Jump to content

Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"throws Mary Jane to the floor"

[edit]

You need to edit that. He hit her, and she fell to the floor. (Anon)

I changed it to "knocks MJ to the floor." Wrad 04:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't really hit her so much as he just shoved the person that grabbed him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figure "knocks" is ambiguous enough to cover that without drawing the wrong image (i.e. "punches", "shoves", etc.) Wrad 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indifferent. One is just as good as another, I just wanted to address that when I see "hit" it makes me think that he reared back and slugged her. It was more of him swinging around that knocked her down.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah. This is a weird thing to debate about. Wrad 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the scene where the "dark" Peter Parker starts a brawl in the "jazz club," he does in fact strike MJ in a way that causes her to fall to the ground. This is after he has broken free from the bouncer and the manager. It is meant to appear as if Parker didn't intend to hit MJ (if only because he was turned around and didn't know she was standing in back of him), but he did. And if hitting someone with a fist constitutes "punching," "slugging," etc., Parker met that criterion. C d h (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter was hitting the bouncer, if Peter, in his superpowered self actually "slugged" MJ, I think she do more then simply fall to ground and looked shocked. How about no look at all, as she'd most likely be unconscious.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important note to make. I have always interpreted it as Parker actually striking Mary-Jane, not realizing who she was before he had turned around fully. However, had he truly struck her with violent force, shouldn't his immense strength have simply destroyed the delicate Miss Watson? --Bijhan (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since he was wearing the symbiote at the time. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

Just to inform other editors, there are unused citations at Talk:Spider-Man 3/Archive 6#Citations that could be implemented into the article to continue improving it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "ScoreKeeper With Composer Christopher Young Re: The Challenges Of Scoring SPIDER-MAN 3, Omitted Music From The Film, And More!!". Ain't It Cool News. 2007-06-07. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Interview with Young. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another citation... anyone wanna help incorporate all these citations and put SM3 up as a FAC? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final two parts of the interview with the producer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this stuff here so it's easier for me to access. Alientraveller 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Critical reaction" - Loaded?

[edit]

Most other pages have "critical reception", but this "reaction" phrasing has some negative connotations and is less suitable in my opinion. --60.241.198.190 15:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A film can have positive critical reaction or negative critical reaction. It's just as neutral as reception; no need to change it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do realise that "critical reaction" can put the wrong meaning in a person's head, because criticism always has negative connotations in most people's heads. Alientraveller 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it has as much "negative connotation" as "critical reception". When I see "critical" I think there is something wrong. Which isn't always the case. Just like "consequences". There are just as many good consequences as there are bad.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The English Language should not compensate for its users' inability to comprehend their own native tongue. Critical Reception means "the reception that critics gave it", and critics are people who discuss the merits and demerits of various works. If YOU wanna put a "spin" on the word "critic", that is your fault. But those of us who actually think about the language we use will continue using it as it is meant.--Bijhan (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

[edit]

Why no spoiler alert on the page? It's a bit inconsiderate, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.90.29 (talk • contribs) 04:33, June 14, 2007

Things have changed. Plot sections are supposed to, "duh", have spoilers. Check out WP:SPOILER. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means plot sections are supposed to NOT have spoilers. --danielfolsom 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shit - nevermind - i got confused the spoilers and the template. Plot section should reveal things about the plot without spoiler tags. --danielfolsom 11:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed for the worse, no lies. Eh

Pick-ups?

[edit]

"After August, pick-ups were conducted as Raimi sought to film more action scenes" This needs to be re-written - I do not understand it; what is a pick-up in the context of a film shoot and how is it conducted? EdX20 02:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to the process. No need to explain it if someone can simply click a link that will explain it elsewhere.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images

[edit]

I moved the Venom image to the Effects section due to a disputed fair use rationale. The image was also used at Topher Grace (at which there was already a free image for the actor) and at Venom (Eddie Brock), which had two images for its film subsection. I've strengthened the rationale to be more specific based on the image's new placement, and have done the same for the Sandman image. However, I am not sure about the Harry Osborn image. As far as I can tell, there have not been any images in which the hero and villains are all displayed. In addition, the image does not really add much to the Plot section beyond a vague look of what Harry looks like. Is there anything in the video blog at the official site that we could expand in Effects to warrant the usage of the Harry image or another image? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the images were fine in my view, being that identifies two villains in major action scenes, and later we got the Sandman element. Sandman is the most discussed special effects element, and throwing in Eddie there makes it cluttered. Alientraveller 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, WP:FU states that screenshots should be for "critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television", and not just identification, like cover art and team/corporate logos are permitted to do. Maybe if it's for discussion of the cinema and television, we can place it in a Venom-related context that's not necessarily Effects. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is discussing Venom kickin Spidey's butt for the second-to-last paragraph. Alientraveller 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, there's no butt-kicking visible in that picture. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You got me there. But I definitely felt the placement was fine, unless of course we get an image of Venom fully masked and whuppin' our hero. Alientraveller 20:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm addressing this because the recent crackdown on non-free images seems to require very clear-cut rationale for implementation. Since WP:FU says, "discussion of the cinema and television", this could mean that the image could be placed next to passages about the character, not necessarily directly descriptive details in the Effects section. I don't think that the Plot section qualifies as discussion... it seems tricky to be able to include any kind of image in the Plot unless it's a notable scene, like what was done at Dirty Dancing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller scale of the action figures

