told Peter and May about, and Peter went after Sandman. (That's pretty undisputable, right?) --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewatched, thought it good to note something I noticed. It wasn't "any cop" it was Captain Stacy who told Peter and Aunt May "we have some new evidence, and THIS is the man that killed your uncle." Hope that helps in your decision making. Bignole 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Then we can explain that taking place -- say that when Captain Stacy informs May and Peter Parker that new evidence shows that William Baker / Flint Marko / Sandman killed Uncle Ben, Peter goes after the guy, and just leave it at that. Don't indicate if it's true or not that Sandman killed Uncle Ben. Heck, wonder if we would need to ambiguate wording on Spider-Man about the carjacker killing Uncle Ben if that particular film article wasn't such a mess. Anyway, I had a revelation about something else -- back in Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 2#Trivia, I asked what this sentence in the Trivia section meant: "Over 600 latex 'web' balloons in the celebrations scene had to be hand-painted with a Sharpie marker." Having seen the celebration scene in the trailer now, it's funny to see that this particular piece of information re-surface and have some validity after all. (Still wouldn't include it based on lack of citation, though.) --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 07:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did ambiguate it a bit. I also have the DVD, which helps. Technically, he was never proven to be the killer. A cop just said "carjacker". Funny. I guess Pete thinks suspicions are the word of god. Anyway, I also removed a small amount of the POV wording. I still don't think I wanna know why someone would assume the Goblin was going to rape MJ. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "leaked pic"

Hey. Ace here. I think, by nowm we all know about Image:MovieVenom.jpg and its variants. I know we're not including it, but just for the sake of clarity, I think it's worth some comment rather than simply suppression. No, this isn't "ooh...lookit! pretty picture. Let's talk" time. I just mean...let's explain our position clearly, since we'll pronably have to keep pointing back to it.

Now, the situation, as I understand it, is that the image was "leaked"—god, I'm getting tired of that—and the studio doesn't want it being used. To that end, we at Wikipedia must respect their wishes. It's policy and possibly the law. Anyone want to add something? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that about sums it up. Erikster and I were discussing this. It is my opinion that unless Sony releases the image on its official website, seeing as I think the image was concept art, then it is probably never meant to see the public eye. Now, once the trailer comes out, if and only if there is a high quality image of Venom, then we can use something from there. I suggest that if we are to use an image from there, that not only should it be high quality but it should replace one of the Eddie images we already have, most likely the promotional poster. Bignole

I concur with Bignole. We have the semi-protection and the editors to keep the "leaked pic" out of this article until tomorrow, when the trailer hits. I'd be honestly surprised if they didn't show Venom, since his appearance would hook the fan base and more. When (if) he does, we'll use a screenshot to satiate Wikipedia-using fanboys' appetites. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 17:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. How can I delete it? Or should a Free Encyclopedia stick it to Sony. Maybe not. Wiki-newbie 17:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's wholly not our place, let alone Wikipedia's, to "stick it". Besides, Wikipedia's policies are on their side, so you'd be breaking all the rules. As for the image's status, it'll be deleted eventually if you just leave it unused. If you'd prefer something quicker, you could submit it for deletion. While you're at it, get Image:Venoms3.jpg. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Where do I submit them for deletion? Wiki-newbie 18:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:IFD. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poster

Why is the poster shown the lenticular MOTION poster? It doen't make sense to use a boring posetr that is made to be shown moving. Am I right or is it just me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newpaltzbob (talk • contribs) 01:07, November 11, 2006 (UTC)

The lenticular poster reflects the transformation that Peter Parker undergoes in this film. If you check the talk page's archives, we've already had a discussion about the lenticular poster, and I believe the census was to keep it. New posters will show up around Casino Royale's release date, though, so this poster may very well be replaced soon. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 05:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goblins back

obviously, in the first spider man, Goblin was killed but keep in mind, his son returnss as him. THeyres alot to say about this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.94.180 (talk • contribs) 10:53, November 11, 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Harry Osborn subsection in the film article. It specifically says that Osborn would not be either the Green Goblin or the Hobgoblin, but "somewhere in between". In the future, please place new sections at the bottom of talk pages and leave a signature to your comment by adding four tildes (~) at the end, which automatically inserts that information. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is why I assumed harry should be called The Green Hobgoblin. It's between the two, and it uses both identites. Though if they name him that, I think they should show Roderick Kingsley or Jason Mecendale. 70.58.211.220 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.101.86.69 (talk • contribs) 22:17, November 12, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry's weapons

Hi, I edited Harry's page, telling you about the weapons he uses, but it got deleted. Could somebody please explain why, because I'm confused. Legs of boe 17:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

Generally, the subsections under the "Spider-Man's villains" section are for production- or background-based information, such as how the characters came to be and how they were designed. Storyline information should be part of the Plot section or the Cast section (under the appropriate character's description) instead. In the future, you can click the "history" link at the top of an article's page to see edit summaries for changes made, such as the one that removed your information. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 17:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still confused. It was not storyline infomation, it was about the design of the villain. I might try again later to put it on, but.... Legs of boe 15:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

I'm angry now. When I put up infomation on Harry's weapons, it gets deleted. When somebody else does, it doesn't. Favouritism!!!!!!! Legs of boe 10:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

Detailing "weapons" is ok for design of new costume, though I'm not sure of its notability. But, the inclusion of "Peter throws a pumpkin bomb at Harry" isn't relevant on any "out-of-universe" context and is nothing more than a spoiler for the film. We had this issue when the original teaser comes out and then when the trailer at the COmicCon was shown and it was clearly Peter that throws the bomb.

