Talk:Spider-Man 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus.
This is not a forum for general discussion of anything that doesn't pertain to the article itself.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Contents

[edit] Creating page

Please begin this article soon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.107.194 (talk • contribs)

There is no information beyond Sony saying "we want to make Spider-Man 4".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Find out what has been said about future films at Spider-Man film series#Future. As you will see, there's no director or cast declared, so it's not certain that this project will take off. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Three more sequels are now confirmed, take a look at the links please:
[1]
[2]
[3]
--EfferAKS 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the film series page? We have all relevant information there already. You want us to create a page for 4,5,6 when we don't even know if they WILL make them and who will be in them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned in the Deletion Review discussion, User:Uncle G/Spider-Man 4 is a stub article that can be developed, as further verifiable information becomes available, and renamed out of user space at an appropriate point. Uncle G 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirct....for now

Please don't delete it! Delete it when it's cancelled! Or somethin'!

It appears that a completely new admin, separate from all the ones that have supported the deletion, redirection, and protection of this page, has opened it back up on the grounds that it isn't crystal balling, because of exception #1. That reads:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.

Here's the catch, films are not the Olympics. The Olympics pretty much always happen, unless there is some natural disaster, and the locations are picked well in advanced. Films, on the other hand, do not always happen, even when a studio wants them to. Warner Brothers wanted to make another Superman film after the fourth picture. For 20 years they started a project (meaning, they hired some actors, wrote a script, and hired some directors), but then everyone would have a difference of opinion and the entire thing would stop. Then it would start over, and then it would stop again (usually with different people each time). For 20 years this went on, until the success of Smallville and Batman Begins, when they tried again, and finally got it right. Halo is another example of a studio planning to make a movie, getting right up there, and then pulling out with production never beginning. THIS is what "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" means. Films are by nature unstable productions. The only time you can be sure a film is almost definitely going to come out, is when they are literally filming it. Studios don't generally spit out $100 million+ and then say "oh well, we don't like it so we won't release it". Spider-Man 4, as of right now, is a pipe-dream for SONY. They want to make the film, but they don't know how well 3 will do in the end, and they don't know who is going to direct it, or star in it, and as of right now they don't even know who will write it. They have negotiated with Sargent, but that doesn't mean diddly, because he could raise his fee up too high and they could tell him to take a hike. This is why we wait until production actually starts; that's production, not pre-production. Pre-production is when you write a script, and scout out some locations, that's what you do before you really get a check to actually go film your movie. This is why we haven't created a page, and originall had it redirecting, for Spider-Man 4, because in the end, we have no concrete evidence that the film WILL come out. We only know that SONY wants to make more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole. The concept of development hell is not outdated at all. Spider-Man was in development hell since the late 1980s (read Spider-Man (film)#Development for that background). Recent examples include:

  • Captain America, in development since 2000
  • Clash of the Titans remake, in development since 2002
  • Deathlok, in development since 2001
  • Ender's Game, in development since 2002
  • The Giver, in development since 1994
  • He-Man, in development since 2004
  • Hot Wheels, in development since 2003
  • Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, in development since 2004
  • Rendezvous with Rama, in development since 1997
  • Ronin, in development since 1998
  • Shazam!, in development since 2002
  • Sub-Mariner, in development since 2004
  • Terminator 4, in development since 2003
  • Y: The Last Man, in development since 2003

These can be checked at my subpage. All these films were announced to be made. None of them reached actual production. Like Bignole said, film projects are unstable in nature. There is nothing wrong with keeping attributable sources about the film as we go along, but the point of a film article is to be about the film's production and impact. If a film is never made, there is not sufficient real-world context to warrant its own article. An article cannot stand on its own, saying, "We announced this project in 20XX, but we haven't done anything since." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete it! Delete it when they cancel it or somethin'!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.36.228 (talk • contribs)
They haven't made it, that is the point we are making. You cannot cancel something that hasn't actually been done. They are just talking about it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recreate

