Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man (film)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about The Amazing Spider-Man (film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sally Field

Ok, i've had it with people removing Field from the cast list. She was offered it a month ago. She hasn't publicly declined it, so it's safe to assume she accepted the role. IMDB isn't reliable for news, but it's reliable for cast. It has Field there as Aunt May. So Sally Field should finally be added to the cast list. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:08 16 December 2010 (UTC)

See that wasn't so hard. Waiting for -5-'s response though. We'll see if we can figure this out as we go. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's as safe to assume she accepted it as it's as safe to assume she declined it. IMDb's cast listings aren't reliable one bit, as they are user contributed. If we were to have trusted their cast listings prior to Spider-Man 3, then we would have had to list Rosemary Harris as playing Carnage in that film. There's nothing wrong with waiting for confirmation. That way we'll no that we're right for sure. Remember, on Wikipedia there is no deadline.-5- (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I see in your edit summary that you say Field has confirmed it. Can you provide the source for her saying that? If true, then we should add her name to the article.-5- (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the original source, but it has officially begun filming and it's highly unlikely she would decline so close to filming time. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:13 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's only your own speculation, which we can't rely on.-5- (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Move to "Spider-Man reboot"

The word "Untitled" in the article's title should be omitted and "Spider-Man" italicized to meet Wikipedia standards. I will do it myself if no one objects. --Boycool (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The italics will mainly be necessary when there is a title, as for the name, there's a lot of names that this could go by, I am going to let other people decide that. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that the film is actually untitled? Or is the film going to be using the same title as the 2002 one? I was reading this, and it seems to be the latter. A move to Spider-Man (2012 film) might be a good idea. We don't have to move Spider-Man (film) right away, just in case there is a final title for this 2012 film. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Darn! Personally I was hoping the title would be something new. But as for this, it doesn't seem to be confirmed enough yet. But Spider-Man (2012 film) or Spider-Man reboot could work. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the "2012 film" disambiguation would work best. I looked for the most recent Sony Pictures press release about the film (seen here), and it pretty much throws around Spider-Man as the title. Should we start a request to move to see what the overall consensus is? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be best :) − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. It was moved a few hours ago, and I'm just closing the discussion now. - GTBacchus^(talk) 05:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Video Game should be put up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.46.229 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Untitled Spider-Man reboot → Spider-Man (2012 film) — This film in production is identified by the studio Sony Pictures as Spider-Man, as evidenced by this press release. While news reports have called this "the Spider-Man reboot" and similar variations, this is to differentiate it from the previous films. Wikipedia does not need to operate this way, and the use of "2012 film" can make it clear in the article title that is a future film, with prose to identify it as a reboot. It may not necessarily be the film's final title, but the title is commonly used enough to apply the naming conventions to this film article. It may be changed at a later date. I would also argue that Spider-Man (film) should not be moved yet until it's absolutely clear that this reboot's title is finalized. --Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. It seems like they are treating that to be the main title, that or Spider-Man 3D. So I don't have the problem with the move. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning to get away from using the term reboot in the title is sound. As with Casino Royale the rebooting of the franchise can be mentioned in the article but it is not part of our naming conventions. On the other hand, per WP:CRYSTAL I would suggest that the move should be to "Spiderman (film project)" a la the current page for The Hobbit. The reasoning for this being a) do we have a WP:RS that the film will be released in 2012 (we all know how "development hell" can play with a film's production/release etc) and b) it will--Boycool (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC) avoid the multiple moves that occurred the The Hobbit film article over the years - I mean we move it once now and one more time when the release date is finalized. If others have a better term than "film project" please feel free to suggest it but I would still avoid using a specific year until one is solidified. MarnetteD | Talk 19:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Marnette, filming has already begun. This says filming started two weeks ago and will resume after Christmas. I don't think we need to worry about a "film project" disambiguation. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the update - that is what I get for not reading the entire article first. Wrap up my above comment - tie it with a bow - and move it to any discussion that we start based on Betty's suggestion below. MarnetteD | Talk 20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that based on the above I Support the move. MarnetteD | Talk 20:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I honestly don't know. I have no objection to the article move per se, but I'm wondering if it would be better to come up with a Film-Project article titling guideline for films that have not been formally titled as yet, and when a release date has not been formally set. Even if we can sort it out for this article I can imagine that there will be other articles where this is an issue, such as the next James Bond film etc. Betty Logan (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Aye. --Boycool (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- the press release says it's going to be the "next installment of Spider-Man" not that it will be called "Spider-Man", as I read it. The link above points to a page for the film called "Untitled Spider-Man film." I think Untitled Spider-Man film (2012) or something to that effect would be best. --AW (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. What about Spider-Man (reboot)? − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Erik's main idea is get away from "reboot" in the title, and I agree on that score. I quite like AW's suggestion, something like "Untitled Spider-Man film (2012)". You could style all untitled films on this model: "Untitled James Bond film (2012)", "Untitled Star Trek film (2012) etc. I like how it makes it explicitly clear the title hasn't been confirmed, but it's still clear what the film is and it's a neutral title format. Betty Logan (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Added to my support above I also Support using "Untitled" in the article title until it gets moved to its final moniker. MarnetteD | Talk 22:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment "2012" is WP:CRYSTAL. The film could end up delayed, shelved, etc. 65.94.46.60 (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here. The film is not unverifiable speculation. It has already begun filming, and the studio has scheduled a release date for it. Nobody is inserting their own opinions or analyses. If there is for some reason a delay, it can be moved again, but the argument here is that Spider-Man is the common title for this film and can be changed again later, if it actually does. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

But the DYK on this very page stated "...that Sony plans to develop a Spider-Man reboot starring Andrew Garfield (pictured) as Spider-Man that will be released in 2011..." Can you guarantee it will be released in 2012? Lugnuts (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be 2012. I never noticed that mistake in the hook before. Yikes! Anyways I think I will fix the hook on this article even though that's the way it appeared in the main page. But it's pretty much guarunteed to be planned in 2012. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But it's pretty much guarunteed to be planned I guess the Challenger Shuttle was pretty much guarunteed to be planned to get into orbit. Or the Titantic was pretty much guarunteed to be planned to get across the Atlantic. What if the production company goes under (I hear we're in a recession)? What if there's industrial action in Hollywood? What if I slay the entire cast and crew tomorrow? I don't know how anyone can say for 100% that it WILL be released in 2012. However, you could say the same for a film that has just finished shooting, all the editing has been done, etc, and it is getting a world premire on New Years Day! Lugnuts (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The event doesn't have to be guaranteed, it just has to be expected and verifiable. The 1940 and 1948 Olympics didn't take place because of the outbreak of war, but it doesn't stop us having a 2012 Olympics article, although precedent shows they can be cancelled. I think if reliable sources show it it is scheduled for 2012, and there is no strong alternative date I think we can stick with the 2012 date. Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

When I said But it's pretty much guarunteed to be planned I didn't argue that it was verified to be so. It may change, it may not. The only thing definite is that's the plan so far. Even with the goof of my hook. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

According to this discussion, the "Spider-Man rights are owned by Sony and therefore they are not allowed to cross-over characters with the...films produced by Marvel Studios (see Louis Leterrier's comments on being unable to call the university Empire State University as Sony ha[s] the Spidey rights). While this may change in future, for the time being they are not in the same universe." --Boycool (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about this being part of the cinematic universe. Thanks for removing that speculation until we have proven differently. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --Boycool (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

The following edits are not constructive:

First paragraph: Spider-Man (also known as Marc Webb's Spider-Man)
- Please provide a source for this. I have not seen this as a title anywhere.

Sally Field as May Parker, with this source provided: Martin Sheen, Sally Field join Spiderman reboot

Quoted from the referenced article: "The cast for the upcoming Marc Webb reboot of Spider-Man just got a tad more presidential. Deadline has confirmed that Martin Sheen (The Departed, The West Wing) has joined the cast of Spider-Man as Uncle Ben, while actress Sally Field is being confirmed as the role of Aunt May."

If we go to the Deadline article that this article notes, it says: "Martin Sheen is joining the Marc Webb-directed 3D Spider-Man movie, playing the role of Uncle Ben. He joins Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans, who were set earlier in the Sony Pictures Entertainment film that begins production in December. Meanwhile, Sally Field is in early talks to join the film as Aunt May. Uncle Ben, who raised Peter Parker along with May, doesn't last long. That's no surprise to fans of the comic or the original film series, who watched Uncle Ben get killed by a thief whom Parker could have stopped with his new-found superpowers, but let escape. Sheen has a longer run in The Way, the crowd-pleasing film directed by his son Emilio Estevez that made its debut at the Toronto International Film Festival and is still in the process of being set up for distribution."

This is where it was first reported, and it says she is only in early talks. Thus, she is still not confirmed.

Chris Zylka as Eugene "Flash" Thompson: Peter Parker's high school nemesis, a football player who constantly bullies Peter dubbing him "Puny Parker" while also being a big fan of Spider-Man, an irony in which Peter takes gratification.
- The bolded addition is speculation.

The following was removed, even though it is referenced: "Miles Elliot as Billy Connors: The son of Dr. Curt Connors."