Bignole 16:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that you CAN'T add the fact that Peter throws the bomb??? Legs of boe 09:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

The description doesn't provide anything for the article but spoilers, it's something left for a plot description when the film comes out. Bignole 12:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I took out the "samurai sword" mention again. The issue is that this minor information that can be viewed by anyone who has seen the trailer. The only thing we've included from the new (official, that is) trailer is the Sandman story arc, which was prominent, and we held a discussion to reach a census on including that information, since originally, we weren't sure about Sandman's role. (We had originally written that Sandman had an "unclear" role in the Plot section, but now it's been made clear by the trailer, and we've expanded on that.) I don't doubt that the background of Harry's weapons would be interesting to add to his subsection, but there's nothing to detail except their appearance, you know? It'd be interesting to say "The samurai sword that Harry Osborn uses in his fight came from Sam Raimi's personal collection" or something like that, but we don't have information like that yet. We're not trying to play favorites; sometimes information is removed early, sometimes it's removed late -- depends on who's watching the page at the time. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 13:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New images

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

I like the latter Sandman shot (with the sandfisted punch) to replace the existing Sandman shot. (Though the shot of Spidey shoving Sandman's face against the train is pretty nuts!) Not sure about replacing the current Eddie Brock picture, though... the picture of him taking a picture doesn't have the same impact as the desolate look in his eyes in the article's existing Brock picture. Don't know about replacing Harry Osborn, either, though I think that the existing Osborn picture should be re-edited to show more of the body (even if the coloring is off) and less of the city background that takes up the picture. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted an overabundance of images from the article. I was under the impression that each image is supposed to be "contributive" to the article (i.e., Sandman picture for Sandman subsection) and not to make the Wikipedia article for Spider-Man 3 look "cool". If you want to add images, discuss the possibility here on the talk page. We've already been through a census about limiting images in this article, and we don't need to go against that now just because there's a trailer which everyone can view on their own via external link. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by the originals? The only original image I replaced was the Harry image. The reason for that was because the image you are using is not what was shown in the recent trailer. The new trailer had the same shot, but flipped and edited to provide a better look at how Harry's costume will appear in the film. It would be a poor decision to use an outdated image. Dam-itch 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the concept of updating the original pictures. However, the Harry Osborn "update" didn't seem like a drastic improvement over what existed before. In addition, the picture of Sandman punching Spider-Man is currently unnecessary, as the direct shot of Sandman suits the subsection's purpose for now. (I don't think the punch picture could replace the Sandman shot, either, because the character's face is obscured. The ideal shot may be something where you can see him and see why he's called Sandman, which is why I liked Ace's sandfist picture, referenced above.) The punch picture could be used for the Plot section when it gets expanded at the film's release. Also, the picture of black Spider-Man leaping has poor contrast, especially seen without clicking through, and I don't see how it relates much to the Visual effects subsection. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Spider-Man himself has always been one of the most important priorities for the Visual Effects department. If they don't get his appearance/the realism correct, then the Visual Effects department is to blame. Spider-Man's "look" has everything to do with the Visual Effects department. Dam-itch 22:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is Spider-Man 3, not Spider-Man. Spidey's look has already been established for two films now. Nothing in the subsection's content mentions anything about getting Spider-Man's appearance/realism this time around. The image should match the content, such as the building tear-down that was mentioned by producer Curtis. Otherwise, it's like making a "Romance" section and showing a picture of Peter and MJ kissing on a spider web. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this image? I just took it now. I think we need a closeup of Harry from the third film, don't we? Image:HarryGG2.jpg Dam-itch 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't mind that one replacing the current Harry Osborn one, but I don't think it should be added alongside what's there now. There's only a paragraph's worth of content about his character, and half of it is a summary of the last two films. I know the Venom subsection has two, but there's a stronger difference in the transformation -- plain-clothes Brock to this nasty-looking creature. So basically, I'd be fine with having what you just showed in place of the action shot. Not sure how other editors will see it, though. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I uploaded Sandpunch.jpg and replace the existing image with it. Doesn't look bad. I don't really the shot of Harry to be that great as it's just a bust/headshot. Still, pretty much anything is better than what we have now. I would recommend cropping it a bit, though. I did the same thing with Eddie. No need to keep excess space just because it was part of the original shot. That, along with your editorial caption, seem to be the reasons someone came in and reverted your edit before I made mine. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I'd like to add an image I captured from the trailer of Spider-Man punching through Sandman's chest at the end of the Sandman description. I'm not entirely sure on how to or if it's really neccesary but it is a great picture I think would fit for that section. Especially since the end of the article gives the details about how they used an amputee boxer for the effect. I think the image would be a good fit at the bottom right corner of the Sandman section. The link for the image is below.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b105/JAD51287/capture_09112006_194401.jpg --User:JAD51287 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't sign off on this yet, let alone by myself, but I can't say I'd oppose this. Still, we shouldn't overdo it. Anyway, see Help:Images and other uploaded files and Wikipedia:Images. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

User:JAD51287 06:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Venom Picture

[image removed] [image removed]

I really want to put these pictures up on the Spiderman 3 page, but 2 things are stopping me.

1: I don't know if I'm allowed. 2: I don't know how.

So, I need some help. Legs of boe 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

The first thing should be "not good quality". They are hard to see in focus, and being 250px will make it even harder. Secondly, they are images from a trailer that wasn't shown to the public, and seeing as all images of Venom have been removed (or supposed to have been removed) at the request of Sony, showing these might be as illegal as showing those concept images of him that we removed earlier this week. Bignole 16:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude... are these valid? 'Cause they freakin' creep me out. They strike me as part of a fan film, though -- the costume doesn't look professional, just a leather suit. If they're unsourced, then they may not be valid for inclusion. There was a 3D thing of Venom rotating and waving his arms which I think turned out to be the product of someone not part of the studio, so this may be a similar case. I'd suggest just keeping the current Brock/Venom pictures for now until the next trailer comes out with Ghost Rider in February. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 18:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They're valid, they were shown to the people at Comic-con I think?--SUIT^{What!? 42!} 20:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

