Talk:Spider-Man (film series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Spider-Man (film series) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
June 11, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information:

To-do list for Spider-Man (film series):	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

Contents 1 Edit this page 2 Writers? 3 sequels info source: 4 Why is this an article? 5 Contract info 6 Merge 6.1 Spider-Man 4 6.2 Spider-Man (Unfilmed Cannon version) 7 GA review comments 8 Cast and crew 9 The Lizard 10 Spiderman 4 villain 11 Spider-Man 4 release year 12 Film series history 12.1 Issue 1 12.2 Issue 2 12.3 Extra information 12.4 Okey-dokey 13 BIG BLOB OF MINUTES 14 Unprofessional heading 15 SM4 Writer 16 james vanderbilt interview 17 2147? 18 "Marvel went bankrupt" 19 NEW SOURCE!!! 20 some new source

[edit] Edit this page

Taking a note from john Reid at WT:G, I'd like to expressly say that that the latest version of the article as of this posting, is by no means finished. This is a page created based on a recommendation found here. So, like John would say: edit this page. And no, I'm not askinmg others to do the work for me. This is my creation and I won't abandon it. I just want others to feel comfortable contributing. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Posters added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.79.125 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Writers?

Is it correct to list Stan Lee and Ditko as writers since they didn't write the films and this article refers only to the films?. Vicco Lizcano 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ^{(Hey! Listen!)}

They should really be listed as "characters"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sequels info source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6630521.stm Not solid enough on its' own, but for building the 'future' section... ThuranX 03:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this an article?

This article is wholly unnecessary, as, unlike say Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, these films are not treated as a complete whole; rather, an initial film followed by sequels when popularity warrants it. The use of the term film serial in the lead is highly inaccurate as well. WesleyDodds 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

'Cause Spider-Man is filled up, and this article can serve as an overview of the film series, especially development of projects after Spider-Man 3? The information certainly wouldn't belong at Spider-Man 3 itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The information on possible sequels can be used for any potential articles on those films (given they are officially announced and therefore fulfill notability guidelines). Everything else in this article is redundant with the individual articles. WesleyDodds 01:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Spider-Man 4 isn't even close to being verifiable to be produced at this point. There's no certainty about the director or the cast returning. Plus, is redundancy so bad? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but "official annoucements" that only say "we want to make another film" still fall under crystal balling. Saying you want to do something, and actually doing it are two very different things. And per crystal ball, we should only create an article for a film that we know WILL be made. We don't know that any future Spidey films will be made, not beyond Sony's announcement that they want to make them. Otherwise, you are condoning the creating of a Spider-Man 5 and 6, which means we'd have empty articles sitting around for probably half a decade or more (since it's taken over 6 years for 3 Spider-Man films to come out so far).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This part of what I'm getting at. Since sequel talk is all just rumors and hearsay at this point, then this article also loses a lot of its purpose. WesleyDodds 01:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what is rumor is "Spider-Man 4 will happen", but what is verifiable fact is "Sony has expressed an interest in making more sequels". The former, again, is a rumor, it's unsubstantiated talk. The latter is verifiable, by reliable sources, that Sony does indeed want to make more films. Whether that happens or not, only time will tell.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think we have different definitions of rumors. Rumors, from my understanding, are completely unsubstantiated bits of information (such as Sarah Michelle Gellar being in The Dark Knight). The studio entered talks with Koepp to write a screenplay, and the studio folks themselves have repeatedly mentioned the projects being in production. It's not enough to start up these future film articles, but it's certainly adequate discussion for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with verifiable information; it's quite clear Sony wants to make more Spider-Man films. I just don't think there's enough citable information to use that as an example as to why this page should exist. I'm farily positive you can just throw it in to Spider-Man 3. WesleyDodds 02:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

But that article is about the third film, so it doesn't make sense to include information about another film there. I'm not sure why you're contesting this article, though -- is it because the content is redundant, basically? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Throw it into Spidey 3? Riight. Unfortunately, at this moment no one future film has any direct tie-in with Spider-Man 3. Hence, this is why it is here, because Sony's plans are for the series as a whole, not a direct sequel to Spidey 3. Also, we didn't create this page solely for that information, it already existed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the content is redundant and the article deals with the three individual films, not the "film series" it is theoroetically supposed to be about. None of the information deals with the concept of a "Spider-Man film series". It's also not a film series that necessitates it's own separate article, like Star Wars does. The only relevant information contained on this page not repeated on the others is the talk of sequels. And is that citable? Sure. Is it notable enough for a new article? I would argue not. The article for X-Men: The Last Stand does a perfect job of addressing possible sequels, because any sequels would quite logically come after that film in a real-life sequence. WesleyDodds 05:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will say two things. You know what you need to do if you truly feel that this article should not exist. And second, how can you possibly compare the X3 article to the Spidey 3 article. It isn't even in the same league, as for as how well it's written, and how much information is there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your second point. I think they're comparable situations, in that they are highly-successful sequel adaptations of Marvel Comics characters. I was not commenting on the quality of either article. WesleyDodds 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what you were stating, but my point was that the quality of Spider-Man 3, and the amount of information that it already contains (and is only going to grow) means that information pertaining to the series as a whole would not be beneficial there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that point isn't strong enough, since the logical solution would be to clean up and better organize the Spider-Man 3 page. WesleyDodds 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wesley, the article has been heavily revised to try to encompass the series instead of each individual film. The next plan is to find reviews that can describe the overall series. We also have Development information that led up to the film series, but is not directly related to the first film, as well as Future information until Spider-Man 4 is actually on its way to being produced. If you have any comments or suggestions, feel free to share. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contract info