This image was added, even though the fair use of it is very questionable: File:Spider-Man 2012 Kiss.JPG

Added the bolded addition to this paragraph, which is clearly unreferenced , speculative, and opinionated:

"In October 2010, the list of actors to play J. Jonah Jameson included John Slattery and Sam Elliott.^[1], much to the dismay of Spiderman fans who wanted J.K Simmons to reprise the role"

I want to ask you to please cease editing in this manner.-5- (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Half of those aren't my edits. Mine are only the addition of Sally Field and the mention of J.K Simmons. Also, Flash's first name is Eugene? Plus, who said you are in charge of this page? You are removing very good information in a very controversial manner. If Field wasn't in this film, why would she wait until filming begins to say she isn't. That source is reliable. Also missed a line in the article: "The cast for the upcoming Marc Webb reboot of Spider-Man just got a tad more presidential. Deadline has confirmed that Martin Sheen (The Departed, The West Wing) has joined the cast of Spider-Man as Uncle Ben, while actress Sally Field is being confirmed as the role of Aunt May." Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:00 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The source uses Deadline as its original source, and in the Deadline article she is said to only be in talks. So, the author of your source was merely jumping to conclusions, just as you're doing.-5- (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

it's just that this was two months ago, and if Sally Field wasn't going to appar, why would she wait until now? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:23 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but we can afford to wait. Wikipedia has no deadline.-5- (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't this apply for Denis Leary as well? I read the article provided and it said he was in negotiations as well. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:28 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Denis Leary was said to be in negotiations, not early talks, but either way he has since confirmed it.-5- (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sally Field

Reposted from mine and Rusted AutoParts' talk pages:

Ok, let's end this once and for all. Field was announced as Aunt May back in MAY. Filming began A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. Why would she let this information go through the works for this long and not deny it? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:03 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Field's IMDB page. [1] It clearly states Untitled Spider-man Reboot, with no 'rumoured, in negotiations, in talks or attached' tags on it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:03 6 January 2011 (UTC)

She was not announced back in May. The original report from Deadline dates back to November. In that report, she is stated as only being in talks. There has been no update since, and we cannot assume she has accepted or not accepted. Also, IMDb cannot be used as a reliable source since its information is user-contributed.-5- (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, IMDB only began allowing users to contribute in december. But the fact still stands, if an actor or actress is announced in a role, it would take only a few days to confirm or deny, which Field has not denied. It would be a very diva move to drop out when filming begins. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:12 6 January 2011 (UTC)

BULLSHIT. IMDb has been allowing users to contribute for as along as I can remember. She hasn't denied and she hasn't accepted. It's not for you to make a decision either way as far as what she's done.-5- (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin

No one really due to WP:Own. I haven't been around as much lately. What's been the problem though? I am sorry if your edits have been undone and all that stuff but we do have limitations. Perhaps why don't you explain what you want done in this page by discussing it on the talk page and you or somebody else can maybe include it if it's found acceptable. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Charecter bios

What are you basing it on? If it's your personal knowledge then you cannot do that. I don't believe any of the things you are adding are sourced to any reliable source. You cannot just create character bios based on your knowledge of the comics. As for the "superhero" "vigilante" thing, he's not a vigilante. The Punisher is a vigilante, because he deals out justice. Spider-Man doesn't. He stops crimes and lets the police do the rest. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"I agree, but if you do a little research you might see what direction marc webb is trying to go with the movie." - You may want to read up on Wikipedia:No original research.-5- (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Bignole shutup! Whateva' he wanna put he can put. Maybe he the director. Anyway this page isn't protected so don't take it down before I take everything down! Which I am gonna' do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.167.124 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So how's that working out for you? —Mike Allen 05:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Source?

I would like to see a source for the title change, please. If the title even has been confirmed to be this. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to The Amazing Spider-Man (film)

There is no other film article called The Amazing Spider-Man. There is no need for the "2012" part. ShadowUltra (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is another article.-5- (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Publicity still

Hope everyone love the two publicity stills I've just uploaded for this article. I got it from Sony Pictures newsletter.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Garfield as Spider-Man image.

Is there any way we can justify an image like this. Bignole removes it for understandable reasons. But it may be useful for some purpose. Any ideas? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Without specific commentary on the suit, we cannot and if you find commentary on the suit then the argument would be that the current "poster" supplies plenty of illustration for that to be the representation of the suit (thus, an additional image would fail "limited fair use" criteria). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to justify an image by seeking out context. Selecting non-free images for fair use should come more naturally. The best way to think of it is someone writing a full article with no images whatsoever then reviewing the content to see where images could be illustrative for readers. In regard to this image, I think we will get information about costume design in the near future. Readers have access to a lot of media related to current films, so we shouldn't have to worry about finding a way to present it here. We should just try to use it when readers will benefit from seeing it in the same span as the content. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And that is the reason why I brought it up. To find some ideas and I know it doesn't have to be right away. Heres an quote from Andrew Garfield that might help

"I have to kind of not look at my face because it doesn't make sense to me. I have to imagine that it's a much better actor's face in that suit... I won't lie. I shed a tear when I first wore the spandex. I didn't think that the spandex would make me so emotional, but it did."

Here's the source.

I also think we need more interview commentaries for the cast section like in Thor (film). I know there's a lot left that we are avoiding. Garfield says a lot of interesting stuff right here. I would help but I have a field trip starting tonight til Sunday so I can't do it right away. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on

Do we know if this film will actually be based on the comic book series The Amazing Spider-Man? The article makes no reference of the comic book series as source material, and it seems very possible to me that they just took the name from the series. Can we verify which is the case? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Every piece of Spider-Man media is based on the original comic book series by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. It has nothing to do with the comic book series and the film having the same name.-5- (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean now, seeing that Spider-Man (film) has the same field. That's really getting back to the source, then. :) That's why I was wanting to ask the comic book films task force for guidelines on using this field. Each of these superheroes have had so many incarnations through different writers. For example, linking to the comic book series is a bit different than linking to the general Batman article in the Batman film articles. I think we should provide useful links for readers, and I don't think the comic book series really contributes in that regard. Would it not be more useful to link to Spider-Man itself? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That may be a fair compromise.-5- (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We should mainly be sure when the film goes out and says what it's based on at the beginning credits. It would most likely point to the character. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary Parker

This is confusing, IMDB is saying that actress Embeth Davidtz replacing Julianne Nicholson. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:56 12 May 2011 (UTC)

IMDb not a reliable source but if it came from another source I am sure it will be found out. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems that may be what's happenning though judging by this google result. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Teaser Poster

That one that's just appeared here is widely believed to be a fake fan-job..."In July 3 2012" indeed...does anyone have an official source for this being genuine? Or should it be removed? Greg1138 (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The image itself is being reported by TotalFilm as being official. If it is revealed to be a fan crafted image then it's easy to remove. Are they any reliable sources showing it to be fan made? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point, well made...didn't know the TotalFilm connection...if it is genuine though that is one HELL of a typo to go on official poster...Greg1138 (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me if it was a fake, or if it was a typo. LOL. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Totalfilm says it was taken from from Shockya. Which kind of points to the 'non official' territory. I'm calling a fake.. I mean how in the world would a site like Shockya get an official blockbuster film poster but none of the mainstream sites have it yet? What happened to the other poster? —Mike Allen 04:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What other poster? I dunno if it is fake, just saw it on TotalFilm which is MEANT to be reliable but perhaps they got it from a dubious source. Can't find information on it one way or another.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks likes what is normally a reliable source goofed by believing another source. A lot of the commenteers are concerned that it was a fake noticing the obvious mistakes of the poster. Maybe we should take this one down wait for another more reliable one. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree in that the film should not have a Marvel studios logo on it. I thought it was weird but I trusted TotalFilm, yeah I guess this should be removed I can find no other site reporting on it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The red poster that said Spider-Man in 3D. Reliable sources make mistakes too, if it's fan made. —Mike Allen 21:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The official poster will be posted here. —Mike Allen 22:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a poster that said Spider-Man 3D one time on here uploaded by User:-5-. It was removed by Erik a while back, I do believe it was something about not being official anymore. He removed it after the official name of the film would be realized so that could have something to do with it. Is that what you are asking about? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this an actual poster? I mean I know its an official poster but that image looks like someone took a camera phone picture of some kind of display.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Move

Err..isn't consensus needed for this? there are official posters saying 2012, this is a very silly move and seemingly done without discussion Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As here:

http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/06/14/lic-expo-2011-the-amazing-spider-man-promo-banners-images

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I could see the "issue" here, but these type of moves require a solid consensus. We're saying the film is a 2012 film, but it hasn't been released yet, so technically it's not a 2012 film, it's an upcoming film. But I don't have a preference one way or the other -- both are fine, but it needs to be consistent. Right now it is consistent with the years included. —Mike Allen 19:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion here: WT:FILM#Upcoming films. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving content

Jhenderson asked me a few weeks ago if we should move this article to just (film), and I said no because I thought it was necessary to disambiguate from the 1977 film even though neither is the primary topic. However, I've looked at The Amazing Spider-Man (1977 film) and have had a hard time finding any worthwhile coverage about it. I am thinking perhaps we should merge it to The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series) as a "Pilot" section? There just isn't a lot to be said about the film that can't be related to the TV series as well. If we do this merge, we could then move this article per WP:PRECISION to just (film) and have a hatnote pointing to the "Pilot" section of the TV series article for the 1977 "film". What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about either film and can see a worthwhile arguement in what you're saying. Certainly I can't see anyone now or in the future searching for teh 1977 version as the primary topic. It is also essentially an extended episode and according to the series page is considered the first episode. I'm a little wary about declaring something not a film as it leads to potentially declaring any made for tv film as not-a-film. I could easily see it fitting onto the tv-series page however as a subsection. Hmm...I'd have personally said just leaving it as Spider-Man (1977 film) and rename this (film) with a hatnote to the 77 version.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The comics The Amazing Spider-Man is the primary topic, so we're dealing with a set of secondary topics that also use the term "The Amazing Spider-Man". I'm saying that the 1977 film does not appear notable as a stand-alone topic, but it is familiar to others as part of the TV series. While I believe in disambiguating all films that are secondary topics by release year, I can understand the overkill in being overly precise with this 2012 film's article title when the 1977 film has no meat whatsoever. I think that the pilot merge would leave the 2012 film as the one actually-covered film on Wikipedia that uses the term "The Amazing Spider-Man", so it can belong at The Amazing Spider-Man (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The only qualm I have is that the series seems to have spawned from the movie, not vice versa. I don't know if the series was always planned but it may be improper to merge the film into the tv article. I agree it isn't very notable, at least not to modern audiences who would be perusing Wikipedia. I think at the very least you could move this to (film) and leave the (1977) one alone. Could use input from people more familiar with the film/tv show as that is really my only concern. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As i suspected, I knew the 77 tv film would not be even near as notable and have much coverage as this film would and that was one of the reasons why I brought it up. At first I was hesitant but your idea could work because the Incredible Hulk came be from two tv movies as well and it is merged inside List of The Incredible Hulk episodes as a pilot. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Villains