He's right, they were shown at the ComicCon. Someone captured it on their phone camcorder, that's why they aren't that good of quality. But, because it was shown at the ComicCon doesn't make it a public image. It's never been shown to the public and Sony doesn't want any of their "Venom" images released yet. Bignole 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing the blurred recording. Still, jeez, he's creepier than most horror icons I've seen. But yeah, I understand about not using the images because they haven't been made public. Just... wow, though. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's Venny for ya, Erik. Real shame, though. Even though it was comic-con, I bet less than half of the viewers knew who Edward Brock, Junior is, let alone the full meaning to the imagery/names used in this film. Anyway, yeah, the closet thing we can officially show is already in the article: the symbiote covering Brock. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found the trailer ([trailer removed]). The pictures I gave earlier were snapshots from the end of the trailer (made by me). It's uninished, but we know that the unfinished scenes are in there, because they were in the trailer that was offically realeased by Sony. I know it's not offical, but surely this is the clearest shot we have of Venom so far??? Legs of boe 10:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

Doesn't matter if it is the clearest shot of Venom we have. The concept images that were "leaked" were perfectly clear, and of good quality, but we can't show them for legal reasons the same as the images from the unofficial trailer shown at the ComicCon. Bignole 12:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Awwwwww man, that sucks. Oh well, at least YOU guys get to see t, even if the general public don't. Legs of boe 15:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

Here's another one: [image removed] Legs of boe 15:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

We really don't need to see this stuff; it's just that people like you insist on adding it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and talki pages are about editting. Maybe a fan site would be more inclined to show the "pretty pictures." I'm a bit more interested in telling people what they mean. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the pics are completely unnecessary. But attacking Legs of boe personally is crossing the line. You seem to have a real problem dealing with people, Ace. I've read many of your posts, and your malice towards others is astounding. Being an editor doesn't mean belittling others for their lack of Wiki savvy. Help them out instead of tearing them down. "People like you", as you referred to Legs of boe, take all the enjoyment out of contributing to such a noble site as this. I'm not excusing Legs of boe's posts, but two wrongs don't make a right. Reynoldsrapture 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rey, this isn't the time or the place. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Or the subject. Stay on track, guys.--Shut The Eff Up 03:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Rey, but I apologize for the off-topic chatter, anyway. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How big of you, Ace. I can't speak for him, but I apologize to you Legs, for being attacked personally. You keep right on contributing to Wiki, and trust good editors like Bignole and Erik to help you along. Reynoldsrapture 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll post these same comments on your talk page. Reynoldsrapture 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this is the trailer that was shown at Comicon, but it looks better because this wasn't the cellphone one. This one leaked from some unknown source, but the quality is much better. For the ones who didn't have the time to watch it before it was pulled out, it has several scenes that weren't finished yet, so they kinda look like a videogame. As for the Venom footage... yes, there is better. Someone made a GIF out of that scene. Check it out [image removed].

And yeah, I know it's probably better not to put these things on the article just yet.--Kaonashi 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"just yet"? No offense, but try "at all." Come next year there will certainly be a legal, quality, movie shot to use. Exclusive footage isn't for Wikipedia to release at anytime without clear permission. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant. It isn't the time to add Venom images to the article because there isn't any official, quality image yet.--Kaonashi 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for all your comments guys. I would appreciate not being personally attacked. I mean, I only asked if I could put the images up. The anser was no. I gained the answer to my question, that's all I needed. Legs of boe 09:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

Boey, no one attacked you. My advice? Read stuff like Wikipedia:how to edit and ignore Rey. I won't go into the gory details, but he's not exactly impartial when it comes to me. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 16:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right, Legs, you just go right on ignoring me. Glad Erik got back to you and helped out with your contributions. If you need other help with anything at all, shoot me a message. Reynoldsrapture 17:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. But there's so many messages I need to look at, that I got kinda confused. Soz, lol. Legs of boe 18:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

I wasn't commenting about you ignoring me, just playing off of Ace's remarks. I left you a message on your talk pages. Reynoldsrapture 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to take the sharp sticks away from both of you, Rey and Ace. ThuranX 05:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Venom leaked trailer (at least the end of it where Eddie Brock becomes Venom) is official now. It was shown on Fox before Spider-Man 2 was shown. So it's no longer an unofficial leaked trailer. It should be okay to post those pictures now, but not the Venom Concept Art. Ggctuk 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing a venom trailer. Do you have a copy of the trailer as it aired on FOX? Using the stolen copy doesn't make it any more legal, even if they showed the same thing on FOX. Bignole 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw the Venom image at the very beginning of the clips, and that image isn't the image that was loaded onto this page last night. Again, we cannot suppliment other images that came from the same scene, just because we don't get a clear view of what we want. Bignole 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

For those that want to see the clips from yesterdays' airing. Visit the Official Spider-Man 3 Blog --Meph1986 05:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandman Name

It says on the page "Sandman is referred to as William Baker" and then it cites the trailer. I've watched the trailer many times and have not heard this name attached to him. When Capt. Stacy is telling the Parkers who they believe killed Ben, she just shows them a picture and says "this is the man we believe is responsible". Did anyone else hear William Baker specifically associated with Sandman, or are we just going by what his alter ego should be? Bignole 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what I was confused about. I don't know where "William Baker" came from, but we should keep it to Flint Marko and assume that it's his real name (as it is from the comics) and Sandman is just the secondary identity. Let's just make sure it says that Flint Marko becomes Sandman after the accident to tie the two names together, though I don't know which one to use for consistency in the rest of the article. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 14:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually heard the Flint Marko anywhere else? I actually don't recall it anywhere legitimately, just the common name associated with the character. Maybe we should remove both names and leave it as Sandman till it is clear? I don't know. He isn't like some villains that have the same alias their whole comic lives (Green Goblin-Norman Osborn), he has many aliases. They even chose to go with Eddie Brock Jr. Bignole 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I looked into it — there's IMDb (blech), the Theresa Russell article (of which I couldn't access the original Hollywood Reporter article -- they've locked up their archives to be subscription only), and the "Ultimate Superhero Preview", but his name doesn't come up explicitly in the SuperHeroHype.com exclusive interview. I can't tell if people are just so hung up on calling the dude Sandman as opposed to anything else, or if they're purposely not mentioning his actual name. Honestly, I'm not keen on removing it; I think we're just gonna wind up having minor editing wars about it -- GIPUs will cite IMDb and all. Let's just keep it as it is, and if there's any information to the contrary, we'll update accordingly. Unless this is really something over which to disagree. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