• "Studios also go for package deals to keep the films flowing. Key talent is typically contractually obligated to more installments, with ever-bigger payoffs as the franchises mature. Tobey Maguire couldn't don the Spider-Man suit until he agreed to web-sling for two sequels. He received $4 million for the first film but will make a reported $26 million for the next two installments."[1]

• "Columbia executive vice president of production Matt Tolmach, who is overseeing the project for production president Peter Schlessel, said it always has been the studio's intent to produce a sequel, with the two lead actors signed to sequel commitments in their original contracts. But Raimi was not, he said."^[1]

Will look for more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

[edit] Spider-Man 4

Proposed Merger of Spider-Man 4 to this article, until more definite information is released stating the film will come out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support for the sake of reducing the impression that a film will be made based on the existence of the article Spider-Man 4. The same logic to keeping Spider-Man 4 would apply Spider-Man 5 and Spider-Man 6, since the references are not referring to one film, but several. When there is evidence of actual production for the film -- and the concept of development hell still applies to major superhero film series -- then Spider-Man 4 can be resurrected as a film article. At this point, there are not enough qualifications to make the production of Spider-Man 4 concrete -- no director, no cast, no production start date. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This article is just as much about Spider-Man 5, 6 and 7 as it is about Spider-Man 4. This discussion definitely belongs in the Spider-Man film series article. Merge it. CharacterZero | Speak 03:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support - It should be merged until these movies are officially announced. Having its own article would fuel crystal-balling. UnfriendlyFire 04:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-Man (Unfilmed Cannon version)

Above article is not appropriate to stand alone, being based on only one source and being underdeveloped due to its status. Proposed merger of this unfilmed version into the film series article. Information can be compressed and incorporated into Spider-Man film series#Development. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - No need to play preference to Zito. Like the guy, Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter is one of the best in the series, but no need to devote an entire page to film he never made. It seems like the page is fluffed with section headers, when we could probably condense it into two or three nice paragraphs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Bignole; the sections easily can be compressed to several paragraphs. It seems fluffy and rather easy to fuse into this article under its own section. I believe the Superman film series article is written similarly, given the number of times the newest Superman went to the drawing board. --myselfalso 19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I beleive that this should stay seperate, because they weren't involvedin making the 2002 movie.

But they didn't make any movie. This is about the development of a Spider-Man movie, not the development of Sam Raimi's movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The merge has been completed. I have compressed the content into a single full paragraph. If anyone feels that more from the original version needs to be included, feel free to visit the link, follow the redirect back, and look at the article history. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review comments

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

broad comments:

• need more image/charts/figures
• circle reference to spider-man 1 section development and in here needs to be resolved.

--Kalyan 08:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast and crew

I would like to propose a Cast and crew section that would talk about the involvement of the major cast and crew members. For example, Maguire and Dunst signed for three films, while Raimi signed on for one initially. I'm sure we can find other details of the consistency or change to the crew, such as the composer and the VFX supervisor. What do you think? It just seems that the article could use a little bit more prose. Additionally, the GA reviewer requested more images, but I'm not sure if that's possible for the film series -- maybe we can put a free image of Maguire or Raimi in this proposed section? It would show the face of Peter Parker for the article's purposes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lizard

I've removed /Film's mention of the Lizard being 95% likely to be in the film because this took place before Raimi expressed interest in what villain to be used. The measurement is null now, and the site's judgment does not seem any more dependable than FreezeDriedMovies.com's own speculation, or any other movie sites' future analysis, for that matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spiderman 4 villain

The spiderman 4 villain will be carnage and this is proof http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi182.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx145%2FM-O-E-0-9%2Fspidey4rf2.jpg&searchTerm=carnage&pageOffset=17

Cute image. Nice try though. Please don't bring your homemade art here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I second the notion... please, make an effort to actually contribute to Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree but I also that Carnage diserves to be the villan but may I state as proof that he currentl isn't ; it's currently unkown if there will even be a Spiderman 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.231.181 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-Man 4 release year

From the article: "Sony plans to release Spider-Man 4 in the summer of 2010." I think that's a little misleading considering the article that it's sourced from doesn't really say that. What do others think? -Joltman 11:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If the citation doesn't actually say that, then I saw remove it and write it in more ambiguous terminology.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's clear from the last paragraph that it's 2010:

“

Should there be another Pirates, there is a natural place for it: 2010. Studios are starting to claim dates on that year as well, and as it stands it is beginning to look a lot like … well, 2007. Currently on the docket are Spider-Man 4 and Shrek 4, along with a Harry Potter 7.