Does anyone know if there has been confirmation that only Lizard (with Proto being set up for sequel presumably) is the villain? Or is it still open that they might have other villains planned if they could cast them? I'm wondering about the Vulture since his portrayal in the 2nd animated series would mesh so well with Lizard. AweCo (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

great article

Not sure if you're serious, but articles for upcoming films will be un-nominated because of the massive changes bound to come (one of the requirements is that the article is stable). As is, the article is far too short for good article. Just sayin'... --Boycool (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Lot's of people have worked on this article and I appreciate the work. We can't nominate a film article until the film comes out although we can peer review a article to make it a decent and stable article for the time being. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Young Peter Parker

The audition of a young Peter Parker source is outdated. The trailer reveals a boy playing a young Peter Parker so they must have casted a young Peter Parker. If anybody finds a source on who the creators chose to play as the young Peter Parker just let me know. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Cast section...

is now ridiculous. Way too much information that is just anecdotal quotes with a massive over emphasis on Stone's character. Need to pick what is important and scrap the rest. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As you can tell cast commentary is very important efficient. Look at GA articles Thor (film) and Captain America: The First Avenger for the example of what it is intended to look at in the near future. If you feel that there is too much unneeded information you may get rid of some of the bloated material or trim it. I too feel like it can be trimmed a bit. Which of the information do you feel is the least important though and I can see what I can do. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed the detail on the Gwen Stacy portion of it while still saving the majority of the sources. I hope that's more to your liking. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It can be long if the detail is essential, but stuff like this "Emma Stone admitted that she has no idea why she won the part saying, "I ask myself that question every day. I have no fucking idea. It's the most amazing idea, I can't even tell you. I don't think I ever will figure out how it happened. It's been mind-blowing.", doesn't tell us anything. We know how she got the job, she's a flavour of the moment or she auditioned or they saw her in something. If she was selected off the street it might matter but here it is just her trying to be modest/play up the film/give a more interesting interview and so it isn't really important. This is my opinion though, others may disagree. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. While I might not necessarily agree with you I can remove it for you anyways because I trust your judgement. The source where it comes from is overused anyways. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Conceptart.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Conceptart.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Better Image

Test

Test

--Aheadiroa (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Better Image

[[2]]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheadiroa (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 Dec 2011 (UTC)

GA push Peer review

At the request of a fellow editor I've done some mostly technical cleanups on this page, and a little line editing. Do we really need a big paragraph solely about the Lizard Pez dispenser? I get that fans are seeing it as a possible look at the onscreen design, but all these comments back and forth as to whether it looks more like Killer Croc or the Goombas or the alien in Enemy Mine are really, really, really fancrufty. Would the average encyclopedia reader care if it looked more like Killer Croc or the Goombas or the alien in Enemy Mine?

No, although fans certainly do — and this isn't a fan site. A sentence or two saying that the dispenser came out and caused the fan press to debate whether the look did the character justice, with a couple of citations, seems sufficient. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae your work is great as usual but articles on films that aren't released will automatically fail any GA nomination. As for the PEZ thing, unless there is critical commentary about the design being leaked because of it despite attempts to keep it hidden, it really is pretty fansitey and not something that would be useful in an encyclopedic nature, but that's just my opinion Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! That's what I get for Wiki'ing when I really should be working — I scanned JHenderson's request and thought it was for a GA thing, when it's a peer-review thing! Good catch, and good comment (about the fannishes, not about my work, though it's a very nice compliment and I thank you most sincerely).

By the way, I received a press release a little bit ago from the Wikipedia Foundation, saying that English-language Wikipedia is going dark for 24 hours this Wednesday to protest (as well we should) the SOPA legislation before Congress. Just a head's up. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I read, t hat's gonna suck for me, I love editing film articles on here. But it's a noble cause. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Permission to headpalm myself because that is definitely my fault. They were there just to prove notability with the PEZ reveal and to have a sufficient reason to be there per WP:FILMMARKETING's reason that reception is a way of proving it like the reason why trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters should be added...but I am guessing we can be more simple with merchandising such as PEZ despensers. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

References to use

These are references I plan or might plan to use for the future when I am ready unless somebody else is willing to do them which is ok too. ;) Storing them here though so I can never forget.

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

http://collider.com/amazing-spider-man-origin-sequels/158317/
- Since THR's Heat Vision column rotates out quickly, here's the archive url and date: archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/65JTMdiuy archivedate = February 8, 2012 --Tenebrae (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

- - Thanks. I almost forgot about Hollywood Reporter commonly does that. Hey what do you think about me including this as well. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, that just looks like a viral marketing campaign, so, for me, adding it here crosses the line between encyclopedic inclusion and actively helping to market the movie. Other editors may feel differently, and it'd probably be good to get a wider range of comments, but viral marketing is dependent on people spreading the URL around, so, in my view, this would be making Wikipedia an active participant in the marketing. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we're not obliged to include every single thing about every subject.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If I was to add something like that I would probably have done it like the way the article The Dark Knight Rises did it although I do see your concerns. TDKR article made it look like something common to be included in the Marketing section but I was trying to be cautious by asking. I don't know everything. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind showing me the archive link of the fourth link. I think I might as well use these sources up if I can. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.webcitation.org/65NNELPUU, archived on February 11, 2012. It's pretty easy to do — just go to http://www.webcitation.org/archive and basically fill in the blanks. It and Archive.org are godsends — so much of the lost early Web would be viewable for historians if these archives were around then. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I really appreciate it and don't worry I will get to it eventually. I think the cast section is mostly fine already but it wouldn't hurt to add a few information later on. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 2 May 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To whom reads this, can you add some of the character's bio? (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Amazing_Spider-Man_(2012_film)

MettyC (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Whose and why? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

<1--Begin request --> Every character, where is the information on about the characters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.25.241 (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I added a little bit of important plot summaries of the characters that are revealed in the official website with my own words. What do you think? Is that better. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Too much quoting?

I feel like this article relies too much on direct quotes. Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror for other sources. We should be summarizing most of what is presented in the article, with key instances for direct quotation. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am trying on fixing that. While also keeping the same sources still around mostly. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok how about now? The only sections I haven't done yet is the cast sections and the development sections. I think the development section seems fine and the casting section...I think quotes help that section. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Viral Campaign

Maybe somebody should put up links to the websites. Sean199813 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, this section, particularly the one long paragraph, is way, way too much. It's 722 words — so the "plot" of this viral campaign is longer than the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines for the movie plot itself!

For encyclopedic-reference purposes, we only need to state that this viral campaign existed and give a brief, short-paragraph-long description, with appropriate citations. Not the entire plot — a description of the plot, a capsule of the plot. We absolutely do not give a 722-word plot. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If you can make it smaller Tenebrae then please do so. But if you read it most of it isn't plot. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Too much Portuguese

At this edit, one of my colleagues whom I respect very much added numerous references in Portuguese. This creates an issue with significant repercussions, since this is English-language Wikipedia — and having one or two or five different untranslated languages cited, where we can't readily check the accuracy of the quotations and claims, makes the article less credible and far more prone to inaccuracies.

Here is what WP:NOENG says:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.
When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote.
When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.
Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

There is nothing that Avi Arad or anyone else is telling a Brazilian website that they are not saying in a myriad of English-language sources "of equal quality and relevance." So there is no reason to include untranslated Portuguese sources in English-language Wikipedia. I don't know if this particular editor speaks Portuguese, but I've seen the Google Translate version and while it's not gibberish, it's also not English. I am going to seek English-language sources for the Portuguese-cited claims, and I would ask my colleagues to help me on this.

And it's for a very practical reason: I'm going to be speaking with some of these people, and like many journalists I use Wikipedia's footnotes as a way of rapidly finding pertinent articles; it's one tool of many. If I can't read a footnoted reference, or if I have to rely on a machine translation that may not accurately represent what the person said, then I can't be confident that this information is accurate. And if a reference isn't usable within a journalistic context, it's certainly not usable within an encyclopedic context.

This isn't meant to denigrate the editor's hard work in any way. He's an excellent editor and is largely responsible for this article being as good as it is. But as with any of us, not everything we try is going to work. Heaven knows I'm glad for my own editors keeping me from going enthusiastically overboard sometimes.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And, happily, it looks as if there's an easy resolution. The Brazilian website's video interview is in English, so we don't have to rely on the website's Portuguese transcription machine-translated to English: We can just quote directly from the video. And fortunately, Collider.com has broken the interview into time-stamped chunks and has transcribed portions of it here, so my suggestion is that we cite Collider — and I plan to individually time-stamp whatever we're quoting. Crisis averted. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's just what I was going to say to you. It looks like your reply wiped out my reply of existence even though it's on the edit history lol. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So from an editing crisis to an existential crisis! : ) We do think alike, don't we? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I was trying to say that the video was in English but yeah I do remember that Collider reported on the video and that will work fine as a source. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

budget?

I think on the budget the most official word of mouth is that the film is a 220 budget movie. Even IMDb says it by placing (estimate) on there which I think is a wise thing to say. Perhaps we can place that there along with using quote marks on the budget as well...and then explain ourselves with a note and if there is another source that says something else than the particular source we are free to elaborate that on the note section as well. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As the adage goes, "It's better to say nothing and be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it." IMDB is quoting an unreliable source and that's fine for them but we should be better than that. We already identify that source in the article text there's no need to further display it in an infobox until we can find reliable confirmation. According to the Hollywood Reporter the budget was originally $80Milion [3] and a recent Guardian article (Don't have link handy) put the current estimate at $160 Million. both of which are more reliable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should note these sources though and all the explanations for the budget. As for the infobox I am not sure what to do. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Stuart here. All budgets are "estimates", because the studio does not provide nickel and dime level of details on how much money they spent. IMDb is not reliable in anyway, and if our most reliable sources are saying that it is something different then we go with them until either they change their figures, or a more reliable source states otherwise. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This I already have figured out and agreed with...I hid the budget for those exact reasons because I felt the same way. Even still if there is more sources on budget than the one we had covered in the filming section I think a note might need to be in order on the sources statements on the budget. That still doesn't help with the infobox though. :/ Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus Bignole I already know about sources saying it differently..and was never going to use IMDb as a source. I personally want to find all these reliable sources and explain what the sources say. But I don't find it TOP importance to be totally concerned about adding it...just something that I think we might need to do. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

plot

I just watched the movie in Austria, where it was released today and the plot is severely wrong in several places. Pheldagriff (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please by all mean fix it then. It's still there it's just hidden for now. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I just signed up for wiki today to make this remark. I haven't figured out how to actually do edits and I'm not really confident enough in my memory to get it all right. Pheldagriff (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You are doing it right so far on just editing your discussion.;) But yeah I put it on the premise so far because of the concern of it's inaccuracy. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary inconsistencies

Having just seen this film (Europe), the plot summary seems to conflict with several details I saw depicted, particularly in the finale. Now, I am hesitating changing the summary because there's so many differences I can only believe that the version premiered in Japan had a rather different set of events.