[edit]

Maybe it should be added to the article that many truebelievers of the spider-man figures & franchised are worried about the reduction of the figure scale by 1 inch. The Hasbro marvel figures are not as good sculpted as the Toybiz figures were and many collectors and players are critzizing that. I am a die hard collector and I am not the only one who think so. 212.23.126.1 19:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a reliable source, and it's not relevant here. Alientraveller 20:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think the action figures should have been bigger. And, you don't need a source.

DVD, Blue Ray, HDDVD

[edit]

Needs home video release date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.19.148 (talk • contribs)

But there isn't any. Alientraveller 08:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DVDs come out on October 30--$UIT 21:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DVD release is nearing. I think it needs a mention.  The Windler talk  08:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned, in the release section. There is no reason for it to have its own section or subsection, at least not right now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor ever. availability is enough, we're not here to promote release dates for the sake of them being release dates. IN and of themselves, such dates aren't particularly notable, though I accept that the Variety of formats is mildly so. We don't need to include excess info on the home release formats and dates. they're simply not encyclopedic relative to the movie's themes, plot, impact, technological applications, etc. They're a footnote to it's economic successes, and that's all. ThuranX 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions one and two disk versions, but nothing about a three disk version. I just got a copy that is labeled as a two disk version, but it contains a third disk, "Spider-man 3 Bonus DVD." I have no idea what it is yet, but there is a three DVD version. There was no sticker or anything indicating a third disk on the package. Somebody who knows what this is should update the entry to reflect this. Hagrinas (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing

[edit]

Anyone thought about putting that in the "Release" section? To me, marketing is part of the release, not really a stand alone subject. The marketing is to the release (in my opinion), what "development" is to production. It's the beginning of the process. You market what you've made, then you release it, then they react. Anyone?...Anyone?....Bueller?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The line of thinking makes sense to me, but if we make Marketing a subsection under Release, what do we do with the paragraphs that are under Release and have no subsection? Should Marketing go under that, or should we come up with a name for the theatrical/DVD release info? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could come up with a name for it. It will grow some more when the DVD is finally released and we catalog the money it makes there (if possible). Maybe nothing. I mean, right now, if we put the marking stuff in there, it's no more the "odd man out" than it is already. It's a minor paragraph that really doesn't have a home in a subsection with such little info, and even if we do find the "money it makes" information on DVD, that will probably only be a sentence or two of information, and I'm not big on light-weight paragraphs getting their own subsections. But that's just me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congenital Amputee?

[edit]

"In a fight where Spider-Man punches through Sandman's chest, congenital amputee boxer Baxter Humby took Tobey Maguire's place in filming the scene."

Is there such a thing? Congenital means present from birth. Amputee doesn't just mean missing a limb; it means their was a limb at one point but it was severed or removed. Unless his arm was cut off while still in the womb, he's not a congenital amputee, he just became an amputee very early in life. Also, he's not a boxer. He's a kickboxer and Muay Thai fighter. 68.166.68.37 08:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the info on him I found says the hand was amputated at birth because it got tangled up in the umbilical cord. So it depends on the exact definition of "congenital", which from everything I checked means a deformity was present in the fetus before it exited the womb, not necessarily due to genetic factors per se, but certainly biological and not due to a traumatic event that occurred once and scarred someone. So long story short, no, there's no such thing as a congenital amputation. Nice catch by the way, and you should sign in next time so we know who to thank.Rglong 19:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I fixed it. I also changed "boxer" to martial artist, because besides kickboxing he has black belts in tae kwon do and sik tai. Well actually I wrote "martial arts expert" because I wasn't sure exactly what the right title is for an expert in the martial arts, but if someone wants to change it to "martial artist" or whatever is more appropriate, go ahead. At least now it doesn't just say "boxer" which is totally misleading. By the way check out Humby's website, it's inspirational and stuff: http://www.baxterhumby.com/Rglong 19:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad news then: it's been changed back to "amputee boxer". 142.26.194.190 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warning?