William Baker is the real name, Flint Marko is "Wade Wilson"-like assumed name, as stated in his article. I don't recall hearing the former, either. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Considering that Flint Marko has been the name used by news sources (though not confirmed by the studio), we should probably use it over William Baker, for which there hasn't been any mention in relation to the film. Otherwise, we could probably limit the usage of "Flint Marko" to his line in the Cast section and stick with Sandman in the rest of the article. (Although, Bignole, I checked about the Comic-Con coverage; doesn't seem to be anything that mentioned Marko. There are some video interviews on the Official Spider-Man 3 Movie Blog that might mention him, though.) --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you hate it when you see an update on the Talk page and you go to read and find out several people have responded to various sections and you have to go back and read those first..maybe that's just me....lol, anyway..on to the subject. I agree limiting Flint to just the cast and trying to use "Sandman" more overtly throughout the article will be better till they at least tell us more info or the film comes out. Then again, I haven't watched the webblogs, so if they actually say Flint Marko in there (depending on who's doing the talking, because Grant actually called Harry the Green Goblin when Raimi has specifically stated otherwise) then I think we'll have our source. Bignole 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I heard Thomas Haden Church call his character "Flint Marko" on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. Flint is definitely the better know name. I doubt they'd confusingly use "William Baker," especially since they apparently "love the character".

And yeah, Biggy, I hate that, too. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Leakages

I am removing any pertinent information about leaked photos and footage on the grounds of notability issues. It is simply not notable to mention that the merry copyright-infringing Spidey fan base of the Internets got access to such resources unless this provokes a public announcement from the studio regarding the leaks that have taken place. There has been no such press release or quote from anyone involved with the studio addressing these leaks -- they've attempted to plug these leaks without causing attention. So unless the issue is addressed by someone from the studio (via reliable source), this information just isn't Wikipedia-worthy as opposed to all the rest of the information we have on the article. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I found this TMZ.com citation that could possibly be used to discuss the leaked Comic-Con footage, though I'd prefer something from the studio... --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you; this stuff happens. TMZ is just being...TMZ. They big deals out of nothing and lose focus after two paragraphs. As you said, a notable "leak" will be something Sony comments on directly. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view don't focus on these leaks unless they tell us about the production, and don't focus on it as a leak. For example, on Transformers features references to various leaked photos, but I only included them as they tell us something about the special effects. Wiki-newbie 16:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empire magazine information

I feel like an anonymous user doing this, but I have some information to report. I was at the book store (study session for a test with a friend), and I was able to pick up Empire magazine, which had the "Ultimate Superhero Preview" coverage. There was a lot of talk about Venom, especially how Raimi didn't want him in the first place and later included him. Anyway, the magazine said that Venom (as in the symbiote) was an "alien life force" that was brought back to Earth by John Jameson. I don't know if either piece of information — that the symbiote is extraterrestial, or that John Jameson has a role in bringing it back — could be worked into the article. For the record, the information was presented in a quote by Raimi, so it's not speculation. Not sure about "Night Surfer", though; it was used in quote marks in the article body and just mentioned in a character line-up (from the page scan which can be found in the talk page archives) that Osborn would become the Night Surfer. Also, before you ask, I didn't really get a chance to see if Sandman was referred to as Flint Marko. Let me know if this is information to implement into the article, if you can trust my information. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 04:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, if anyone's interested, There's a new poster up... probably just started an image war right there right now... --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 04:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cite it and go for it. ThuranX 04:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I can trust this; it makes friggen sense! It'll also be nice to outright state the animated series connection rather than just implying it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've worked the information into the article best I can. Feel free to clean up after me. Also, part of Raimi's quote was about how Topher Grace's role as Brock helped inject humanity in the symbiote or something like that... to be honest, I don't remember, but it seemed like it would be worthwhile production information if I had the full quote in hand. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 05:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If Raimi is quoted then I think it's fair game. Unlike the Night Surfer where it was questionable but never outright stated he would. As for the poster, I say once that has officially been released we replace the lenticular poster with that one. Not only does that fit in line with the previous film posters, but it will end the crap about "why are you using a lenticular poster...blah blah..yada yada" you get the rest. Bignole

Aww...but this new poster's just so...bleh. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the lenticular, don't get me wrong, but it's good to keep all the films in line with each other. You can also guarantee that once it is officially released (if this will be the final poster released for the theaters) that all the "image haters" (for those that read this, that's a joke) will quickly jump at that as a reason for the lenticular to be removed anyway. You know how it is with animated images on Wiki. Bignole 04:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The poster isn't real. We were talking about it on IMDB. If you look at it, the "3" at the bottom has obviously been cut and pasted (it has a black box round it), and the eyes don't look right. Legs of boe 10:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)legs_of_boe

I see the black box you're talking about. Hmm, I suppose we'll have to wait and see this poster shows up on independent news sources. New Spidey posters are supposed to be up during the release of Casino Royale this weekend, so I'm sure we'll find out by then what these new posters are supposed to look like. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 14:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have it on my background, on my home computer, and there isn't a box around the "3" for my image. The eyes look fine as well. Try saving it and looking at it with a different program. Other than that, it could very well be a fake; wouldn't be the first time. Bignole 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