”

2010 is "that year", and Spider-Man 4 is one of the films lined up for that year. Just for the record, IMDb only estimates release years (as it says 2009 for Spider-Man 4) on its own, and it will update itself when it's wrong. For example, the Logan's Run remake had 2007 as the release year at IMDb, but when it became clear that nothing was coming out this year for that film, it was changed to 2010. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see being mentioned as 'on the docket' for 2010 to be the same as 'Sony plans for a 2010 release'. Maybe it's just me, but the sourced article reference is broad and this article sounds official. -Joltman 12:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of prefer the less official version, seeing as it's 3 years from now and anything can happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that the studio is strictly planning that release date, just planning it as a target. Heck, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is set for a July 10, 2009 release date, and not a single thing has taken place to fast-track production for that date. Considering the delays and Raimi's waffling, the 2010 release seems accurate. I'm not sure how else to interpret the passage; Shrek 4 is set for May 21, 2010, and the release date for Harry Potter 6 is in November 2008, so by that rule of thumb, it seems that the last Potter film would come out in 2010. Maybe mention of that should be placed on the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film series history

How about actually getting the facts right? In reverting, you got every one of the facts wrong. Jesszuus. Point by point, guys:

In 1985, the bankrupt company Marvel Comics

Marvel wasn't anywhere NEAR bankruptcy in 1985. They'd just started an entire new animation division in LA and were doing as well as any comics company in the world.

auctioned rights to the comic book superhero Spider-Man to the independent film studio Cannon Films,

They didn't "auction" diddly squat. Cannon optioned the character(s) for five years. There was no "auction" because no one else was interested in doing comic book adaptations at that time, since Superman 3 had performed poorly. And Cannon was never a "studio," it was a company. The had offices, not a back lot and big barn-like soundstages. THAT's a studio. Your terminology is just wrong.

run by producer Menahem Golan and his cousin Yoram Globus, for $225,000

My goodness. You got something right. But this was an OPTION-- essentially a down-payment against a larger sum, should the movie be made.

The film rights would revert back to Marvel if a film was not made by April 1990.

Which could be put more simply by saying they bought a 5 year option.

Golan sought a script for the film adaptation, which was estimated to have a $15 million budget, and spent $2 million on ten different scripts.

The way this paragraph is written, half of this information is in the wrong place. Golan did not spend $2million on scripts; Cannon spent about $2million total on the project, including scripts, pre-production, the payment to Marvel, advertising, etc. There were not ten scripts, there were 8, plus a treatment by Leslie Stevens which never went to script. And every one of the scripts were, contractually, successive rewrites of the first screenplay. This includes the 3 "low-budget" versions written in 1989, as well as 2 drafts done via Golan at Columbia's request in 1989-90. The budget was estimated closer to $20million, with $15million for the below the line cost (a lot of money in 1985-88), five million ear-marked for above-the-line (cast, director, etc.)

The studio temporarily attached Poltergeist director Tobe Hooper to film Spider-Man, but Hooper was later replaced by director Joseph Zito. Leslie Stevens, the creator of The Outer Limits, was hired to write a script for the film under Hooper.

Bass-ackwards, and you just keep repeating this stuff. No offence, but you don't hire or attach a director before there's a story. Stevens was hired first. Hooper had a three picture deal with Cannon and was associated with the project for a couple of months (his name appeared on some trade ads). Stevens' story was shelved and never seen. John Brancato & Ted Newsom were hired at the suggestion of Stan Lee. Only after they (that is, us) submitted an original treatment & it was approved did Joe Zito come into the picture, just before we were asked to go to script.

Stevens created a different origin for Spider-Man than the comic book version, writing about a villain named Dr. Zork, a scientist who creates mutants and transforms his employee Peter Parker into a spider-man in an accident with an experiment.

What's funny is, you're using the name "Zork," which I made up in COMICS INTERVIEW years ago, because I couldn't remember the character's real name. I read Stevens' stuff years after we did our script, from a friend at Cannon, and it stunk. Only later after talking to Golan did I realize Stevens was just doing what he was told to do, since Golan never really understood the character.

Spider-Man creator Stan Lee originally provided his own treatment for Hooper, on which Zito hired writers Ted Newsom and John Brancato to adapt into a script.

No again. No one listened to Stan's suggestions, which rightly infuriated him, hence the stupid Stevens treatment, which had nothing to do with the comics. Zito didn't hire us; we had already written & submitted the approved story when Joe got the gig, fighting for it as hard as we did. (He had not realized Hooper had been slated to direct it.)

When Zito joined the project, the new director hired Barney Cohen to rewrite the script.

