Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man 2/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Speculation

As of the moment I am writing this, the following is all speculation:

  1. Identifying the version of the Rhino that will appear in the film as "Aleksei Sytsevich" or "Alex O'Hirn"
  2. The identity of Felicity Jones' character
  3. The identity of Colm Feore's character

Any of this information on the page that is not sourced will be removed without hesitation.
LoveWaffle (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Speculation is not allowed under Wikipedia policy, and I completely agree with Waffle about what three things are frequently being added and shouldn't. There are at least 2 editors who will remove that information if they see it without a reliable reference to support it. Spidey104 01:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Filming in Rochester for New York City Scenes

I'm surprised there's no mention that Rochester, NY is being used for some of the car chase / action scenes: http://www.greecepost.com/features/x715752136/Hollywood-brings-Manhattan-to-Rochester-for-The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2 --GuyPaddock (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been added, but removed because it was an indiscriminate addition. If you can add it as more than a one-off sentence that does not flow with the rest of the paragraph it would be a wonderful addition. Spidey104 23:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It has been added properly now. Spidey104 17:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

future of the article

I plan on editing this article more often on the future and I encourage others to do as well. The sad thing is X-Men: Days of Future Past is already in a better start. Hopefully that will change in the future so that they can both look good. Anyways citation for future use will be added here (below my signature). Anybody can use them not just me. Jhenderson 777 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Shailene Woodley

I'm not good at finding sources but I saw in a video of ClevverTV that it was confirmed that Shailene would have a small role, so she should be deleted from the "Starring" in the template. Mgc26133 (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the article. It already says that she will only have a small role.
The names listed in the "Starring" part of the infobox are based on who the studio says is starring in the movie. She can be in the film for only 2 minutes, but if the studio lists her as starring in the film (for advertising purposes) she belongs in the infobox. Spidey104 14:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Colm Feore as Adrian Toomes

The source regarding the identity of Colm Feore's character as Adrian Toomes cites Comic Book Movie (specificially this article) as their source. Since CBM is not a trusted source, should this source be trusted?
LoveWaffle (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No. The ultimate source is what should be considered, and since Comic Book Movie is not a reliable source we need to take it down. I'll go ahead and do it and place a hidden note since people are sure to want to put it back up. This could end up being true, but we should wait until there is a reliable reference. Spidey104 12:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Gadon

The Tweet from ET Canada just says she joined the franchise, with no mention of a specific movie. Are we just assuming she was cast for something in the sequels, or is there another source I'm missing?
LoveWaffle (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything only says she is "joining the franchise". So until there is confirmation she is in 2 it is best if we only list it for upcoming movies. Spidey104 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Listing it for upcoming movies assumes the role is for something in one of the future sequels. She's just as much confirmed for 3 and 4 as she is for 2.
LoveWaffle (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
And as it turns out, Gadon will be appearing in this movie after all.
LoveWaffle (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 June 2013

Choose this image as the picture for the movie, http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2013/02/hr_The_Amazing_Spider-Man_2_1-610x908.jpg IronSpider691 (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we can wait until an official poster for the movie is released. Spidey104 22:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2013

Somewhere needs to mention, in the Filming' heading, that filming has wrapped, according to Marc Webb (director) on his Official Twitter account, confirming that filming has wrapped. It should also mention that it was EXACTLY 100 days of shooting! 94.170.85.252 (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Jhenderson 777 00:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Goblin Costume

Recently came across this article from MovieWeb.com talking about the appearance of the Green Goblin suit in the film, and I'm unsure of what to make of it. This source is a week old and I can't find any other source talking about this aside from ones like CBM and Latino Review whose credibility is in the gutter. On the other hand, I can't find anything on the noticeboard speaking to the site's credibility. Is this source credible or not?
LoveWaffle (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the site is credible if it cites a good source. In this case judging by reading the comicbookmovie source of it. I would say no myself. Jhenderson 777 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The article does not cite Comic Book Movie as a source for this information, but rather calls out CBM's story as deeply inaccurate.
LoveWaffle (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok I read it. What are you wanting to put on this article anyways about this? I also read this and this. These type of articles made by the same author is concerning me. Jhenderson 777 23:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer possible collaborator?