For example, Ratha seems to have vanished after the bridge scene. I never saw him get killed off by the Lizard, as stated in the article. Peter discovered the Lizard's lab in the sewers under the city, not at Oscorp. Gwen is not subjugated by the Lizard - he spares her, and she gets the antidote to her father, who ultimately helps Peter fight the Lizard, having discovered his identity quite a while earlier. Peter never injects the Lizard with the antidote, he just disperses it with the Ganali Device. Gwen does not decice that she does not want to be with Peter again - rather, her father makes Peter promise not to see her so she does not face the same danger he does. And finally, Peter never finds the thug that killed his uncle, and while a mysterious figure appears in Connors' cell, he never reveals himself to be Osborn and leaves after a few cryptic remarks about Peter's father. 84.114.211.159 (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is subject to many changes when it comes to film plot that might not be right. That being said there is too many problems with that section that I couldn't let stay visible. There is also no deadline policy on Wikipedia so a plot can be absent before it's even released. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence in 'Critical reception' section

Fairly often, we will see the critical response section open with a statement saying that the film received "Generally positive" or "Generally negative" or "Mixed or average" or some combination of the above. Just as often, particularly in the cases of films that aren't clear cut one way or another (let's say scores from 30 to 79 on Rotten Tomatoes for the sake of argument), the verbiage gets changed to be more positive or negative depending on the view of the editor. Aside from culturally recognized films, either for critical success or failure, I've never seen this 'summary' sentence cited, and it sometimes does not reflect the conclusion a reasonable person would come to reading the reviews. In short, I think a lead sentence that makes a clear statement regarding the quality of the critical reception is [[4]], and thus inappropriate. I feel leading with the Rotten Tomatoes summary and consensus, along with Metacritic and it's summary, gives the reader an excellent introduction to the section, and leads into samples from a group of reviews. Keep in mind, we don't generally start the box office section with 'the film performed well' or 'the film bombed at the box office' unless there is extreme, verifiable cultural significance there. In fact, I've also been removing unqualified statements like those as well.

I make no judgements regarding the quality of this film, but I have removed the sentence in question and have had reverts. I've done this on many other articles, had one or two discussions, but this seems as good a time as any to come to a clear consensus. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't use them, I prefer to allow the percentages to speak for themselves. We are not qualified to try and apply a generalization to research data. We should be there only to report what we can show. There should be an equal number of positive and negative reviews for a film, and that RT percentage indicator should be enough for a reader to make their own conclusions. I especially do not like seeing "it was critically acclaimed". RT reports on average 150 reviews for a film. That is by no means all of the professional, or even reliable, critics out there. It usually consists of well known critics, and those well known enouh to RT staff. We cannot say that the sample size is enough to generalize back to the whole, which is why I prefer the percentage to speak for itself. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I was a little late because I was updating Ebert's review. But yeah I don't have a problem with that either way. Silly me, I was thinking you were referring to what's on the lead that is not necessary. Go back to your editing, nothing to see here. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I generally don't touch the summary in the article lead, though I wish I could think of a better, and more verifiable way to quickly summarize it there as well. Thank you! --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We just need to start summarizing the general consensus of what the reviews are saying, or just cite RT's summary of what the reviews say (I prefer the former, because RT does not update their consensus when more reviews come). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But they do update their rating and numbers, and I believe the consensus is only summarized after a certain number of reviews come in. I've always felt leading with RT and MC gives the reader the best ten thousand foot view, and they can read review samples after that for more detail. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That is why I stick to the numbers and let them speak for themselves. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is something that should be discussed at the project. If people are synthesizing a response that is one thing but when reviews are very obviously positive, such as with The Avengers, it is not OR or Synth to say it received generally favorable or positive reviews. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point regarding the Avengers, but since RT reports that the reviews are positive, why bother? I think it sets a bad precedent for articles like this, or let's say films in the 30-49 or 59-70 range. I agree that a discussion is in order, and I'm game to have it on the project page.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like it if everyone involved would join this similar discussion as per DWB's suggestion.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I plan on using the Metacritic critics summaries some time. So far it's listed as "generally favorable reviews". Just thought I would note this. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I generally include that in the same paragraph as RT, and with both I start with "At" or "According to", and place the consensus/summary/rating in quotes, so the reader knows where the information is coming from. Since MC and RT both use sample data and their own methodology to calculate it, I think it's important to note where the data is coming from. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Me too. I try to let the reader's know that that's what they are saying. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Massee

I find it obvious that Michael Massee that is in this film at one point. But the problem is no reliable source...and I really think Webb and the others want to to keep this at wraps. Also there is speculation going that he is Norman Osborn when the most reliable (which isn't reliable enough for Wikipedia) websites say the name of who the actor portrayed is David Lowell. So please dig up sources in the future if you can and figure this out. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your earlier point in the edit summary. It's going to be a pain to do so, but I say keep him out of the article for now. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The official end-credits list Massee as "Man in the Shadows". --Tenebrae (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Then that's how we should name it too. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

Plot section

NOTE: IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILER.

The plot that some anonymous IP added was filled with errors and extremely poor spelling and grammar, and was way over word count. Here is a 690-word alternative from someone who has seen the movie twice now at preview screenings. (The film was already released in Japan, so I presume it's non-native-English speakers who provided the plot that was in the article.) Those who have seen it, let's make edits to it here, please, so that everything is accurate and properly written before it goes into an encyclopedia. Please keep in mind there's only a 10-word margin. If you add more than 10 words, remove the equivalent number of words over 10.

Draft of plot

A young Peter Parker is playing hide-and-seek with his scientist father when he discovers his father's study has been broken into. His alarmed father, Richard, gathers up some hidden documents, and Peter's parents take him to the home of his Aunt May and Uncle Ben then mysteriously depart. Years later, a teenage Peter attends Midtown Science High School, where he's bullied Flash Thompson and has caught the eye of Gwen Stacy. At home, Peter finds Richard's hidden papers, and learns his father worked with fellow scientist Dr. Dr. Curt Connors at Oscorp. Faking his way into Oscorp as one of a group of Connors' high-school interns, Peter sneaks into a locked lab where extremely strong "biocable" is being created from genetically modified spiders, one of which bites him. On the subway ride home, he finds, to his shock, strange spider-like abilities manifesting themselves.

After studying Richard's papers, he visits the one-armed Dr. Connors at home, reveals he's Richard Parker's son, and gives Connors his father's "decay rate algorithm", the missing piece in Connors' experiments on regenerating limbs. Connors' is being pressured by his superior, Dr. Ratha, who needs Connors to devise a cure for the dying, unseen head of Oscorp, Norman Osborn.

In school, attempting revenge on Flash, Peter gets in trouble, forcing Uncle Ben to switch a work shift in order to meet with the principal; he tells Peter to pick up May tonight for him. After learning more about his new powers, he meets Dr. Connors at Oscorp, and, ignoring a call from Ben sees the limb-regeneration formula work on a laboratory mouse. When Peter returns home, Ben scolds him for having neglected to pick up May. Peter storms off, and when Ben goes looking for him, Ben confronts a thief who has just robbed a deli Peter was in. As Ben and the thief wrestle over a gun, Ben is killed before Peter's eyes and the murderer escapes.

Shortly afterward, using a police sketch of the killer. Peter uses his new abilities to hunt criminals matching the killer's description. After a fall lands him inside an abandoned gym, a luchador wrestling poster inspires him to create a mask. Later, he adds a Spandex suit for mobility and inadvertently becomes a folk hero. He accepts a dinner invitation from Gwen and meets her family, including her father, police captain George Stacy. After dinner, Peter and Gwen go to her apartment building's roof, where he shows her he is the masked vigilante, and they kiss.

Ratha says Connors must begin human trials immediately if Osborn is to survive. Connors refuses to rush the drug-testing procedure and put innocent subjects at risk. Ratha fires Connors and says he will secretly test Connors' serum at a Veterans Administration hospital under the guise of flu shots. Desperate, Conners tries the formula on himself, and after passing out and awakening finds his missing arm has regenerated. Learning Ratha is on his way to the VA hospital, Connors, whose skin is growing scaly and green, goes to intercept Ratha. By the time he gets to the traffic-jammed Williamsburgh Bridge, Connors has become a superhumanly strong hybrid of lizard and man, tossing cars, including Ratha's, over the side. Peter, now calling himself Spider-Man, saves each fallen car with the biocable "web" he fires from mechanical devices on his wrists.

Spider-Man confronts the Lizard in the sewers, barely escaping alive, and the Lizard learns Spider-Man's real identity and attacks Peter at school. The Lizard then develops a plan to make all humans lizard-like, starting with the release of a chemical cloud from Oscorp's tower. The police hunt both Spider-Man and the Lizard, with Captain Stacy learning Spider-Man's real identity. Spider-Man eventually disperses an antidote cloud instead, restoring Connors and some earlier victims to normalcy, but not before the Lizard kills Stacy. Before he dies, Stacy makes Peter promise to keep Gwen safe by staying away from her. Peter initially does so, then decides he will see her after all.

In a scene during the end credits, Connors, in a prison cell, appears to speak with a man he knows, who moments later is no longer there.