Deleting it would be pointless. when it does (hopefully and most likely) come out, the page will just be remade. Besides, it could keep people from browsing everywhere to find the latest news about the movie K25125 06:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It was originally redirected to the film series page where all of the exact same information already exists. If your thoughts are that it keeps them from searching the other film sites, remember, this is an encyclopedia, not IMDb.com. If the time comes when it needs to be created, it won't take but a few clicks of the mouse, since we already have all of the information listed so far on the film series page. If it doesn't get made, then we are doing nothing but perpetuating a cycle of creating pages in the blink of an eye whenever some studio expresses interest in a project. If we did that, we'd be going through non-stop AfD's for articles should never have been created in the first place, and there's already a backlog of AfDs now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That statement is untrue. The previous redirect target contains none of the verifiable content that is in this article. Blanking verifable content is not what we should be doing as Wikipedia editors. Uncle G 11:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • On May 1, we moved all of the sequel talk from the Spider-Man 3 page to the "film series" page. Just because you rewrote it doesn't mean the information wasn't the same. here is there information as it was in April, right before we moved it. You just found different source to express the same information. Also, you have redundant information in the last paragraph. The third paragraph already talks about Maguire and Dunst wanting to return if everyone returns. It's repetative to say it again in the last paragraph.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Indeed. That I wrote it doesn't mean that it isn't the same. The fact that the information in this article is clearly not present at the link that you give is what means that it isn't the same. There was no mention of SPE's statements, nor of what Maguire's said after the theatrical release, for examples. Indeed, there still isn't. Mis-characterizing this as a "rewrite" is to ignore the fact that the verifiable information in this article was not, and is not, actually present in the other articles to which you are pointing. Uncle G 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • In reviewing the content, I found the article to be redundant of the information that we already had, though I found two extra things of note: the length of the script development, and the studio's intent to move on even if the director/cast didn't return. Also, I was confused by how you referenced the information -- it's supposed to be placed right after the respective sentence(s), if you intend for inline citations, not piling them up at the end of the paragraph. It makes it difficult to know which information in a paragraph is attributable to which source. Take a look at Spider-Man 3 -- I believe that's a reasonably well-done application of inline citations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
          • No, it is not supposed to be like that. It sometimes is. But that's not a requirement. Putting the cross-links to the citations at the ends of paragraphs is perfectly fine. And your review of the content clearly hasn't been thorough enough. Uncle G 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Maguire and Dunst have stated that they are interested in working with Raimi again (third paragraph). Maguire himself stated, in interviews after the theatrical release of the third movie, that in order to consider a fourth movie he would like to see a script that he loved, the involvement of Raimi, an appropriate direction of character development, and the right cast, and pointed out that the development of such a script could take years (this should be with the other statement about Maguire's opinion of a fourth film. It just restates the same thing, with an addition of how long it would take to get a good script". It should be used to elaborate on what he says earlier). ... requires fresh contracts, inviting speculation that one, both, or even all three may be replaced (inviting speculation from who? the writer of that article? this is being presented as a fact that because they have to get a new contract that they could all be replaced. It's also redundant to what Amy Pascal say previously that if need be they will be replaced).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible problems with Spiderman 4

I think BIGNOLE has a point of whether or not SM4 will be produced. If it dosnt come out, this page is worthless, but if it does, he is right, it will be easy to recreate. Besides it may not come out for another 2 or three years. That is why i agree. Another thing i would like to point out that may make the production a little troublesome is, if "Lizzard and Carnage", are going to play the roles in SM4, How would they explain the following. In SM3, the video Game, it tells the story of Lizzard and the fights between him and parker. Most of his backround story is in that game. THey cant really feel like telling it again. That would just make things confusing and out of order. THose events obviously To the people who made that game, took place during SM3, or around that time. Thats pretty much like repeating everything, And another thing is, Carnage cant be in the next movie because eddie brock is dead. How can he transmit the symbiote to carnage if Eddie is already dead. And now you all are probably thinking "But Dr. Connors already had some of the goo with him..", yeah yeah, i figured that one out to. IF The goo does create carnage, according to story, Venom and the fanatstic 4 are supposed to help spidey defeat carnage. Well, Once again, EDDIE BROCK IS DEAD! lol, and the fantastic 4 are only on thier 2nd movie. Puttin spiderman and fantastic 4 together is like putting two different stories into one. IT may be hard for Marvel to decide to put the F4 in the next Spiderman film. Thats all i have to say, and dont even bring up the rumor of black cat playing a part in SM4, because didnt we see enouph of her in SM2 the Video Game.

  • No. 1: Sign your posts.
  • No. 2: The Lizard only appeared in the game, he has not canioncally appeared in the movies.
  • No. 3: They could theoretically pull a backstory for Carnage out of their asses, like saying that the metorite that had the black symbiote had a red symbiote in it too, or they could say the Venom symbiote managed to give birth sometime before it was destroyed by the pumpkin bomb. BassxForte 22:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, yeah right. That whole epic ending of harry's sacrafise, and now its going to come back. IT will just decrease the limit of fans giving into the plot. And though the lizzards appearence in the game isnt cannon, it would still mix up the files in GGX and upbasis management. Lets not also forget its affect on the movie producers. ANd also, another thing i left out is that if SM4 makes it into theatres, i belive theres a big chance of its rating and movie surplus and budget way behind the other three. Most likely beuase thew plot might be messed up and Tobey and a few other actors arent sure if they want to continue thier roles. Replacements would just screw everything up.
Alright people, this isn't a forum.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it isn't a forum, i'm out of here, but there's one last thing to say, if the reason you wouldn't want a Carnage is because of Carnage's strength, well, in Spider 1 I felt the Green Goblin was much stronger then any other incarnation of him, Carnage could be a weaker version, and the Sandman could assist Peter, the Sandman is at his core one of the "good guys", and he survived Spider 3, i'm out of this conversation now. BassxForte 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, i guess i'll give you that. It is true about sandmans redemption.