Would it be appropriate to mention in the 'Music' heading that Marc Webb hinted that there may be the possibility of Hans collaborating with somebody to compose the score?

For reverence, the URL for this is http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Amazing-Spider-Man-2-Must-Read-Marc-Webb-Goblins-Internet-Rumors-Thinking-Bigger-38620-p2.html (which is already in references list, for Hans Zimmer confirmation [Number 53, as of writing this]?)

The quote confirming this claim is from Marc Webb:

"He may have another collaborator, but it’s too early to discuss that."

--Smhero 1991 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think if it was stated as "Webb has stated that Zimmer may have another collaborator work on the score" (or something along those lines), it would be fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


Electro first reveal

A small 'teaser' clip that has been released online in the last couple of days has shown a first look at the character Electro (Jamie Foxx), ahead of the film's appearance at the San Diego Comic Con 2013.

Is there the possibility of mentioning this under a heading for something like 'Marketing' or 'Promotion'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.134.241 (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. It has now been added. Spidey104 02:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The full Comic-Con trailer leaked online here, http://vk.com/video64139721_165924045?hash=febc6afa1a3367fc, even if we don't mention it leaked should we put it "Marketing". 24.188.197.22 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
All that needs to be said is already in the section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Colm Feore casting

according to Colm Feore's Wikipedia page it states that he is cast as Adrian Toomes, now I don't know if this is a statement just posted by an editor that doesn't know what they were doing or if it actually has a legitimate link and stuff that says that this is true, now I'm not stating this to be true (even if it may sound like it) but if it is then I believe that we should post on the cast list "Colm Feore as Adrian Toomes" at the bottom like it is now (since it seems like you guys tend to do that), and if it is not true then could someone go and fix his page so that it doesn't say he is cast as Adrian Toomes? 98.154.187.240 (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone has already removed it. At present, Feore's role is still unknown, and Mark Webb has denied that he's playing Toomes. While that doesn't really mean anything, we won't be able to list his role until it's officially confirmed or until the movie comes out. Thank you for bringing this to our attention! Corvoe (speak to me) 01:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Corvoe. I forgot to post here after I saw this, and subsequently removed the info from Feore's page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Feore's role has been revealed and confirmed as Donald Menken via the official website for the film. - ThaSpliffst4rr (talk)ThaSpliffst4rr (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Premise

The premise reads like a sales pitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattop78 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

B.J. Novak revealed as Alistair Smythe

here's the official source 71.188.16.34 (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Design heading?

Do you think that the parts where the new costume / mask / web shooters etc. are mentioned (under 'Development') should instead being under some kind of 'Design' heading, so it is more focussed and stands out more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.196.157 (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is very minimal information, and there is not much else to add with it. If more design information is found, then possibly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Unnoticed vandal

I don't think anyone would have ever noticed this malicious edit by an IP user (where he replaces the critic's word "cooks" with "cocks"), which I reverted. It would have still been hard to notice because the readers may have then misinterpreted the critic as saying "cock". I therefore request this page to be protected from further small but malicious edits that may never go noticed in the future. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests can be made for protection at WP:RPP. I have approached an admin, but they have yet to respond to me. Using RPP may be faster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Once I made the blanket revert to get rid of all of last nights vandalism, I made a report at WP:RFPP. Hopefully someone will protect it shortly. STATic message me! 14:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014

Requesting edit to fix several character name spelling mistakes, and fix incorrect descriptions of plot, e.g. description of non-existent post-credits scene. CaolMcHugh (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
  • You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.
Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 20:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Negative Reviews

All of the reviews featured are more-or-less glowing, but there have been several negative reviews written as well. 206.87.101.45 (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please delete Plot section...