No again. We worked with Joe Zito. Barney was only hired after we turned in the first draft and it was approved. This was all reported in Variety & the Reporter, it's no secret.

The story, described to be 'pure, quintessential Spider-Man' had the superhero battle the villain Doctor Octopus.

That's a quote from Joe Zito in the CFQ article. I'd say he was right.

While no casting was done, Zito expressed interest in casting stunt man Scott Leva as Spider-Man and Bob Hoskins as Doc Ock, with Stan Lee appearing as Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson.

But it's all talk. Sure, Stan wanted to play Jameson (and always did); Joe wasn't keen on the idea. It's not as if this was some casting decision which'd been made. Tom Cruise was mooted for Peter/Spidey at one point, too (our suggestion). Scott Leva had done the ads for Cannon and appearances for Marvel, Zito liked him, and he would've been great. Adolph Caesar (as a cop) Peter Cushing (as a good-guy professor) and Katherine Hepburn (Aunt May) were discussed as well.

Due to a financial crisis with Cannon Films, the project shut down after $1.5 million had been spent on the pre-production process.

No again. The project was tabled because Cannon had acquired the rights to Superman from the Salkynds, and Masters of the Universe from Mattel. The money that would've gone into Spider-Man's budget drifted toward these two projects, both of which were considered (rightly or wrongly) more of a sure thing and more marketable. Cannon still had the rights to Spider-Man but now were looking at having to do it on a $7-8 million budget. THAT is when the series of rewrites occurred, severely limiting the action. Zito walked waway, knowing it wouldn't be much good at that budget. Albert Pyun stepped in (he had done such a wonderful job on Captain America...)

And the project hardly "shut down." The prep work was already done. In 1989, Golan and Globus split when Pathè bought out Cannon; as "21st Century," Golan hauled out the original screenplay (which was all ready to go) and pre-sold TV rights, then went to Columbia for the bulk of the budget in exchange for theatrical rights. The script-- all the scripts, actually, AND all the pre-production sketches, AND the budget work and everything else-- then went instead to Carolco (which released all its pictures through Columbia anyway.)

It isn't all that hard to understand. Continued revision to this screwed-up version of the facts doesn't help clear it up. Refer to Hiltzik's LA TIMES article (cited below), Sheldon Teitelbaum's CINEFANTASTIQUE article, and a COMICS INTERVIEW issue from 1990, where both Stan Lee and yours truly tell the story. And as for this exchange: No, I beleive that this should stay seperate, because they weren't involvedin making the 2002 movie. :But they didn't make any movie. This is about the development of a Spider-Man movie, not the development of Sam Raimi's movie.

There's a direct and publically documented line of descent from the Cannon era to Carolco & Cameron (links to the original script and the "Cameron rewrite" below), and from Carolco/Cameron to MGM/UA and then to Columbia, which acquired the "Cameron material"-- i.e., the screenplay (below) and his subsequent "Electro" treatment. So it's not like there were a bunch of separate Spider-Man" projects-- it's just that this had the gestation period of an old elephant.

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/SpiderMan_the_original.doc

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/spider_man_cohen_newson_cameron_8_4_93draft.html Ted Newsom 04:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There's generally no way to authenticate scripts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor claims to be Ted Newsom. Ted, you've been editing for some time, so you must be aware of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Context must be backed by reliable sources. We can't consider your recollections because, well, there's no way to tell if you're really Ted or if your information is correct. We certainly can't write, "Blah blah blah,<ref>[[User:Ted Newsom|Ted Newsom]], who was formerly involved with the project.</ref>" I would suggest using reliable sources to address the information, but then again, I would have to suggest not doing so, since your involvement constitutes a conflict of interest. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Michael Hiltzik article in the LA TIMES SUNDAY MAGAZINE and the Sheldon Teitelbaum article in CFQ are quoted and sourced; they got it right. Guys, none of your arguments address my major complaint-- that the entry is factually inaccurate, even by wikipedia standards, and by standards of fact and grammarical clarity. The odd standards here use thrice-told on-line "reporting" as "verifiable" fact, as if something published on the net is accurate by virtue of computer accessibility. That's not true. As you all know, repetition does not make something correct. And if you do buy into this standard, then why would you not accept links to word-for-word online copies of the original manuscripts as legitimate references? (They are both, in fact, legitimate, as is the Cameron treatment, available on line as well. And, yes, I am who I say I am.) If you don't want to believe me or think there's some wacky conflict of interest, OK: but fannish devotion to an ill-written & erroneous entry is even worse, particularly when the correct facts are cited & linked within the overall article itself. The irony of the challenge to me-- i.e., a conflict of interest-- is that quite of few of the cited sources (like the TIMES & CFQ articles I mentioned) used me as a source in the first place, as well as documents I provided to the authors involved. Witness the reference to "Dr. Zork," which was not the character's name in the Leslie Stevens treatment. Actually, I think the first reference to the character was as "Dr. Zyrex," another made-up name, in the piece in David Kraft's COMICS INTERVIEW magazine, which also had interviews with Spidey guys Erik Larsen, Todd McFarland and Stan Lee, who discussed the then-current (1990) Columbia option on Spidey. (Do we discount the Spidey-movie references Stan made in his interview because he's got a potential conflict of interest, or doesn't this kick in unless he posts here himself?)Ted Newsom 20:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the editors here want to provide verifiable content from reliable sources about the film series' background, and I don't appreciate the insinuation of fannish devotion. You've mentioned information about the background that are not in any of the existing sources, such as the reason why the project was tabled, like Cannon getting the rights to Superman. The content needs to be backed by independent, published sources. We are willing to correct any issues with the article, but you seem to disagree that Variety and Business Week are not verifiable just because the information is online on their websites. Is this the case? A lot of the content there is based on these two citations, as well as the Hiltzik article and the Teitelbaum article. If you're disputing their information, it's not possible to alter it beyond the boundaries of the verifiable content to favor your recollections. Please feel free to provide additional citations to support the extra information you think the article needs to mention. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue 1