--Tenebrae (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope we are in a nice start because according to the feedback readers are in demand of the plot already. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it opens in just over three hours at East Coast midnight shows. If anyone wants to insert the plot above, I certainly am not objecting at this juncture. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw the film last night. I made one change: As I remember, Peter doesn't tell Gwen he is Spiderman, he ropes her in, so it's obvious. Apart from that, this looks good to me. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've done the replacement. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cast

If it's of any use, here are the official cast credits

Spider-Man/Peter Parker Andrew Garfield - Gwen Stacy Emma Stone - The Lizard/Dr. Curt Connors Rhys Ifans - Captain Stacy Denis Leary - Uncle Ben Martin Sheen - Aunt May Sally Field - Rajit Ratha Irrfan Khan - Richard Parker Campbell Scott - Mary Parker Embeth Davidtz - Flash Thompson Chris Zylka - Peter Parker (Age 4) Max Charles - Jack's Father C. Thomas Howell - Jack Jake Ryan Keiffer - Helen Stacy Kari Coleman - Store Clerk Michael Barra - Cash Register Thief Leif Gantvoort - Gordon Andy Pessoa - Missy Kallenback Hannah Marks - Hot Girl Kelsey Chow - Mr. Cramer Kevin McCorkle - Physics Nerds Andy Gladbach, Ring Hendricks-Tellefsen - Miss Ritter Barbara Eve Harris - School Librarian Stan Lee - Nicky's Girlfriend Danielle Burgio - Nicky Tom Waite - Car Thief Keith Campbell - Car Thief Cop Steve DeCastro - Receptionist Jill Flint - OsCorp Intern Mark Daugherty - Rodrigo Guevara Milton Gonzalez - Howard Stacy Skyler Gisondo - Phillip Stacy Charlie DePew - Simon Stacy Jacob Rodier - Construction Worker Vincent Laresca - Taxi Driver Damien Lemon - Police Officer with Sketch Ty Upshaw = Police Officer James Chen - Officer (SWAT) Alexander Bedria - Sheila (Subway) Tia Texada - Subway Guy Jay Caputo - Newscaster (News Chopper) John Burke - Principal Terry Bozeman - Second Girl (Subway) Jennifer Lyons - Man in the Shadows Michael Massee - Ariel Amber Stevens

--Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Needs Rewrite: Mostly Quotes

This article is very, very well sourced. And it looks to be shaping up to a great article. But, it is mostly composed of quotes. If you look at any featured article on Wikipedia, it is composed of some small quoting, but mostly well-sourced summarizing. This needs to be done here, it is pretty much all quote after quote. Webb felt, Garfield stated. Followed by eighty quotes. Quotes in the cast section are fine, as that it the best way to get the actors' statements regarding characters, but the film features way too many under the Production section. The themes and analysis section is tricky, and maybe best not to exist because its so difficult to do right. I'm not sure, but that section, should it stay, needs some maintenance. Please give thoughts. 75.87.109.34 (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A theme section having "he said, she said" seems fine judging by American Beauty (film). As for development section, it would be nice having it not saying the "he said, she said" on there but you got to get in to consideration that newer films get their sources by interviews on the web more so than older films probably citing books. See Thor (film) and Captain America: The First Avenger. You can even write it in you're special way if you think it's too much of a bother. I tried to best to get rid of quotes in the past and we have less now then we had but even still newer constructive information keeps compiling in where I am not sure how to describe it but other people know how to word it better. Where is it most unnecessary to you and I probably can figure out how to rephrase it? I wouldn't mind, it's liking warming up for a good article/featured article nomination anyway. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again by reading more of it I strongly advise you to read American Beauty (film) (FA). Seems to have quite a bit of quotes when necessary. Just let me know when the quotes are unnecessary on this article. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To expand on JH's comments: It's true that many quotes ca give a he-said-she-said feel. But in the case of comic-book movies, which have more rabid fan-followings and younger, less critically sophisticated editors than editors of general movie articles, the quoting is often necessary — not in every instance here, I'm sure, and more paraphrasing can certainly be done.

But WikiProject Comics experience has taught us that without being very specific and saying exactly what some source has said, that many editors will wildly misinterpret and mis-paraphrase; a more discerning editor will change this paraphrase to something in line with the quote, and almost inevitably, the first editor will begin edit-warring. We've too often found that the only way to prevent this is to use the exact quotation and say, "Leave it to the reader to interpret." Otherwise, we end up in a seemingly endless round of back-and-forth edits with often passionate young editors who have, let's say, very creative interpretive faculties. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Eventually, one has to paraphrase, otherwise the whole article would be quotes. Some quotes are less concrete than others so I doubt paraphrasing would be a problem. I have to say reading some sections with all the quoting is monotonous. I already expressed this previously, but much wasn't done. I agree paraphrasing may cause edit wars but it should not be a barrier. I doubt whether the reader will ultimately finish the article with all these quotes.

A solution could be to paraphrase but make the quote flow in the sentence. This may not always work but its a try.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is a necessity, because Wikipedia is not supposed to simply be a mirror of other sources. We're supposed to collect information and present it in a manner that is encyclopedic. Last I checked, encyclopedias do not just contain quote after quote with no paraphrasing. The reason we do source checks is to make sure that people paraphrase correctly. Just quoting everything in huge chunks is not an appropriate wait to avoid inaccurate paraphrasing. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again. We haven't used quotes that much like you make it appear. This article is a mix of saying things our own way and having a few quotes. Just like the FA I pointed out earlier. None of these seem to be saying how the source says it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the longest ones that is put is. :"Sam Raimi's virtuoso rendering of Spider-Man is a humbling precedent to follow and build upon. The first three films are beloved for good reason. But I think the Spider-Man mythology transcends not only generations but directors as well. I am signing on not to 'take over' from Sam. That would be impossible. Not to mention arrogant. I'm here because there's an opportunity for ideas, stories, and histories that will add a new dimension, canvas, and creative voice to Spider-Man." This used to be put as a quote box of some kind but then had to appear in the article. Same with a few of the filming sections mention of the RED Epic cameras. But it still sounds important and perhaps it could be rewritten somehow? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

IGN

I am debating in my mind on the use of IGN on the review. IMO the critics we should use are the top critics or critics entered on Metacritic...and neither of them qualifies IGN. IGN is normally video game reception department anyways. If we would use a different negative site which one would make the best substitute though? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We have an embarrassent of riches to choose from, with some of the widely read and influential critics in the world. When we have the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Time, Newsday, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, Salon and the Chicago Sun-Times, to name just a few prominent consumer periodicals, and trades like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Film Journal, I'm sure we can do without IGN. Although I'd like to see, say, three reviews by such comics specialty sites as CBR, Comics Bulletin, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just it. IGN is already listed on here and I think we need a better replacement. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

I have real concerns about including James Berardinelli of Reelviews among the critics. He's just a self-published film blogger, no different than a hundred guys doing that, and having him in the same paragraph as The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post seems odd. From what his bio at Rotten Tomatoes suggests, he's not a professional film critic but works in technology and does reviewing on the side. Surely, with all the multitude of professional magazine, newspaper, webzine and broadcast critics, we can find someone more appropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I will see about that. Maybe tomorrow. He appeared as a top critic, a Metacritic critic and had his own article. That seemed like enough in my personal opinion for him to be added. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, on first glance the "top critic" star seems to mean something. But he's a top critic and the longtime, highly respected veteran Pete Hammond of Boxoffice is not, nor the well-regarded Joshua Rothkopf of Time Out New York? Something's not right there. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's one that you might prefer with if you can understand what he is trying to get across. If you want to add it you can for it's late where I am at. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So Tenebrae. Is The New Yorker a better replacement? Or do you think we can come across with something better? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Lane in The New Yorker is pretty snarky, in a bad way, but he's certainly a major critic. Might not be bad to get out of New York, though, where we already have a couple of critics weighing in, and to look at, say, The Miami Herald, the Los Angeles Times, the Minneapolis Star Tribune or Denver's Rocky Mountain News, just to throw out a few names. We might also look at mixed review in Film Journal International, another major trade, since the critic is a former comics writer.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I try to follow the essay that top critics are mostly reliable. But I have no doubt that the sites you are mentioning are reliable too. But the question is what is the most notable or most constructive review to use to be decided to add over other negative review? That can certainly be debatable. I am sure you did you're research on reviews right? By the way I checked the last one you mentioned. That was mostly positive more than negative. Why don't you link an actual article you might prefer? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed negative reviews on The McClatchy Company, Slate (magazine), Minneapolis Star Tribune (as you have mentioned). Boston Globe and The Austin Chronicle were REALLY negative. Which one do you prefer? I am letting you pick. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

RT's top critics as stated above are usually a safe bet for choosing notable reviews. Also in the cases where the number reviews might be slanted to one side, you could flesh out the reviews on the weaker side or limit the number of reviews on the stronger side to give the section equal weight.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just out of concern, are you implying that it doesn't have equal right? Or are you just using a suggestion? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just something to consider as reviews are added/replaced.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I definitely tried to make it neutral but there seems to less negative reviews that Rotten Tomatoes counts as top critics and that Metacritic also adds. That's how I determined notability in the inclusion. Also definitetly adding the really notable critics (like Roger Ebert) which a lot seemed to be positive was a must. So I would say it's in a neutral point of view but if you don't you can be honest. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think JH and others who worked on the Critical-reaction section did an exceptional job of finding solid, explanatory quotes that say specifically why a critic liked or disliked something, which fleshes out the movie and gives a fuller, richer context. I usually love to be part of the Critical-reaction process, but because of a busy spate of work I couldn't really contribute here — and, boy, was I ever unnecessary! Bravo to all my colleagues! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to make a change in Th Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) The proper way to spell Oscorp is "Oscorp" not "OsCorp"

74.65.200.49 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing that out. RudolfRed (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That may be so in the comics, but all the movie's press material spells it OsCorp. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Examples from the movie's official production notes:

"As Peter discovers a mysterious briefcase that belonged to his father, he begins a quest to understand his parents’ disappearance – leading him directly to OsCorp and the lab of Dr. Curt Connors (Ifans), his father’s former partner." (p. 1)
"...sequence of events which leads him to OsCorp and to Dr. Connors results in his being bitten." (p. 5)
"'Peter’s discovery of his father’s briefcase is what leads him to OsCorp and to a complicated relationship with Connors,' said Ziskin." (p. 6)
"...as well as the stark contrast between the worlds of Queens and OsCorp.'" (p. 12; J. Michael Riva quote)
"'Cut to OsCorp, a black glass tower high above mid-town Manhattan, and inside a huge white, sterile place where cutting edge research is being conducted with no expense spared." (p. 12; J. Michael Riva quote)
"The OsCorp lab set was built on Stage 30 at Sony Pictures Studios and was one of the largest sets created for the film. Its massive footprint occupied over 14,000 square feet of stage floor and took over twelve weeks to build." (p. 13)