/FILM reported on the new poster, but made observations believing that it was fake. Bignole, if you open the image in a program and zoom into the area around the 3, you can see that there's a black box. I don't think it's quite visible through normal viewing. Anyway, I'd suggest waiting for more widespread confirmation before we replace our precious lenticular. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it again. I know that when I tried to blow it up to fit the entire desktop it became distorted, so I'm curious as to what is being seen. But as I said earlier, wait until something is official. It could be some concept poster that was never fully rendered and that's why it looks the way it does...who knows. We still have quite some time before the film is out. Bignole 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add that the poster in question's been around for quite a few months. It's not even a new fake. Willpower 08:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the heads-up. I guess people have been trying to keep their eyes open for a "new" poster since there's supposed to be new Spidey posters around the release of Casino Royale. We'll wait for something more widespread and concrete. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 12:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Symbiote attributed as Eddie Brock

The pic labeled on the article as "The symbiote envelops Eddie inside a church" is wrongly titled. That image is actually showing Tobey Maguire fighting the symbiote suit, probably at the top of the church tower above Eddie Brock. When I saw the picture itself (the enlarged version) I fixed the caption there, but since it's locked and I had to create a new user, I can't edit the front page. You can tell it's Parker because of the Spidey suit webbing along the shoulder and because at this point we've seen the trailer where the picture is pulled from and it's obviously Parker in the symbiote suit. If somebody who isn't on a new account can change this or delete the picture if it doesn't add anything to the article when properly marked, I don't think this is going to require a whole lot of discussion, but if someone thinks I'm mistaken I'd love to hear why. Kapper26 12:42, 15 November 2006

Um, because this is the promotional poster that Sony released for Venom. Because it has Topher's hair. Because Tobey (Spider-Man) while enveloped by the symbiote doesn't have pointed teeth like Venom. But I'm pretty sure the best reasoning as to why you may be "mistaken" is because Sony has issued this poster out as "Venom". When they did their "use your mobile to text Sony for the first image of Venom" this was the image they released. Also, I wouldn't go by the "web design" theory, since the possibly accurate, leaked concept photo of Venom shows him with vein-like web strands over his body. Bignole 17:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the above. All signs point to Grace. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, if it was officially released as the promotional venom poster than i understand the choice. i'd still say it's certainly not the clearest image, but i guess until a better image is released for use by Sony this one will have to do. also, i don't think my brain even registered the sharpened teeth in the image, so, my bad. i saw somebody already rolled back the edit i made (i was just on my way to switch it back after the comments), so thank you to whoever did that. Kapper26 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing good to say, except that this image was big news when it was released around Comic-Con, 2006. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baxter Humby

I just want to note that Baxter Humby is not an amputee, he was born without a hand and amputation implies the removal of an extremity by trauma or surgery.80.217.91.234 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Adrian P.

Is there a medical term for someone who was born without one limb? I'll re-word it; I just don't know what else to call his physique without going into extraneous detail. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Birth defect?--SUIT^{What!? 42} 22:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Congenital amputee" seems to be the proper phrase, and I've edited the subsection accordingly. There's no Wikipedia article for both, though, so I linked both of them separately. If anyone's got anything better, feel free to edit. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Baxter_Humby It's a small article taken mainly from Humby's website - Adrian

You can sign your comments using four tildes, and what the heck is your point? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Humby wasn't wiki-linked before, and Adrian mentioned that there was an article on him. So I wiki-linked it for him in the Spider-Man 3 article. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmph. People need to be clearer. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No sense

This makes no sense. If Baxter Humby was born without his right hand, how does he help with the effect of punching through Sandman's chest when he doesn't have a right hand? 70.58.211.220

He doesn't have a right hand. So, he places his arm against Church's chest, and they digitally create Spider-Man's hand on the backside of Church. So, it really looks like a person has their arm through the chest of another person, from the front angle. Bignole 14:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording makes sense to me (since I wrote it), but if you have any suggestions about clearer wording to describe how the technique worked, let me know. I'll edit it accordingly. Just don't see where the confusion was. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand how he did it. I just wonder why they chose Humby. Did he have anything to do with the first two movies? 70.58.211.220

[edit] Lead Poster

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

I guess we wait. They'll decide on a poster eventually--SUIT 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

One a second poster note, we currently have that comparative screenshot/cartoon screenshot thing in the Posters section. I'm wondering if the new, Poster format utilizing the same concept wouldn't work there. It was recently edited to be the main image, but then porperly reverted out. (by another editor.) I think it might be an appropriate place in the article to utilize a second poster, but I'm conflicted by our earlier discussion regarding fair use and not being an iamge dump. THoughts? ThuranX 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Question: Are the teaser posters shown at ComingSoon.net the ones that have been shown around the release of Casino Royale? We should probably work the two poster-based sentences together if they are. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 06:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I thought they were supposed to release them "with" Casino Royale, but maybe they were going to do it afterward. Bignole 14:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

At this site the two new posters are merged together and cycle through just like the one in the infobox right now. If agreed here, I'm sure that one could be added. --Nehrams2020 19:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

it isn't something released by Sony, it was something someone created. Bignole 19:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Was the one in the infobox currently created by Sony, or was that created by a user here? --Nehrams2020 20:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the copyright tag on it to find out, but as I recall, it was from a Sony approved promotion. JoBlo is NOT a sony approved promotion. Further, as a composite image, it's usage might be different, as you not only have to credit Sony and it's designers, offices, etc., but the person at JoBlo who comp'd it up. I oppose it's use. ThuranX 20:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, am I the only one who sees that it's the same friggen image? One's just colored differently. Frankly, the alternate coloring looks craptastic and distorted. Use the regular one if changing posters is inevidable. The other one just looks like some kinda weird trading card with holofoil and such. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Ok, we need to straighten this poster business out. The new poster seems like it's a teaser poster, not a theatrical poster, since the movie doesn't even come out until May. Needs to be labeled as such. Also, I know the lenticular poster was popular before this new teaser poster came out, but I don't think it's being incorporated into the article appropriately. "This poster displayed Spider-Man's chest in his red suit, but if you were to move, the red suit would shift into his symbiote suit." Personal pronouns can't be used, and the lenticular poster in the Promotion section seems too large. This needs to be adjusted. Honestly, I don't care about using images, but these issues need to be addressed to keep the article well-run. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 02:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