How about we start with the first line and go sequentially through the thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_comics Please tell me where in this article it says Marvel was near bankruptcy in 1985. Cheers.Ted Newsom 09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that just because one Wikipedia articles says something about a topic, doesn't mean that another-one that same topic-will state it. There are different project heads for different forms of media. There is a film community, and a comic book community, a novel, dinosaur, etc etc community. If we have verifiable information that says something, then it meets Wikipedia criteria. The simple fact that someone didn't venture over to another page to post it there is irrelevant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

From Business Week: "When the rights to the comic-book character first came up for bid in 1985, it wasn't a good time for superheroes. Spider-Man was simply another of the properties then-bankrupt Marvel Comics was hoping to sell, and the mild-mannered showing for Warner Bros.' fourth Superman flick convinced Hollywood that superheroes didn't have much of a big-screen future." Bignole is right; it's not customary to cite another Wikipedia article as backup. If Marvel Comics was a Featured Article (or at least had citations for the 1980s section), it could be drawn upon. This is not the case. The article says, though, "In 1986, Marvel was sold to New World Entertainment." Considering this is true, is there a reason why it was sold that caused Business Week to think that it was doing badly before then? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Further coverage of the bankruptcy: "The character's history was a troubled one. Marvel Comics was facing bankruptcy, and, in 1985, sold the film rights to Cannon Films, owned by Menahen Golan, for $225,000. Golan then spent $2 million on a number of unworkable scripts for the project... Ultimately, the rights sold to Golan were said to have expired and Marvel, emerging from bankruptcy in 1998, settled the previous suits..." From Wasko, Janet (2003). "Expanding the Industry", How Hollywood Works. Sage Publications Inc, 163.  —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to trace the course of Marvel Comics in the 1980s and 1990s. According to the article "Marvel Comics enters a whole New World" in the Chicago Sun-Times on November 21, 1986, "New World Pictures Ltd. yesterday bought Marvel Comics for $50 million and added the world's largest comic book publisher and its stable of fantastic characters to its line-up of teen-age entertainments. The purchase from Cadence Industries Corp. comes as America's $175 million-a-year comic-book industry is enjoying a boom after decades of fighting a losing battle against television... Marvel, whose action characters Spiderman [sic] and the X-Men help the firm lead the industry, last year had sales of $73 million. New World said it expects Marvel to post a substantial sales increase in 1986." I backtracked a little bit and found the following: "Starting in the latter part of the 1960s, Mr. Lee's coveted library of some 3,000 characters passed through the hands of a series of owners. Mr. Goodman sold out to a publicly held conglomerate called Cadence Industries. In the mid-1980s, when Cadence's assets were spun off, Marvel was acquired by Hollywood film studio New World Entertainment-the maker of such TV shows as The Wonder Years." From Phyllis Furman. "PERELMAN'S TANGLED WEB: FINANCIER'S HUBRIS PLUNGES MARVEL INTO BANKRUPTCY, RUINING A CULTURAL ICON", Crain's New York Business, 1997-04-28.  Perhaps the spinning off of the assets was misinterpreted by Business Week, and I think that the Wasko book uses BW to mention that information, considering the similar recitation of facts in both sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you can pretty much throw the Janet Wasko thing out. It doesn't sound like SHE was using primary sources. Your other lengthy quote shows what I've said, which is that Marvel was financially sound up until Perlman bought out the company from Cadence... which was the point I was making, that the reference was faulty & untrue. The big comic book recession hadn't hit yet. Due respect to Ms. Wasko, covering this wacky business is not like just any old business. Maybe she's better at writing about leveraged buyouts or something. And remember-- this is just the first sentence of the entry in question...Ted Newsom 04:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue 2

• Article: "Marvel Comics auctioned rights to the comic book superhero Spider-Man to the independent film studio Cannon Films, run by producer Menahem Golan and his cousin Yoram Globus, for $225,000."
• Source: "The only producer willing to take a shot at bringing Spider-Man to the screen was Israeli gadfly Menahem Golan, whose independent film studio Cannon Films bid a paltry $225,000 for the rights."

