Talk:Spider-Man: Lotus

This article was nominated for deletion on August 12, 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reception

Is there a reason for the absence of the reception section? Can I write it? Redjedi23 (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a fan film that isn't notable, but for some reason certain editors believe it is notable and opposed deletion. You are welcome to find reviews from reliable sources for the film, but I doubt you will be able to find much. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film critics don't review fan films. Since there is no critical commentary, I'm not sure how this passed WP:GNG, but here we are. It was written in the lead that the film received mixed reception, but was sourced to a random site with embed tweets of random people's "reviews". I removed it. Mike Allen 19:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just WP:LETITGO when an AfD of mine fails, but this one was particularly frustrating and bewildering. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

There’s an element of the controversy that I believe shouldn’t be ignored, which is the inclusion of the doctored screenshots (that were released in addition to the real ones). These specific screenshots were disproven by the director himself as well as the VFX team & a large portion of the cast & crew. In the age of the internet where misinformation can spread like wildfire, I think there’s a responsibility to accurately document the details. Westeggfolks (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided a source, so I'm going with no

Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Trout me, pull the trigger.)} 17:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is already linked in the page. Not only does it mention those screenshots in the article, but it also includes the director’s address video, which spends a chunk of time disproving the doctored screenshots. https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-lotus-fan-film-director-controversy/ Westeggfolks (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One CBR article is not enough coverage. and still, 'when they were 13' or whatever isn't needed. Age doesn't really matter. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Trout me, pull the trigger.)} 18:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s an article from Newsweek that also mentions the fake screenshots and includes Konop’s video: https://www.newsweek.com/spider-man-lotus-fan-movie-racist-allegations-explained-1817914

Sure, I can agree that the ages don’t need to be included (I mentioned them for the sake of illustrating the timeline, as the director’s age played a role in the coverage of the film), but the falsified screenshots played a massive role in the dialogue around it. I think it’s too significant to be ignored. Westeggfolks (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]