...and so on throughout the 52-page document. There's even an entire page devoted to "OsCorp Fun Facts"! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Theatrical poster

I have been forced to protect File:The Amazing Spider-Man (film) poster.jpg because of the excessive edit warring, with different versions of the poster being uploaded and reuploaded. This is not acceptable. There seems to be a legitimate dispute here, and so the options should be discussed, and, ideally, we should be able to reach a consensus on which version of the image is used. Until then, please leave it as it is- this does not imply any kind of endorsement of the current image. Any attempt to continue the edit war, perhaps by uploading images separately, can and will result in blocks. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that it is protected.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Please discuss which one is better here. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The new poster is not more recognized than The OLD POSTER. I get what you mean with ratingsUser:Pleasant1623. BUT you see old poster all over the place in website like Rottentomatoes.com,boxofficemojo.com, amctheathes.com, regmovies.com, etc and in movie theaters why BECAUSE its the more recognized. YOU said i want to see the whole costume it shouldnt be what you want it should be what no one wants NeoBatfreak . That i say put the old poster back because it more recognized. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a point, the teaser poster is spread over sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo, but if a theatrical release poster arrives, we have to leave the teaser poster and use that. It doesn't matter that it's recognized or not recognized, it arrived very late that's why the teaser poster is still in that sites.--Plea$ant 1623 07:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Pleasant1623 J Milburn That not the teaser poster. There were 3 teaser posters,a red poster with Spider-man logo, a close up poster of the backside of the suit with Spider-man logo and peter in the shadows with the Spider-man logo being the his shadow. The new poster that you uploaded wasn't even a poster at first it was released on 6/2/2012 http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/NerdyGeek/news/?a=60875 , http://themovieblog.com/2012/this-the-amazing-spider-man-poster-swings-in and then they made into a poster. The offical theatrical poster was released on 4/16/2012 http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=58007April When starting promotion movies they released teaser posters about a year before movie's release not 2-3 weeks before the movie release. Then the offical theatrical poster and offical theatrical banner poster of the movie is released a couple of months before the released of the movie not 2-3 weeks before the movie's release. How can can the movie tv spots be released before the offical theatrical poster? It doesn't make scene. Please change the poster back the offical theatrical poster. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdremix540 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally disagree you by these reasons-

Reason 1 = The first two teaser posters were actually used for the Comic-Con launch because I can't found it anywhere now.
Reason 2 = I found the poster on collider.com, which is a reliable source.
Reason 3 = The new poster has the release date, rating, release formats and studio credits and it was very different from the sources you provided.
Reason 4 = The source you provided is wrong.
Reason 5 = Then I fixed the source and I founded that it was a fansite.

--Plea$ant 1623 14:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Pleasant1623 J Milburn * Yea it a fansite but i guess you never bother to look at the poster. The yahoo movie tag on it. Which it a very reliable source. If you go the amazing spider-man yahoo movie page your poster isn't even there. If you want better source there all over the internet like http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/04/these-new-posters-from-the-amazing-spider-man-give-us-a-darker-look-at-the-web-slinger or http://www.movieweb.com/news/two-the-amazing-spider-man-posters and yes there a official theatrical poster poster with logo, rating on it from your reliable source collider.com http://collider.com/marc-webb-spider-man-interview/177808/ . Also if you click on the poster it's said "final poster" which means final offical theatrical poster. Wow, after the release of the film, after all of the promotional still, tv spot, posters Colombia and Marvel have release collider.com would still that poster over your poster. Well that because it the offical theatrical poster.

* Oh and if you feel the poster is too big just drag the picture out of the collider.com web page not the view picture page like you did

* Another point your poster isn't the offical theatrical poster is was a promotional image foe the movie at first http://www.movieweb.com/news/the-amazing-spider-man-new-york-skyline-promo-poster if you want a more reliable source

* Also YOUR MISSING THE MAIN POINT, which is when starting promotion movies they released teaser posters about a year before movie's release not 2-3 weeks before the movie release. Then the offical theatrical poster and offical theatrical banner poster of the movie is released a couple of months before the released of the movie not 2-3 weeks before the movie's release. How can can the movie tv spots be released before the offical theatrical poster? It doesn't make scene.

* Lastly as you said the were teaser posters at Comic Con. Comic Con how more offical and reliable can you get! May Please change the poster back the offical theatrical poster. thank you Jdremix540

Good, you provided a reliable source. I think that the disputes ended, so will request unprotection for the file--Plea$ant 1623 11:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So, are we changing it back the the offical theatrical poster? It makes scene i believe after want I said. which is "when starting promotion movies they released teaser posters about a year before movie's release not 2-3 weeks before the movie release. Then the offical theatrical poster and offical theatrical banner poster of the movie is released a couple of months before the released of the movie not 2-3 weeks before the movie's release. How can can the movie tv spots be released before the offical theatrical poster? That doesn't make scene. Please change it back the the official theoretical poster thank you. The source its right collider.com http://collider.com/marc-webb-spider-man-interview/177808/ if you feel the poster is too big just drag the picture out of the collider.com web page not the view picture page Jdremix540 —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no. I will upload the poster from the source you provided and I can drag the smaller version of 290x429px.--Plea$ant 1623 17:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Has a consensus been reached, here? Are we safe to unprotect the poster? J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Pleasant1623 Are going to change the poster back to the theatrical poster? You said that you will change but it been over a day NOW! The source its right HERE collider.com http://collider.com/marc-webb-spider-man-interview/177808/ if you feel the poster is too big just drag the picture out of the collider.com web page not the view picture page Jdremix540 (talk)

Music please put this in

Coldplay are my favourite band and I couldn't help noticing that although their song Til Kingdom Come is used in the film during a montage which has Peter skateboarding and training to be Spider-man in. So could somebody please A. Edit it into the page about the film B. edit it into the page about the soundtrack or C. Put it onto the page X&Y which is the name of the album the song was first featured in. If anybody did this it would be greatly appreciated and thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.8.241 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to tackle how / if we should present this, here are the movie's songs per the official credits:

"No Way Down"

Written by James Mercer Performed by The Shins Courtesy of Columbia Records By arrangement with Sony Music Licensing

"Big Brat"

Written by Alexander Greenwald Performed by Phantom Planet Courtesy of Epic Records By arrangement with Sony Music Licensing

"Bus Bus"

Written and Performed by Amy Ray Courtesy of Daemon Records

"Til Kingdom Come"

Written by Guy Berryman, Jonathan Buckland, William Champion and Chris Martin Performed by Coldplay Courtesy of EMI Records Ltd. Under license from EMI Film & Television Music --Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why or how we should put this up. Tenebrae do you have any ideas on how it can be put up? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lizard concept art

Hi, I'd like to know if I can use this image on the article? http://www.fansshare.com/news/the-amazing-spider-man-s-the-lizard-pic/#.T_5yzVEihFI shows an unconfirmed version of the Lizard, which fans disagreed to. Pls reply me on my talk page. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Last time I saw that picture it was supposedly of the toy that was goingto come out featuring the lizard. Either way, an unused, unconfirmed version, is not going to be justified for use in the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Norman Osborn's company is spelled "Oscorp" not "OsCorp"

71.190.212.51 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC) In conclusion, the correct way to spell Oscorp is "Oscorp" Thank you for your time.

Done Verified and changed. Rivertorch (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 July 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the film, they never said, "Oscorp's tower", they said "Oscorp Tower"

74.65.200.49 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your time.

It's not a direct quote. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

critical reception pov slant

I recently edited the critical reception area to more accurately reflect the cited reviews in the section (it was looking as if the bad reviews were being played down - a significant no no). It was reverted back, nd I was thinking some discussion is warranted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, if you look back at you're edits there was quite a few goofs you should have noticed before saving. Second the reviews are favorable according to Metacritic but it's not necessary to tell what the reviews are according to Williamsburg. (See above discussion). Third the image is there due to reflect what the critic thought about the two character's chemistry. You can summarize the negative (and positive) opinions if you want but it doesn't belong on the image caption. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 12:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear (I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you) I only have issue with the leads that assign (often arbitrary) phrases like "mostly positive" or "generally mixed". Based on a number of discussions, including the one above, this seems to be in line with consensus. I do not take any issue with the proprietary rating systems from rotten tomatoes or metacritic; so if MC says "Generally favorable", I think that's well within WP policy as long as it's quoted and attributed to a reliable source. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