Perhaps "bid" was misinterpreted to mean that an auction took place. What would be better terminology? Also, can a reliable source be found that describes the type of company that Cannon Films was? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a desciption of what kind of company Cannon was-- there's a book that details the whole thing, incluing a description of thir various locations (i.e., offices). Can't recall the title; sorry.

As for how to phrase it? Simple. Just say what happened. "Independent film company Cannon Films, run by producer Menahem Golan and his cousin, Yoram Globus, optioned the Spider-Man movie rights from Marvel in 1985, for a total of $225,000, to be paid out over the length of the five-year option." [As widely reported, a late payment by Golan in 1989 had Marvel huffing that the contract was therefore null & void; they lost the argument, and Golan held the rights.]Ted Newsom 04:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra information

• Lichtenfield, Eric (September 2004). Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, And The American Action Movie. Praeger Publishers, 268. 

"According to Variety, in 1985, Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus's Cannon Films was the first to obtain the film rights to Spider-Man, to which they attached Invasion USA and Missing in Action director Joseph Zito and even placed ads in trade publications announcing the 'event' film..." (more here) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Erik, wherever they're getting their information is clearly 2nd or 3rd hand (you see the problem?) The original Cannon trade announcements-- in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter-- came out in early 1985, with Tobe Hooper's name listed as director, Leslie Stevens as the writer. Subsequent to that, in autumn of 1985, John & I were hired at the suggestion of Stan Lee (ref: Comics Interview Magazine, 1989, interviews w/Lee, Newsom; reprinted in Comics Interview Super Special 1990). That winter, with much bigger, 2-page ads in the Weekly Variety & Reporter (I've got one framed on the wall in front of me, btw), Newsom & Brancato were listed as writers, with Joe Zito as director. And months after that, the name of Barney Cohen was added to "Written by." Now, even the quote you reproduce is dicey. Regarding the veracity of this quote you offer, I doubt that Variety EVER said "Cannon was the first to obtain film rights," because it isn't true. Because prior to Cannon, Roger Corman had an option on the property (hence the connection to the abortive Fantastic 4). That shows you how unpopular comic book properties were, because Corman never shelled out substantial dough for literary propeties in his life, so the dough must've been way less than even Cannon's price.