SuperHeroHype.com identified the new posters as teaser posters. This isn't about matchmaking the new theatrical trailer with the posters that come out at the same time, thus labeling them as "theatrical posters". If sources showing the posters identify them as teaser posters, they should be identified as such. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 02:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

But, like I was saying, it's the most recent release. The most recent poster should always be used until the final poster is released. Then we use the final poster for an infinite amount of time. Until then, use what Sony hands over to you. Dam-itch 02:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a rule, and I do believe we are discussing this and that means you can't just go about editing as you wish while others are still debating. Please show a little respect. I am going to revert you till we have a clear consensus as to what we are going to use. Bignole 02:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still a little confused about this whole poster thing. In the poster sections it says that "On November 17, 2006, new Spider-Man 3 posters were advertised to the public for the release of Casino Royale", and then 2 more posters were released on the 21st. So how many posters have been released? And did anyone read about the rumor of a sneak peek of Spider-Man 3 during Spider-Man 2 on FOX on Thanksgiving? (http://superherohype.com/news.php?id=4938) It's probably too late to mention it now and it might just be a rumor since it's not mentioned in Grant Curtis' movie blog, but I don't know. User:JAD51287 06:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I just corrected the poster section. It's pretty clear these are the posters Sony was going to release with Casino Royale. As for the sneak peak, Sony sent a text message indicating that sneak peak (i know, because I got it). To Dam-Itch, you cannot simply ignore discussion and edit as you wish, there is a thing called respect and courtesy. Also, just because one page does one thing doesn't mean that everyone should follow suit. If that was the case we'd have tons of irrelevant film pages that contain nothing but plot summaries and trivia. This "rule" of using a new poster each time one comes out is unnecessary, if it even is a "rule". First off, they released 2 posters, so who gets to decide which we use? Secondly, what happens if they release 30 posters between now and May, do we continuously upload new images? Seems rather a waste doesn't it. Until Sony releases an "official" final theatrical poster, there is no reason constantly upload new images every single time a new poster comes out. Bignole 02:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've had this lenticular poster for months now! I mean, this is the first poster in five months. I'm sure it's worth something. Besides, the first teaser is as much of a poster as the lenticular one is. If that's your logic, why bother changing the poster in the first place? Let's just revert it to the first poster. No, that logic is blind. I say we use the new poster, not just because it's new, but because it shows us more than just a black-to-red picture of Spider-Man's chest. If we were to choose between the two new posters, I'd choose the first one (the one I used). The second one is too dark, and the first one is preferred to the second one due to the color schemes. The second one should be placed in the "Posters" section as an alternate poster. Maybe remove the "animated series" image as it is now somewhat irrelevant to the film (that one shot makes no difference).Dam-itch 03:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dam, you're getting fairly aggressive in your comments. While we all appreciate the effort you put into the revisions you made, we're all MORE upset by the fact that you ignored the discussions about this issue, and that you continue to ignore all the efforts of editors here to find something we can all agree on. You insult our ability to think, and our stances simply for not being yours. Go cool off, enjoy Turkey Day, and then come back. Finally, if 'new' is all that matters, then as Bignole postulates, almost all Future-film pages will suffer a ridiculous amount of non-informative edits for no other value than being 'new'. and if a newer, but less visually impressive poster arrives, should we substitute it? From the design perspective, the smoothly aminating image is a solid choice. The newer two-shot flipping .gif is more jarring and less ignorable once seen, which makes page legibility suffer. ThuranX 04:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the fact that you debate about which still photos you should add to the article, but this is a poster! Obviously, the normal everyday readers of this article would like to know about the progress of the film. If you keep the major updates (such as a new poster) away from them, there won't be any point in updating the article at all. We're not just looking for ways to revise our old information. We're here to add new, important information. The new poster is very important, and therefore is necessary to maintain the quality of this article.207.216.163.163 04:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's actually neither very important, nor particularly salient to the quality of the article, to add every poster. It's already been established that Wiki is not an advertising site, not a repositiory of links or images, and not a poster site. We do NOT need to catalog every psoter which comes out. Again, good design and reader accessibility suggest NOT changing, as does the general tone of WIkipedia's policies nad guidelines against too many images, and too much commercialism. Poster galleries are NOT a recommended idea. Rotating posters on a release by release basis is a grea way to wind up with editors soon insistign that if the iamges exist, they should be used to create a gallery. let's avoid setting up for future fights, let's preserve inviting design, and let's NOT change the image to a jarring, ugly, and poorly made .gif. ThuranX 04:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The first teaser wasn't even released in the theaters, it was released over the internet. The lenticular was/is a better representation of the film as a whole. We aren't keep the new posters from anyone either. If you actually read the page you will see that we included the update about the posters and a link to them for viewing. The lenticular was the first poster released in the theaters to the public, it still illustrates the film just as well as the new posters, so there isn't a reason to change it until Sony releases the actual official "THEATRICAL" poster. Bignole 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX, who ever said anything about making a gallery or promoting? I just wanted to replace the poster, in the same way every outdated poster is replaced. Now, Bignole... are you saying we're going to keep this poster from June for at least another five months? We wait for months and a new poster is released. Why would the new posters be revealed if they weren't meant to replace/take over the job of expressing the ideas of the film? These posters take quite a lot of work to create, and to not use the first poster to come out in five months is really disturbing. This new poster is the new teaser. It should be set in place of the old one for the remaining five months. If you refuse to listen to my opinion, then that is foolish judgement. You believe you need to make the final say in everything about this article. This is an "anyone can edit" encyclopedia. If it contributes to/updates the article, then that is all you are looking for. You are not here to contemplate whether to use one or the other. If it contributes to without destroying the article, then that contributor is doing a favor. Please accept the contributions people make if the contributions have an understandable meaning behind them. Add to them if you must, but don't destroy what has value. Dam-itch 05:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't call Bignole's perspective "foolish judgment", that's not civil. We were in disagreement with your spontaneous edit of adding the new teaser poster because we need to be selective with images especially on film articles like these. If you look at the article's history, we've reverted a lot of attempts to add unnecessary images to this article. I personally am fine with the new teaser poster being added, as the studio has not been prolific with posters at this time. I think we just wanted to discuss and reach a certain census about adding this poster, a trend that we would continue if there were indeed multiple posters that come out closer to the film's release date -- like poster line-ups of Sandman, the "Night Surfer", Spider-Man, etc. You are wrong about us not being here to contemplate whether which one to use; that is the point of Wikipedia. It's not the fact that anyone can edit, it's the fact that anyone can edit under agreeable terms, a.k.a. editors' census. There are policies to adhere to. Ultimately, I'm fine with having the new teaser poster added. It's just a shame that we can't somehow keep the original lenticular poster, as it was user-created and can't really be referred to via citation or external link. Maybe we can just have a description of the lenticular poster in the Poster subsection to at least reflect the interesting feature it had. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 06:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that everyone that new editors always think that they can do what they wish with no regard to other editors? I know that when I go to a new page and start editing, and go to make a big change to it that I personally go to the talk page to discuss it first with the other editors that have spent the time polishing the article from the getgo. Why also do people feel the need to insult me, and other editors, for having a difference of opinion and requesting that (which this request had been brought about the moment the images surfaced Dam) it be discussed by a group of editors? Changing the lead poster every couple months, i'm sorry, is not "doing a favor" to anything. To me, that's going to open the door to other editors (probably more the Anons than anything) to come in and change the image to any teaser poster they feel they like more, because "THEY" feel that it is the "better" poster. The new poster doesn't add anything new that the current one doesn't already offer, it's simply "new". It isn't an "update" because I'm sure they won't just remove the lenticular poster from the theaters any faster than they will put those new ones up. Why do I know this, because neither of the theaters here in Tallahassee, Florida have either of those posters up, the lenticular or the new ones. You say "it contributes without destroying" but what exactly does it contribute that the current one doesn't? I'd say it doesn't contribute anything new, it's a poster, it isn't some special announcement. This isn't a regular image that actually corresponds to some text in the article, where updating it would be necessary if something that would better illustrate the text was available; this is just an announcement poster. Bignole 06:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why even have a section on posters? Posters mean nothing, as the image will not have the same effect on people if described in words. Therefore, this renders the posters section quite useless. It's just a blotch of text. Why waste space on words when they are worthless? I am not insulting you, I am stating what is true. It isn't a better poster. It is the most recent poster. Using visuals, it explains the progress the developers have made, and the evolution of the film itself, from the small idea to the highly detailed result. It may not contribute in your opinion, but to the reader it extra information, not in the form of text, but in the form of a visual masterpiece. That's all I can say. If you continue to persist, then obviously you have a problem with the new poster. I will not bother with this nonsense any longer. It's either a yes or a no. Just remember that you're not the only one visiting/admiring the article. You're writing this for others, to share information, not for yourself. Dam-itch 06:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The poster section is part of the marketing, and there is a link to the images for people to view. These articles are about "out-of-universe" information, and images are not about "eyecandy". The poster section is about what Sony is doing to promote their film, nothing more. This isn't about "ooo...look how pretty the new Spidey image is", it's about "Sony's really promoting this new film". You aren't insulting me? I believe that when you refered to me as having "foolish judgement" because I "refused to listen to you" (which is another way of saying that I don't agree with you, because I think it's clear that I am listening to you and providing another argument) that you were insulting me. Now you are not only assuming what a "reader's opinion" is, but you are saying that these new posters are "visual masterpieces". That's highly opinionated right there. I'm not dismissing the posters based on looks, but based on the fact that opening the door to "changing posters each time a new one is issued" is going to create a large problem, especially when you deal with people's opinions of which one is better, and when Sony releases more than one at a time. I love how you are turning this into something personal: If you continue to persist, then obviously you have a problem with the new poster. I will not bother with this nonsense any longer. It's either a yes or a no. Just remember that you're not the only one visiting/admiring the article. And I think the reason you are taking this so personally is because it is YOUR image that is being used. Again, I repeat, I have nothing against the image...I like it, but my personal stand on this has nothing to do with the "eye-candy" that is the poster (which they are, because they don't illustrate text anywhere, nor do they really contribute on any level other than showing what is in a theater), but on this doorway you are opening by saying that we have to change the poster everytime a new one is issued. Bignole 07:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dam-itch, Bignole isn't trying to be selfish with keeping the lenticular poster. He's expressed his reasons about keeping image usage static because unlike text in the article, there's a limited use of images to adhere to fair use rationale and not serve as an image repository for article visitors. Please don't make this between you and Bignole. If you review the discussion in this section, there were other editors iffy about actually including this new teaser poster. Your defense was that your contribution wasn't destroying the article, but your spontaneity in updating the new poster with a live discussion on the talk page undermines editors meeting a census about poster image usage. While I support updating the teaser poster, generally based on anticipating future attempts by non-frequent editors to upload the new poster and that the poster reflects the dual nature of symbiotic Spider-Man, I think that it's only appropriate to discuss any and all images to be used in these articles. Your preference is not the gospel truth. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 07:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dam-itch, First off, I didn't say WE were building a gallery, I said that by rapidly replacing each poster with the 'newer', we create a cache of images on Wiki, one (at least) of each poster, which will easily allow some new or IP-anon editor to build a gallery on the page. That gallery would violate fair-use, and probably lead to an edit/revert war. Such actions are undesirable. in this discussion, we have five editors asking to wait for a Sony announcement, one who suggested a .gif extension animated file which violates fair-use, and who hasn't replied since, so I assume he's either cool with what was said, or is off for Turkey day. (By the way, all editors, have a good Turkey Day.) Finally, we have you. You continue to insist that our judgements are 'foolish', and that we generally don't get it, that we're all protecting the page, and so on. Let me assure you that while Erik and I agree quite often, we still have different theories about good pages, and BigNole and I argue as often as we agree, finding ourselves at loggerheads on a NUMBER of issues on many pages. To assert that we're operatign as a bloc is innaccurate. we all just happen to agree on this issue. ThuranX 14:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Fox trailer