[edit]

Do we not need one? Or is that only for new movies that a lot of people haven't gotten to see yet?Rglong 20:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on where you mean. Per WP:SPOILER (where a lot of discussion took place), sections like Plot will obviously contain details about that aspect. What else would one expect from such a section, basically? However, if it's outside the Plot and Characters sections, feel free to point the spoiler-ish part out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that makes sense, thank you.Rglong 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello all. I know some of you may have found my additions irritating on this site: more specifically my linking a youtube clip of my friend on the news giving his fresh impressions of the movie, just after viewing it.

Let me just say that my friend is a very dedicated fan, which the news clip even attests to, and although his comments might seem a bit unusual, I think they're interesting in that they speak unique ways a fan could view a movie.

As far as copyright infringement or irrelevance, I've already addressed how the clip is relevant, so I'll say what I have to on IP. Having worked in an intellectual property firm for a few years, and now as a student in law school, I am convinced from what I know of the law that this clip does not infringe upon any rights of the film, and any infringement that has occurred thus far from it has been attended to by the ABC news team for the release of their story. So, please, can we try to negotiate or come to some sort of agreement that it will be okay to leave this clip up? I'm new to wiki-editing, but believe this clip would make a nice addition to the Spider-Man 3 site. I'm sure lots of fans would find it funny and interesting, to say the least. So what do you say, people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockdiedout (talk • contribs) 11:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, we don't put up fan related links unless there is a good reason, and a video of some fans' reactions to a film is not one of those reasons. First, it doesn't show anything other than a few people's reactions, so it isn't representative of the entire community. Second, we generally do not put links to YouTube up because of issues with copyrights. Since that video is copied from a news channel, I would say it doesn't have the legal right to be up there. Lastly, it would be unnecessarily biased to have a video of fans praising a film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that you're just guessing about copyright infringement. I also think I clearly have more legal knowledge than you in this instance and that it is fair to say that my hypothesis trumps yours. Your arguments are flimsy and sound like they're mostly preference arguments that coincide with your opinions. This is becoming a bit absurd. I'm sure you know what that word means. At the end of the day, you probably just don't -like- the video, so you whine and snivel and fight to remove it. rockdiedout —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockdiedout (talk • contribs) 12:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. Fact is, Youtube is full of copyright violations not suitable for Wikipedia, and we have a fine reception section anyway. Alientraveller 12:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not guessing. That news program is a copyrighted piece of media. Someone uploaded that to YouTube, I would be willing to bet that it wasn't the news organization, since they typically don't do that sort of thing. Think of it this way. You cannot walk into a movie theater and legally videotape a film while you're watching it. The same goes for recording programs from TV and then publishing them elsewhere. Since you don't like my arguments, it is you who is doing the "whining" and "sniveling" and making personal attacks. You can claim what you will, but several editors have disagreed with you. Even if the clip was put up freely by the news organization, it's place here is not warranted. A video of fans reacting to a movie has no bearing, as we are not here to promote any form of media, we are here to be objective. Hence the rule is, for fan reaction we look to how much money the film made. Have a nice day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rockeditout, you need to assume good faith about Bignole's reasons. There's no need to get uncivil about it. He has accurate points -- the Youtube video is not a good link per WP:EL criteria, and your attempted addition of your friend's clip is not a neutral approach to editing. The link doesn't belong in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Scenes

[edit]

Does the DVD have any deleted scenes on it? Bluecatcinema 11:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume it does. The first two did, and deleted scenes is a common bonus feature for DVD's. Anakinjmt 15:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no deleted scenes on the two-disc DVD at least. --88.193.181.24 17:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well that sucks. Anakinjmt 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS3

[edit]

Can someone put that the Blu-ray version will be bundled with the 40gb PS3 in the US on Nov. 2.--Playstationdude 01:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard about that. Where did you hear this? Also, don't be afraid to be bold and put it in yourself. Anakinjmt 15:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this deserves mention in the article, since the PS3 has now shipped out a substantial amount of Blu-ray copies of Spiderman 3 now. 216.19.191.249 (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Poster

[edit]
We used that gif during filming, but it didn't work on everybody's computers. Less is more. Alientraveller 13:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Norman? Come on....