That said, the guy summarizes the saga pretty well, with a couple of exceptions. He makes the error in assuming the Carolco era was distinct from the Cannon/21st Century stuff, which is untrue. For one thing, the industry source Baseline Hollywood reported (in info also published weekly in both the trades) that "Spider-Man" was being made by Carolco, 21st Century and Lightstorm, all in conjunction; both Cameron and Neil Ruttenberg were listed as screenwriters. Neil Ruttenberg had rewritten the script for Golan/21st Century in Dec. 1989/Jan 1990, when the project was presented to Columbia; Neil has never worked for Carolco or met Cameron, ergo his script (and the others) were at Carolco, otherwise there is no explanation for his name to be listed on Baseline 5 years after his job. For another, Variety reported on September 1, 1993, that Cameron (then finishing True Lies) had recently delivered a completed screenplay to Carolco, which dovetails precisely to the date(s) on the alleged Cameron screenplay, "director's revision July 24, 1993," and "Third Draft, August 4, 1993." From reading Lichtenfield's summary, one would assume that Columbia and Marvel were the only players in the tail end of the story, but that's not the case, either. Columbia acquired a perpetual option on all previous scripts (ref: Carolco Bankrupcy Records, Federal Archives, Western Division) and excersized its option on the "Cameron material," hence Columbia's acquisition of the "Cameron" screenplay and the subsequent treatment. Those items were the property of MGM/UA (via acquisition), not Marvel. And as you know, it was the Cameron treatment which was the basis of Koepp's first draft script. Ted Newsom 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to read the policy on verifiability, the guideline on reliable sources, and the stand on personal experience, or "what you know to be true". If you have actual sources that contradict what Erik's sources say, then please show them. Don't say "it's here, just go find it", or "I have it right in front of me," because that does not help us in the least. Actually provide issue, volume, page numbers, or a url link to access (yes, it is possible to have a website that contains information from 20 years ago). Wikipedia is bound by verifiability, and verifiability is not, I repeat, is not "Truth". We deal in what we can verify, not what you know to be true. Sorry, but it's the rules of the game. You could be Bill Gates himself, whose identity was verified and all, and you still couldn't edit the Microsoft page without providing actual sources. You cannot "clear up inaccuracies" and not actually provide a source along with it. Just because you know the truth doesn't mean we can just take your word for it, we have to be able to verify it beyond just your word.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, pace, BN. I read the stuff you recommended, and also the notes on "Citing oneself": Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. I think I can handle that. My name is on the linked copy of our first draft, and it's authentic; my name & 4 others are on the linked copy of the later draft, and it's authentic. I don't think I'm disqualified under "Financial" either (just in case), since nobody at Wiki is paying me and I don't stand to derive income or status by keeping things factually correct. Likewise, there is no ongoing court case regarding the subject. And I don't see a great deal of self-promotion in my stuff, since I'm also promoting the 11 other guys who were involved over 15 years. Yes, I understand about sourcing. The problem I have with the entry if exactly what the Wiki guidelines caution AGAINST-- citing A and B, and "therefore" C-- except that A & B are innaccurate and not primary sources. Erik's book quote, for example, has a writer misquoting Variety, which gives the sentence superficial credibility, but in fact the quote is quoting something ELSE quoting Variety.Ted Newsom 05:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If by first draft you mean the script, we cannot confirm that it is "authentic". Secondly, know what was happening in the script tells us nothing about why it wasn't used or anything else you were talking about. You can only "cite yourself" if you can verify who you are, and even then, it's still not advisable. Did you read the part on primary sources? Wikipedia accepts primary sources, but prefers secondary and third-party sources. It was all in the "no original research" policy. If you have a primary source, provide it. You cannot sit here and go, "no, it happened like this," and expect us to believe it and go on our merry ways. You're a smart man, who obviously knows where to look, I would suggest finding the sources you refer to and citing them. You can find the templates for sourcing at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Fill them out when you source, this way we know where to look. In other words, if it's a magazine then you'd use Template:Cite journal, and you'd fill out volume number, issue number, page number, preferably an ISSN number.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Bignole, darling, sweetheart, I AM a Primary Source, as defined by the standards you cite: Primary sources are documents or people [emphasis mine] very close to the situation being written about. ... Examples of primary sources [also] include ... public hearings, trials, or interviews [e.g., assorted lawsuits, which are public record; Carolco's 27 boxes of bankruptcy paperwork in the Federal Archives, ditto]... written or recorded notes ...or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as ... scripts, screenplays. Jeeze louise, how much "closer to the situation being written about" can you get than a guy who was there and active in it, knew & interviewed dozens of the other writers, directors & producers involved... and was the original primary source in at least two of the articles that are used as primary sources in the body of the entry in the first place? As for whether I Yam Who I Yam-- hey, I'm in the phone book; I can be contacted via email, I've got a page on IMDb, you can drop by this evening for coffee... I mean... gee whiz.
  • And you guys are putting me into the wacky position of having to un-describe Cannon as a "studio," which it wasn't; it was a company, a business, housed in an office building. And, what? I have to dig up a photo of the building to prove that it didn't have sound stages or a back lot? You want me to find a book that says "Oh, they didn't have studio facilities, they were just an office full of people." How about flipping that around instead? If someone claims to describe Cannon as a "studio," let them prove it-- with a satellite photo, perhaps, or a tourist guide book to the fabulous Cannon Studio Tour.
  • The article in question (arrggghh) also has these bullshit claims that Marvel was bankrupt and had to "auction" off Spider-Man-- which Erik's own (new) citations disprove. The "bankrupt" nonsense is contradicted by other Wikipedia entries, as I've Xreferenced, which in fact ARE correctly cited and researched. And these two little bits-- the "bankrupt" nonsense and the "studio" errors-- are both just in the first couple of lines.
  • I really do appreciate your single-minded resolve to play by the Wikipedia rules. Things do need to be verifiable. But things can be "verified" by multiple sources and still utterly untrue. Check out the more wacky hot-button topics, political, religious or whatever. Advocates can cite dozens or hundreds of articles "proving" their point by sheer numbers of references, all of which are factually specious.Ted Newsom 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Try to think of this article in the long term. A living person is not around forever to verify this information. I don't truly doubt that you are who you say you are, but let's say 20 years down the road, people will be reading about the Spider-Man film series. There is no indication that the information, without verifiable backing, won't be warped by editors (either in good or bad faith). Without a citation, the information is adrift. From my experience, I haven't had an issue drawing upon primary sources via third-party publications, such as interviews. If you could publish something somewhere about the history of the film series, then that could be cited and drawn upon. The issue is pretty much about the content needing static backing. Seeking out a person involved (like you) is not considered reasonable verifiability, especially considering Wikipedia's avoidance of citing itself, including its users. That's why we're trying to piece together what's available, since there is nothing better at the moment. Verifiability, however, remains the threshold for inclusion -- it doesn't matter a celebrity's wife knows that it's ravioli even though newspapers report that a celebrity's favorite dish is lasagna. I don't doubt that your information is more in-the-know than the cited articles, but your account needs to be somehow verifiable to usurp these said references. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for believing who I am, Erik; I was begining not to cast a shadow. But you see, it IS 20 years down the road, and the information is already grossly distorted-- hence my changes in the first place. And very few of the sources presently cited -- with that one neat exception you just posted which gets many of the business deals right-- seem to have even bothered to read the trades, look at the published ads, read interviews that directly quote those involved, or do anything but repeat twice-told tales. Hence you get the "telephone game" result of screwy history.