Look, it shows Defore = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpnPlYWY1Dg&eurl=

[edit] Plot

Do we have any official source saying that John Jameson will bring the symbiote back? I know Raimi has said the symbiote will be alien in origin, but I don't recall him explicitly stating that John would bring him back (ala The Animated Series). I'm wondering if people are just interpreting, EMPIRE magazine included, Raimi's comments about it being alien, and with the John Jameson character returning, that it means Jameson will bring it to Earth. Does anyone have an official source backing EMPIRE magazine's information up, or are we just assuming that he will bring it back based on Raimi's comments about it being alien? Bignole 19:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the quote with me, but I'm positive that Raimi said that himself in a quote as he described the symbiote as an "alien life force". Maybe you can tap Wiki-newbie for the direct quote from Raimi; didn't he say he had the issue that had the Ultimate Superhero Preview? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No no...I'm not doubting the "alien life force" part, I'm asking about the part in the OUR plot section that reads "During this time, astronaut John Jameson brings back an "alien life force" to Earth with him." The only part of that statement that is quote is "alien life force"...so are we just assuming John Jameson is bringing it back? Is EMPIRE magazine just assuming that? My question is about the Jameson part, not the alien life form part. Bignole 21:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This thread has the information from Empire, but the magazine doesn't seem to state the symbiote's origins in a speculative tone. What do you think? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That was exactly my point, they only quote Raimi as saying it will be alien in nature, but that part about Jameson is their opinion with no one else backing it up. It just seems like another "Night Stalker" thing, were they take one part of of what Raimi says that start running with it. Remember, Raimi's quote about that was that they weren't sure what Harry would be, it could be Night Stalker or it could be nothing...what did Empire do?..they showed pics of Harry with the title "Night Stalker". I'm not saying that Jameson won't bring him back, it just seems speculative to say that he WILL when they don't actually quote anyone as saying Jameson in the same sentence with "alien life force". Bignole 21:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Actually, Biggy, Kolchak is the Nightstalker. Harry might be the "Night Surfer" *cringe* Anyway, I consider Empire fairly reliable and I'd agree with Erik that they wouldn't present speculation as fact. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, oopps..my bad on that. My problem is the same one I've always had with EMPIRE, and that's why is it that ONLY "EMPIRE" uses this name, or this plot point. Why hasn't anyone else used this stuff from interviews with Raimi and the cast. Why hasn't anyone interviewed Daniel to ask him about his character in this movie, they interviewed just about everyone else...including Elizabeth Banks. Remember, even reliable sources can make mistakes. BoxOfficeMojo, to this day, still reports Superman Returns' budget at 270 million, when Singer has gone on record saying it's 204 million. They still claim Pirates has a budget for 225 million, but no one has actually released that little tidbit of information about the two sequels; so to me that begs to say that even EMPIRE could be doing a little "jump the gun" speculation. Bignole 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe Daniel Gillies is a private person and avoids interviews. Maybe the magazine's content is too premium for sites like SuperHeroHype.com to quote at large. Empire qualifies as a reliable source, so even if there's the possibility they're wrong, we the editors are not exactly as reliable as them to make any assumptions. When someone from the studio specifies the symbiote's initial transporter, we'll update accordingly. No biggie. Burden lies with them to get the facts right, not us. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, just wanted to point out what I thought was some "speculation" on the part of EMPIRE; hopefully they aren't wrong about that bit of information (but seriously, I hope they totally bomb on the "Night SURFER" ((thanks ACE)) part of their story). Bignole 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FOX clip that shows Venom

I'm putting this up here to show exactly what FOX showed, because people are attempting to use images from the stolen trailer at the ComicCon. As you'll see it isn't the same image that has been showing its face since FOX aired their "sneak peak". Second 25 is the actual image, and I will provide the scenes that occur in that 1 second so that there isn't any confusion as to the image. I've already seen at least two people try and pass off stolen footage as FOX footage.

-Images removed-

Anyone can verify they are in the right order, simply pause the clip at the 24 second mark and slowly go through each frame by frame. I don't mean to be anal, but this is meant as a means to prove that the images that have been inserted under the guise of "FOX sneak peak image" are in fact still the illegal images from the ComicCon trailer that has still not been released by Sony. Bignole 06:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In light of the claim I helped provide 'stolen footage':

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d177/ChibiKiriyama/Venomproof2.jpg

Clear photo proof from the same footage Bignole cropped from of the movie's rendition of Venom. As you can see the FOX footage clearly shows Venom (and not simply his mouth) when freeze-framed at the proper place. If futher proof is needed, simply put in the URL at the top of the image for further evidence. You will find it is from YouTube, and is the same clip in question. The Chibi Kiriyama

He's right, if you hit the pause button repeatedly you can catch the frame that can't be caught by dragging the play bar. It's actually much easier to pull off at Sony's website footage, than it is at YouTube. http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/spiderman3/blog/archives/2006/11/check_out_a_sneak_peek_of_spid.php My bad. Bignole 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Costume

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

[edit] Spiderman and Venom?

This was sent to me by a friend. How authentic do you guys think it is?

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7963/spideyandvenomhz4.png

Obviously a fake. Both figures are Spider Man, one red/blue, the other black. Veracious Rey 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)