See what I stated at Williamsburgland's talk page. And he removed it as WP:Wikihounding, even though the policy shows that it wasn't and even though others have the same problem with his editing of these critical reception sections. There is no WP:CONSENSUS, with regard to these articles in general, not to use "generally positive" or "generally well-received," "mixed" or "generally mixed," or "generally negative" or "negative." And that is easy to see judging by how often this topic discussion keeps coming up, and most film articles, including WP:GAs and WP:FAs, using such phrasing. It is false and a plain misreading and/or misreprensentation of the WP:Original research policy to state that these phrases are origial research/synth or POV. All of these phrases are supported by the reliable sources, and Metacritic even uses similar wording. But even when Metacritic quite clearly says "Generally favorable reviews," Williamsburgland acts as though saying "generally positive" or "positive" is unsourced/POV. That latter link is of a film (Terminator 2:Judgment Day) that received a 98% Rotten Tomatoes rating, quite clearly a well-received film, or rather a universally acclaimed film, and Williamsburgland still tampered with its reception section, adding a source that most Wikipedia film articles don't use and acting as though the phrasing "generally positive" or "positive" is even remotely controversial in that case. Quite ridiculous, really. It's not even controversial to state that a film that has received a 74% Rotten Tomatoes approval rating, like The Amazing Spider-Man, is generally well-received, especially since it's backed by Metacritic under very similar wording. I've stated before that, "Not everyone is familiar with these sites (in fact, I don't believe that most people are) and, without clarification, some of them won't know what we mean by these percentages and certainly not what we mean by 'Certified Fresh.' Even if we explain that 'Certified Fresh' means 'well-received,' they are likely to think that we mean 'The film was well-received by one website,' not realizing that the site is made up of almost every professional film critic (as far as America goes at least)." Williamsburgland needs to stop imposing his personal preference onto every film article he comes across, as though there is some widespread consensus on this issue and as though these are original research/WP:NPOV violations. There isn't and they aren't. That GA an FA reviewers, as noted, consistently elevate articles that use such phrasing is just one prime example of that. 91.224.154.100 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the love of God, leave me alone. You posted inquires on two completely separate edits I made on my talk page - the issue of wording in critical reception, and wording in an article covering anal sex. You've now followed me to this article, and have forum shopped to another editor who hasn't participated in this discussion on an unrelated article. If this isn't hounding, I don't know what is. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't originally Wikihounding and it still isn't because I'm not following you "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to [you]." Nor have I posted across mutiple talk pages about you, though I am tempted to take your editing with regard to this issue to a noticeboard of some sort if you continue to inject your ridiculous "original research/synth-violations" POV into these critical reception sections. My having followed you, which I am allowed to do, is out of concern for the quality of these articles. If we took your view to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, I'm certain that they would emphatically point out that what you consider original research isn't original research. What you did at the Terminator 2:Judgment Day article is ridiculous and you know it. I alerted that editor to this discussion because I have mentioned the case here and, in their edit summary, he or she said that he or she was interested in discussing this issue. 210.51.38.14 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we may be off on what Jack Sebastian originally talked about. I only quoted Wlliamsburgland for the part where he don't think that putting "positive, negative, mild," wasn't that necessary. Jack Sebastian put "mild" which (even though a certain source says it) I don't agree with. The reviews seem IMO favorable according to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic...and if we were to bring back what the reviews are mostly said. I think favorable would be more accurate with mild. Al though Jack Sebastian, I did not have a problem with you adding the summary of what the positive/negative critics mostly though about if that source stated that it was such. If so, you can add that back. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We may be off on what Jack Sebastian stated. But you mentioned that "it's not necessary to tell what the reviews are according to Williamsburg," and so I felt compelled to comment. 210.51.38.14 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies there to Jack. I agree with Jhenderson's edit, Jack, but I don't think that should preclude you from adding further reviews you think are representative of negative reviews... there are certainly a few of them out there. The issue with using leads like the one you had is it's technically OR, and it opens the gate for edit warring, particularly in cases like this where a film isn't clearly acclaimed or clearly hated.

Again, if you feel that negative reviews are being left out, by all means add some summaries there, or alternatively you could find reliable, notable analysis of the critical reception outside of RT or MC, but I'm guessing it doesn't exist yet. Sorry once again for getting OT up there. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just gave it a read through... I'd agree that the section is slanted. A quick check to RT reveals that top critics Laremy Legel, Dana Stevens and Roger Moore all gave negative reviews... perhaps that's a good place to start?--Williamsburgland (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A 74% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 66 "Generally favorable reviews" rating on Metacritic is clearly a generally well-received film. Do you not know that 70-something percent equates to most and is significantly more than 26 percent? 210.51.38.14 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Roger Moore one could probably be a notable inclusion definitely because it's one of the latest top critic reviews. So anyone could add that if liked. Dana Stevens one is actually on there. Keep in mind we don't have every top critic positive review either. IDK We need to add every reviewer who said he didn't like it "because it's a reboot" like Laremy Legel's review. We already added one like that. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't even notice Dana, thanks for pointing it out. I agree on the reboot thing - the RT summary kind of notes that the similarity to the 2002 film is a point of contention for critics, and it's already noted. Perhaps if after the summary the section was split into a paragraph or so for positive, and then the same for negative. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to the negative reviews, which are the minority. Not to mention, most film article reception sections on Wikipedia are not formatted that way. 210.51.38.14 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed my mind about the Roger Moore inclusion This isn't one of the best sources to use even though he isn't a top critic. Had to get rid of a review by James Berardinelli with his own site because a user didn't felt that wasn't reliable enough. Also the positive is in the top while the negative is on the bottom. It was split into two paragraphs at the time but it looked like there is even more splits now. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'll take a pass at a lite rewrite later on... I'll wait to see if Jack wants to do so first. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of my concern was with the seeming positive spin on the reception the movie received. Go ahead and give it a try, Williamsburgland; It would be cool to see what someone else does with it. The new kid is keeping me too awake and not as sharp as I should be to be editing. :) Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with copy editing either. But I see the article containing both positive reviews and negative reviews. It has less negative reviews but that's because there is less of those. There is still more positive reviews than how much we put in as well...and some of those are more mild than positive. So I think it's evened just fine. I always look forward to improvement though. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack, depending on how new we're talking it get's better... mine's 4 months old and I'm good for 6 hours a night. Congrats, of course! Anyway I'll give it a pass tomorrow sometime. --Williamsburgland (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

From a glance, the way it is presented it does look like a POV slant toward positive, but I think that has a lot to do with the structure. It appears to be all positive to start and then all negative to end. My suggestion would be to find reviews that focus on the same aspects, but from different perspectives, and then pair them so that you have a mix of pos. neg. reviews together. For example, if there pos./neg. reviews regarding the plot elements, then put them together as contrasting opinions that that might help the flow of the POV that is being talked about. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

When you accuse something of a pov slant please read it more than just glance it. Even still thanks for the recommendation. It was understandable. I look forward to Williamsburgland edits on improving it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 12:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a few things I have seemed to gather from the critical reaction that hasn't been pointed point out in the article yet. The script/screenplay was considered one of the weakest parts of the movie. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's portrayal seemed to be mostly positive (especially their chemistry) while the Lizard turned out be a underwhelming villain. Webb's directing seems to be well recieved. The score was mediocre. We might need to leave room to explain these a little better. I have tried to figure out how to solve Bignole's concern but it doesn't seem to be as easy as it sounds. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, then you'd see that I did not accuse it of being a POV slant, I merely stated that I can see how it would be seen as that. I clarified that it appears that all of the positive reviews are first and then all of the negative views are last. If you're going to chastise me about something, at least be accurate about what it is that I did. That being said, it is not hard to do what I said, it merely requires that someone read the reviews thoroughly and pinpoint like content. That is what Wiki editors should be doing in the first place. I can see similar content being discussed just from skimming the section already. If I, or anyone, reads the reviews in entirety then I would imagine that you'd find even more like content. The point is that the section should be balanced, and I can see how Jack or any reader might assume that we're just fluffing the article with positive criticism, as if you don't read the last 2 paragraphs (after having read that extremely long middle paragraph) then you wouldn't even realize there were negative views in the first place. As I was saying, it isn't that I think there is a real bias, I believe that it is a structure issue with the content that is there. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I can glance at it and I don't see that whatsoever. The majority of articles have positive and negative divided up while the majority reviews are normally on the top. It's still better to read it than to assume that it could be POV slant by just a mere glance. Sorry if you are offended at the fact that I implied that you accused it because I really did read your comment the way you defended your comment as such. Whether it looked like it maybe looked that way you admitted you judged it by glance and that wasn't necessary. Those last two paragraphs BTW are mostly there because there were the one of the first top critic reviews. Originally the reviews of the film mostly started with these positive so their placements don't seem unfitting at all. I still welcome any better changes to the section if it is possible. Also I can't believe you guys don't think there is enough negative reviews, I had to break the rule on adding some that aren't top critics to put negative reviews in. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at RT and there are 10 negative reviews from their "Top Critics" section, so I don't know why you would need to go outside of that section to get negative reviews. Also, starting with a bunch of positives does not mean that you shouldn't update a section and reformat it to be more balanced when negative reviews come out. I don't see anything in the first few paragraphs that provides a contrasting opinion to any of the positive reviews. The negatives all appear to be in the last 2 paragraphs. From what I've read, they all read as positive at the start. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just about all the top critic reviews are done. With the exception that some say the same old thing or that some of them are just unreliable blogs. Those I passed. The Boston Globe is the one that I added that isn't top critic. Yet it's in Metacritic as fully negative...and is only one out of two that is negative. In fact just about all the RT ones that are negative are considered mixed according to Metacritic. In other news I mixed positive/negative up a little. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My personal rule is that if it comes from a serious newspaper (like The Boston Glove) then I don't care if it's a Top Critic or not. It's a reliable news source, so it's still good. I agree with reluctance to use web blogs or other similar sources. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have done a few more mixing and I might just add the Detroit News and Newsday review in the future to maybe even the load. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

BIGNOLE and Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ seem to have this well in hand. From what Im seeing, as of this second, the section seems very balanced, though the organization, I think, could be tweaked.

The movie got 74 percent on RT and a positive consensus, so I believe it makes sense and is balanced to open with positive reviews. I'm not sure about the negative Ty Burr / Boston Globe quote being at the end of a positive-review paragraph, only to be followed by Schwartzbaum and Pakrham's positive reviews. I would move those two reviews into the second graf, then begin the third graf with the Lou Lemenick "Conversely" sentence followed by Burr and the rest of the more downbeat reviews. I think the Puig / USA Today quote in the middle of all that doesn't add any new dimension to the positive comments that preceded it, except for the astute "coming of age" phrase; maybe that part of her quote could be moved? I'd suggest losing the Slate quote, since "absolutely unnecessary" doesn't say why it's "absolutely unnecessary," so it's just an opinion without the sort of supporting reasoning that gives critical insight. Hope this helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that you shouldn't be writing like: "John gave a positive review, while Jane gave a negative review". That should be irrelevant. It should flow better, and talk about what John liked/didn't like and Jane's differing opinion of the same topic. What does not make sense is to talk about everything John liked/didn't like in one paragraph and then 2 paragraphs later start talking about the same thing from someone else's perspective. Content should flow with each other, not against each other. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That's one way to do it, certainly, and if done well it could work. But as a journalist I can tell you that the "he said / she said" form isn't considered the best way of organizing information or the best writing. What usually works better is to have a strong "argument" for one side, building an overall point, and then a strong "argument" for the other side. Point-by-point refutation doesn't create context. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Journalism and film critiquing are not the same thing. If I want to read about the new political stance on healthcare, then yes I probably would want to read it your way. If I'm just reading about what people thought about a film (and I'm not a review aggregator and just collecting reviews), then I'm going to want to see how people viewed different aspects of the film. I don't want to read 3 paragraphs praising acting, story, and say music, and then immediately follow that with 3 paragraphs panning those same topics. For me, better flow comes from taking that same information and turning it into 3 paragraphs that analyze each topic from both perspectives. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're not critiquing, but reporting what other people said, so this really is more like journalism. But, as I'd mentioned, the "he said / she said" form can work if done well. It's all in the execution. I don't have a preference as long as it's well-written and gets contextual information across.