I'm not sure the complex facts would be that terribly interesting to more than three people. Maybe they would be. One of these daze.Ted Newsom 18:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ted, to be a primary source, you have to have been published as such (i.e. you should contact a reliable news organization and do a one-on-one interview, because that would make you are primary source). Primary sources DO NOT include some Wikipedia editor going "I know this is true, because I was there." An mechanic cannot jump on Wikipedia and write an article on the internal combustion engine, unless he can actually cite a "published"--that's the key word--work, whether that be an interview he did or not, the key is that it is published. YOU may know the ins and outs of everything that happened with the development of this project, no one is really doubting you, but Wikipedia isn't built on taking someone's word of mouth, we need published sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okey-dokey

(Which, by the way, was not a line we gave Doc Ock. Our script had a jamoke in a junkyard saying it.) So... the history of the pre-Columbian artifacts is semi-straight, and, I think, done by the Wikipedia house rules. It's based on published information, verifiable by anyone with a library card and some time to spare. Unlike the previous entry, it's not based on news stories that are five or six steps removed from the source. Pullitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Mike Hiltzik, who wrote the LA TIMES piece (March 24, 2002, and his previous LA Times piece a year earlier) talked to the players in this drama first-hand, which means these are primary sources (Joe Zito, Barney Cohen, Ethan Wiley, Ted Newsom, Neil Ruttenberg, Frank La Loggia, Scott Rosenberg, and Rae Santini of Cameron's Lightstorm Company-- and Carolco before that). Ed Gross wrote an entire book on the comic character, Spider-Man Confidential (at my urging, to tell the truth) and talked directly with primary sources Zito, Newsom, Ruttenberg, Cohen, plus John Brancato, has interviewed Stan Lee numerous times, and had access to every version of the script from the first draft through the final shooting script. With, I think, one internet-link exception, all the facts are sourced from printed material, not ephemeral cyberspace sources. And, you know, I don't think it's boring.Ted Newsom 08:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Still having trouble formatting, particularly the link to the SEC document.Ted Newsom 22:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BIG BLOB OF MINUTES

Doesn't anybody else think it's idiotic to list all three Spider-Man movies as if it's one film? I mean, a running time of 388 minutes... that helps absolutely no reader understand the subject. It's not as if you could list the comic Spider-Man and say it's 456,972,219 pages long. And totalling the grosses makes little sense either. Ted Newsom 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprofessional heading

I think the heading "Tangled Web of Litigation" sounds very unprofessional. Do puns like this really belong in an encyclopedia? Let's try to not make Wikipedia seem like a joke. –bse3 (talk • contribs • count • logs) 01:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SM4 Writer

I heard in an interview that Sam Raimi would help James Vanderbilt writing spider-man 4, so i changed the

"writers: David Koepp (spider-Man 1)

         ...
         Sam Raimi (spider-Man 3)
         ..."

to

"writers: David Koepp (spider-man 1)

         ...
         Sam Raimi (spider-man 3 & 4)
         ...

ok?194.210.67.136 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what interview you mean, because Raimi said it's up to Vanderbilt now where the franchise goes in a Comic Book Resources piece. Alientraveller (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's not OK. Change it back. A director in a position like Raimi's will work WITH a writer-- but they do not get credit AS writers.66.126.24.4 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Raimi is working on another film. It is not even known if he will direct the fourth film. Alientraveller (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] james vanderbilt interview

Found this... some more sm4 news, although not pretty much, maybe it should be added like: "in an interview to 'blog talk radio' James Vanderbilt has said that once the strike is over he will start working on the script"

http://www.comics2film.com/index.php?a=story&b=31006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.221.213 (talk • contribs)

[edit] 2147?

Really we wont be alive by then, and im almost sure Sam Rammi will be dead..yeah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.5.164 (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Marvel went bankrupt"

In the "development hell" part, there is written:

In 1996, Carolco, 21st Century, and Marvel went bankrupt.

what does that mean? I don't know much about history of Marvel Comics, but I didn't know they ever went bankrupt - but I may be easily wrong --Have a nice day. Running 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I maybe am wrong, as I read further :) --Have a nice day. Running 21:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NEW SOURCE!!!

please someone add this...

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/05/16/scoop-spider-man-4-and-5-might-be-shot-at-the-same-time/

looks like james vanderbilt is writing both 4 & 5 and they will be shot at the same time!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.221.158 (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Cinematical doesn't meet WP:RS though, being a blog. We only use sites like them for interviews and set visits, when information comes directly from the source. Sorry. Alientraveller (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

what about this??? http://movies.ign.com/articles/874/874613p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.13.224.109 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You realise who IGN's source is? Alientraveller (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] some new source

IDK if this is trustful source... but I added it here to see...

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4971&Itemid=9982.155.223.118 (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)