[edit]

I think that part should be edited, it wasn't the ghost of Norman who got his memories back. I'm pretty sure it's either the human enhancement formula, either way, through his healing abilities or it's psychotic side effects, or Harry's extreme grief over his dad. 69.154.35.169 02:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "apparition", to be a little more vague. Even though ghosts and other supernatural creatures exist in the comic book Marvel Universe (and in Spider-Man 2, JJJ mentions Dr Strange, who is a sorceror) it is not made clear that Norman was a ghost, and to jump to that conclusion is a little original researchy. Given the history of mental health problems associated with the Osbourn family and the Goblin formula, it was more likely just a hallucination on Harry's part.  Paul  730 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering it is rather vague how he gets his memories back (I personally think it's the Goblin formula with its healing abilities), I would actually not give any reason as to why he got his memories back, as all we have right now is speculation, which is original research. Just say he got his memory back. Anakinjmt 14:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I already fixed that... it just says that he recovered from his amnesia, so somebody must have.  Paul  730 14:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie/Venom's chances of survival

[edit]

I've been watching the back and forth on the demise of Brock/Venom in SM-3, and I think we need something between the two positions that are being pushed. Yes, Parker trapped the symbiote in the cage o' tubes, and yes, Brock dove into said cage as the bomb went off, but come on, have you read the source material? Characters "die" and are resurrected with numbing regularity in comics. I want to be WP: Bold and fix this SENTENCE that you can't agree on, but I don't know what each side is contesting. If we can propose a few reasonable points, I will work towards a compromise/consensus sentence. joshschr (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comics, not these films. Have you seen any characters resurrected in these films? The bomb goes off and everything is incinerated. There was nothing left. There's no seemingly about it when it comes to the film. He died. You cannot say "he tried to reunite with the symbiote" and leave it at that, because it insinuates that he just did not succeed in reuniting with the symbiote and is still alive. It's a simple case of fans not liking the fact that their favorite character was killed, and are trying to find loopholes in the way one presents the evidence so that the idea that Venom is gone is made so vague that it leaves it open to interpretation. There is no interpretation. The bomb went off, they both were engulfed in the explosion and nothing remained afterward. If they retcon the event in future films, great, still not relevant to this film where it is clear that nothing is left over. There wasn't even the hint that the two survived at the end of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is all speculation just because of Venom's insane popularity. No one gives a care for Green Goblin and Doc Ock's chances of resurrection? Go search for it on SuperHeroHype: someone made a screencap of Brock's exploding skeleton. Alientraveller (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 3rd Spider-Man movie. Do you think they'll stop at 4,5,6? What happens when they get through the Lizard, Shocker, Chameleon, and Kraven (shortened list for brevity. You get the idea)? Do you know how Spider-Man got Venom to stop hounding him when Venom first appeared? He made it look like he was caught in an explosion and put his costume on a skeleton so Venom thought he was dead. If Sam Raimi says he's dead, ok, cite it and I'll concede the point. Until someone finds a source, would it really hurt anyone if the word "apparantly" was thrown in?
I'm not trying to push some totally left field conspiracy theory in hopes that Venom comes back in #4. I could care less. I just think there might be some middle ground that might slow down the needless reverts both camps are pushing. If there's not, I'll just take the page off my watchlist and let you have at it. joshschr (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even know who will be coming back for Spider-Man 4. Just because Sony wants a fourth film, does not mean Venom will be in them. Fact: Venom was killed off. If we comes back, it still doesn't affect the plot of Spider-Man 3 because that is what a retcon is. Likewise if Norman Osborn came back because of his regenerative abilities, as with the comics. Alientraveller (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the page is all yours. Have fun reverting the same thing over and over again forever. joshschr (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Apparently" is a vague term, like "some" or "many" and should generally be avoided. The only reason for its inclusion is to satisfy the minds of certain fans who didn't like the outcome of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the film two times and have noticed that people tend to forget a few minor details. Dr. Conners has a sample of Venom in his laboratory, and the film left that in the dark in the end, which could mean that Venom could come back, not as Eddie Brock, since he died... 122.53.216.66 (talk)Joshua
Then we wait, and report that in the proper manner, at the proper time. We don't need speculation about it. ThuranX (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that little trivia about Dr. Conners having a sample of Venom in his laboratory should be added to the article, I mean, it had a couple of scenes in the film, Dr. Conners getting the sample, Dr. Conners experimenting with it... 122.53.216.66 (talk)Joshua

as I've noticed it's not even mentioned... 122.53.216.66 (talk)