It's worth mentioning that a 50/50 point-counterpoint would give undue weight to the negative, since the film's reviews were more generally positive and the balance of critical commentary should reflect that. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not giving undue weight to the negative by doing a 50/50 split like that. We have data that says the film was primarily viewed in a positive light. We're not here to reflect that in how we present information. We're providing a balanced view of what critics thought, while at the same time clarifying (at the start) that most critics liked the film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's true — we do say upfront the film was generally reviewed in a positive light. If the content that follows doesn't reflect that, then we're providing a context that's at odds with that statement. Let's say "Movie XYZ" has a 90 percent positive-review ratio. Wouldn't a 50/50 split of critics' comments give an inaccurate representation of how the film was overall received? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, becuase we're not here to mirror another site. We're here to be neutral and balanced and provide equal (if available) coverage of both sides of an argument. We're not here to take a stand on any one side. There may be instances where it is not possible to be completely balanced, but in the case of films if there is enough positive and negative reviews then you can be balanced. When we start a section by clearly identifying that a film was primarily viewed in a positive light, we don't have to reflect that on the same percentage because that isn't what we're trying to do. We're trying to give readers a full understanding of the critical perception of a film. If I film had a 95% approval rating, would you argue that we should have 18 positive reviews and only 1 negative review (even if say 15 negative reviews exist) just so we can keep that same 95/5% split for the film? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying we have to do math and find absolute statistics — just that the balance of positive and negative critics quoted roughy reflect the overall number of positive and negative, well, critics. For a film with a 95% approval rating, to be fair and use your example, I'm not sure that 18 positive quotes and 15 negative quotes provides contextual balance. In fact, I think that gives a misimpression. I know this is an extreme example, but do you see the point I'm making? Does that make sense? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

To me, that does not make sense because you're assuming that a reader will come here and read the first line that says a film has an overall approval rating of 95%, and then literally count reviews and get confused when there is an equal number of positive and negative opinions about a film. Wikipedia's purpose is here to provide information. By providing a balance of positive and negative reviews we're providing a reader with a fair sample from both sides about what was liked and not liked about a particular film. It isn't about proportions, it's about doing our duty to educate a reader thoroughly. If there are 10 positive reviews in an article and only 3 negative ones (with an option for more) then to me, that is a disservice to the reader. As, unless they go to Rotten Tomatoes and read every review, they're not being informed as to what critics are truly saying. We're already only taking a small sample from critics and just summarizing their thoughts, it doesn't make sense to try and reflect the percentage in the way you're asking. We're not here to push an agenda, just educate a reader. That is why the opening sentence detailing the actual approval rating of a film is sufficient. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think we're stepping over a line here. You're accusing anyone who disagrees with you of pushing an agenda, of not wanting to educate the reader, and of being derelict in "our duty to educate a reader thoroughly." It's impossible to have a fruitful discussion if you're going to accuse others of bad faith and of not caring about the educational purpose of this encyclopedia. It's unfair, it's inaccurate, and it's a little insulting. Also confusing, since I'm not sure what "agenda" you say I'm trying to push.

You and I have had constructive discussions in the past, so I'd like to assume that you're overstating or that you're not expressing what you really mean, and that you didn't intend to accuse me of all those things. You've worked with me enough to know me, and I'm sure you sincerely believe that I operate in good faith with the mission of this encyclopedia in mind. So why don't we step back, try to find common ground, and not give the impression that anyone who disagrees with our personal position has an agenda and is acting in bad faith. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting how you took something that I said that was generalizing and interpreted it as a personal attack. I did not say that YOU were pushing an agenda, or that YOU did not want to educate readers. Please do not read personal accusations, bad faith, etc. into my generalized statement regarding what I was saying was my opinion regarding proportionalized reviews. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, your 00:49, 19 July 2012 post was saying that those who advocate proportionality were pushing an agenda, etc., and since I am advocating proportionality, it's hard to see how it wasn't directed at me. However, I accept your word that it was not. Still and all, saying that those who don't agree with your suggestion are pushing an agenda and doing a disservice to the reader etc. is questionable. When someone advocates another way than your own, that doesn't mean that that the other person's way doesn't do "our duty to educate a reader thoroughly."

As I said, why don't we start by trying to find common ground and work from there? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey all, sorry for volunteering a rewrite and disappearing... I'll be back to join the conversation and help however I can after the 20th; I'm trying to stay spoiler free for a little super hero flick that's coming out this week. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, the film got a 74% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 66 "Generally favorable reviews" rating on Metacritic, which equates to a generally well-received film. Despite my feeling that the percentages should be somewhat clarified any time we report critical reception information, because something like "Certified Fresh" doesn't tell us what the critics mean, anyone who knows basic math knows that 74% equates to "most." The other 26% are the minority. To try to give equal balance to an issue that is not equal would be WP:UNDUE. I agree with Tenebrae. Furthermore, because of those who hold the view that stating upfront that the film has been generally-received is somehow our own personal interpretation, despite the fact that the film received a 74% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 66 "Generally favorable reviews" rating on Metacritic, the reception section doesn't even start out saying "The film was generally well-received." And like Jhenderson777 stated, "The majority of articles have positive and negative divided up while the majority reviews are normally on the top." 210.51.38.14 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Stereoscopic 3D Specfic Critique of The Amazing Spiderman

Hello, I would like to request an external link be added to the wiki page. There is no stereoscopic 3D critique of the film, and the article below may help kickstart a topic to get information and opinion documented for the general sharing of knowledge on the art and science of Stereo 3D in film making.

Stereomatography: A review of Spider-man 3D

Thanks and Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.48.244.59 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

copyedit

Upon request, hit this. Comments:

The theme section now is purely quotes from participants. I'd prune that or move it to the cast section. Here, put outsider points, not about quality or success, but about substance. Obvious items include good intentions gone wrong, underlings attempting to please their boss, bullying, the lack of true villains, vigilantes (Spidey) vs police, etc. Talk about how the film approaches them and whether those approaches work.

I take it I am supposed to reply to these if not I am sorry. Anyways I (or you) can put the majority of what's on there to the cast section (except for the Tower of Babel comment) I am disappointed that I cannot find content for a section like that yet though for that could be essential for FA. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

Feedback is welcome. The theme section should be rewritten as above before moving the other points. Hopefully, many could just be deleted as not sufficiently distinct from what's already there.

The refs are full of press releases that should be replaced by secondary sources.

This bugs me. Are you saying that there isn't a reliable source. If so can you direct me? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't mean to bug you. I don't know if there are WP:RS sources for everthing, but there probably are.

I meant it worries me. You are not bugging me. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is too long. Better to pick the most useful, say reviews, and junk the rest. This is not about being exhaustive.

That said, it would be good to include something on the film's budget, costs and financing.

Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts on the press releases: I think the standard on inclusion should be whether they provide objective, quantifiable data, such as the number of shooting days, which would best come from the source itself. Otherwise, we should be able to find journalistic sources for subjective content. Just to make up an example out of my head without looking at the article, a press release in which a director talks about why someone was perfect for the role, without a disinterested outside interviewer probing and challenging his statements, would not be the best source for that kind of thing.

Also, as I've mentioned before, the viral-marketing section really is extremely long and overly detailed, though I'm afraid it's so much so that I haven't the wherewithal to wade through it!--Tenebrae (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Man in the Shadows

Hello I'd like to request that the "Unnamed Man" is changed to Norman Osborn. I have the source right here. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/GraphicCity/news/?a=62930 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.54.117 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Did you even read the source? Webb doesn't say who it is at all. Mythical Curse (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC).

Not done:Because it is a unreliable source citing a source we already use. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Could we say it is speculated to be Norman Osborn ?--79.69.105.94 (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I still say it is Mysterio. As soon as I saw the scene in the theaters, I immediately thought of him. I've heard of other speculations, such as yours above Norman Osborn, but he is dying of cancer and is on his deathbed. My take on Norman Osborn is that by the third film, the only way he will survive is by becoming the Green Goblin and we'll see the death of Gwen Stacy. I've also heard hype about the man being Electro, but this is only because he will be in the sequel. Electro does not have the capability to disappear. It's more logical to be someone who was hired by Norman Osborn to watch over the "antagonists" throughout the trilogy and knows about the Parkers' death "accident". Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

^ "Hollywood Insider: Editor wanted for Daily Bugle". What's Playing. 2010-10-26. Retrieved 2010-10-29.

[1] "Hollywood Insider: Editor wanted for Daily Bugle". What's Playing. 2010-10-26. Retrieved 2010-10-29.

[1]

Sally Field

Move to "Spider-Man reboot"

Requested move

Is Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

Recent edits

Sally Field

Admin

Charecter bios

Source?

Move to The Amazing Spider-Man (film)

Publicity still

See also

Garfield as Spider-Man image.

Based on

Mary Parker

Teaser Poster

Move

Moving content

Villains

great article

Young Peter Parker

Cast section...

File:Conceptart.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Better Image

Better Image

GA push Peer review

References to use

Edit Request on 2 May 2012

Too much quoting?

Viral Campaign

Too much Portuguese

budget?

plot

Plot summary inconsistencies

Opening sentence in 'Critical reception' section

Michael Massee

Plot section

Draft of plot

Cast

Article Needs Rewrite: Mostly Quotes

IGN

Edit request on 7 July 2012

Theatrical poster

Music please put this in

Lizard concept art

Edit request on 14 July 2012

Edit request on 15 July 2012

critical reception pov slant

Stereoscopic 3D Specfic Critique of The Amazing Spiderman

copyedit

Man in the Shadows