It isn't mentioned because it isn't pertinent to the article. They don't even come back to it in a final scene in the film. Also, I believe in the film Connors stated that it needed a host to survive, so unless they showed it attaching itself to him or someone else--given his opinion that Peter shouldn't get any on him, he probably had it locked up securely--then the little bit left over would be dead. Regardless, this speculation doesn't matter because that's all it is. Speculation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Venom were dead, then why isn't there a body of any kind? It makes no sense that there are absolutly NO remains at all. I am almost sure that he surived and will return in a future movie...and I agree, Spidey 4 wont have him..hopefully the rumor about it being The Lizard ISNT true, or its screwin with the Spider-man 3 game..Chipmonk328

The games aren't canon. Besides, the reconed Scorpion for the Spider-Man 3 game. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and characters section

[edit]

Isn't it a bit unusual to include the personal feelings of the actors about the characters and whether they bruised their gums or not (or gained weight or not) in the cast section? Most movies just have a list of what actor or actress played each character. I think that would make more sense for this article. Enigmaman (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the most important things should be real world content, not a simple list that basically repeats the lead paragraph and infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly out of the ordinary as far as Wikipedia goes. I don't really see the relevance. Enigmaman (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MOSFILMS. Alientraveller (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's new and weird doesn't make it bad. I like it. --Bijhan (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Characters?

[edit]

I found it a kind of strange that Peter Parker's landlord Mr. Ditkovich (not sure if that's the correct spelling) and his daughter Ursula are not mentioned in the list of characters or cameos, since (if my memory serves me right) Ursula appears in more scenes in this film than she did in the second film, and in this film she appears in just as many scenes as Dr. connors and maybe more than Captain Stacy, and both of those guys are on the main list of characters... granted, I can't remember Ursula doing anything that really influenced the plot... Is there any important reason why these two shouldn't be added? If not I'd be happy to put them in...Thanks, Peace and safe traveling, --RainbowWerewolf (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So a non-notable character, by your admission, and a minor one to boot, isn't listed? I don't see the problem. Wikipedia isn't IMDb, and we do have the EL for it. this article should focus ont eh notable information. As to Ursula, mostly the same, though I do think I saw an interview with the actress at one point where she mentioned her work, so if that can be found, it may prove relevant, but no guarantees. ThuranX (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She's in the film...how does that make her non-notable? They're part of the cast, listed in the credits, and they have more weight than some others listed because they reprised their roles. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So add it. You don't like my opinion, there's always WP:BOLD to fall back on. I"m not going to revert their addition to the cast list. Someone else may, though, and you'll have to hash it out with them. I'm not sure notability is inherent in reprisal of a role, though. ThuranX (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want to be a troll and just put them in, considering there's debate over them. I was simply adding to the discussion and stating my opinion. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone! I'm back with more characters missing from the list! what about Bernard, harry's butler, he's the one who gets him to join Spiderman in the end, and he's in the plot summary! oh, and there's that girl who works in J. Jonah Jamson's office, she's been in all the movies, and so is that other guy who works there who I think was important in the comic books, and the there's that assistant played by director Sam Raimi's brother! He should be in the paragraph with the cameos!
Sorry, going overboard there. Speaking seriously now, I think that simply adding a few sentences (perhaps in the cameos paragraph) about some minor characters who appear in the film in quite a few scenes, or are played by somebody particularly notable, or have generated enough interest to be in all three films, would make the article more valuable and more complete. Not everybody listed in the credits, just a few more that the general public would be curious about. As a reader, I might interpret thier abscence as meaning that they are not in the film. And there are already some characters like that...maybe not exactly like that, seems debatable, don't wish to offend... in the article. --RainbowWerewolf (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(retab)Not to mention, characters that appear in the movies that are directly from the comics (like Betty Brant) should definitely be mentioned. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villians

[edit]

Sorry for the irrelevant revision.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Dunst Can't Sing

[edit]

Okay okay, so I have no idea if that's true or not, but that is NOT her singing in this movie, I just KNOW it. In fact, if anyone's seen Elf, perhaps you hear a similarity? Come on research masters, I've been scowering the internets, and although I can't find any hard evidence, my ears are JUST POSITIVE that that is the singing voice of Zooey Deschanel. If it isn't, then whose is it? If it is, why isn't she credited ANYWHERE? There has GOT to be a story worth hearing here. --Bijhan (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering no source has stated otherwise, it clearly is Dunst singing. Alientraveller (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just came here to check that out. It really sounds like deschanel. I am not giving up yet. will post back if I find anything. danny elfman did the music - did he do it for elf too? worth looking into! SnaX (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple web searchs show only results stating it IS dunst. I'd say give it up and move on. ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music?

[edit]

Shouldn't the score for Black-suited Spiderman be part of the music section? I mean it was a new major theme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider-maniac123 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spider-Man_3/Archive_7&oldid=1137198400"