Someone please delete the plot. Someone who has written this plot does not know how to write an actual plot to a movie on Wikipedia, the user has put in details that do not need to be there for so many reasons. plan and simple, it looks a MESS. Thanks! 71.188.28.100 (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Without giving specific examples, we can not simply delete a whole section. You are welcome to comment here and give specific example of what you would like to be changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2014

wait till it comes out on may 2nd please to put full summary 99.36.118.88 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED - and the film is already out internationally (except in a small country south of Canada) - Arjayay (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Plot Mistake

The plot section says Gwen is going to England for a job, which is wrong. She was going to England to attend a Nuclear Medicine degree at Oxford see http://www.hypable.com/2014/03/05/amazing-spider-man-2-featurette-emma-stone-andrew-garfield/ for more information (you can leave the Nuclear Medicine part out since it isn't mentioned in the article, just something i remembered from the film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.91.233 (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of wrong things with the stated plot. I just removed, false information, that Harry uses symbiotes, to turn himself into Goblin. This is just not the truth. The serum he uses, is green and was drained from the genetically engineered spiders, we saw in the last movie. The Venom symbiote's got nothing to do with this movie.--Coq87rouge (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

Italian singer Francesca Michielin had released a single on March 31 which will be featured in the soundtrack of the movie. Here are some sources (in Italian):

Also a music videos was released: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmfVFPr0ls8 Could somebody add this infos in the music section, please? --79.36.253.75 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. Sorry, the single was release on March 28, source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140414203422/http://www.earone.it/news/francesca_michielin_amazing_radio_date_28_03_2014_10071033/ --79.36.253.75 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Misleading statement

"Deadline noted that approximately $180-190 million of the film's budget was used on marketing" is misleading, since it implies that $180-190m of the production budget was used on marketing (which is not true). Change to the less ambiguous: "Deadline reported that the film's marketing budget was $180-190 million" -109.152.132.61 (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done - albeit I used a slightly longer phrase to clarify that this was in addition to the production budget- Arjayay (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2014

| released =

  • April 16, 2014 (2014-04-16) (International)[1]
  • May 2, 2014 (2014-05-02) (North America)

47.55.218.229 (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Request is confusing. gsk 17:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Official credits

In case anyone needs to check the credits so that we're not going from memory of what's onscreen, there they are:

  • Directed by Marc Webb
  • Screenplay by Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci & Jeff Pinkner
  • Screen Story by Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci & Jeff Pinkner and James Vanderbilt
  • Based on the Marvel Comic Book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko
  • Produced by Avi Arad, p.g.a., Matt Tolmach, p.g.a.
  • Executive Producers - E. Bennett Walsh, Stan Lee, Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci
  • Director of Photography - Dan Mindel, ASC, BSC
  • Production Designer - Mark Friedberg
  • Editor - Pietro Scalia, A.C.E.
  • Visual Effects Supervisor - Jerome Chen
  • Casting by Francine Maisler, CSA, Kathleen Chopin, CSA
  • Music by Hans Zimmer and The Magnificent Six Featuring Pharrell Williams and Johnny Marr
  • Costume Designer - Deborah L. Scott
  • Columbia Pictures Presents a Marvel Entertainment / Avi Arad / Matt Tolmach Production
  • Spider-Man/Peter Parker - Andrew Garfield
  • Gwen Stacy - Emma Stone
  • Electro/Max Dillon - Jamie Foxx
  • Green Goblin/Harry Osborn - Dane DeHaan
  • Donald Menken - Colm Feore
  • Felicia - Felicity Jones
  • Aleksei Sytsevich - Paul Giamatti
  • Aunt May - Sally Field
  • Mary Parker - Embeth Davidtz
  • Richard Parker - Campbell Scott
  • Dr. Ashley Kafka - Marton Csokas
  • Man in Black Suit - Louis Cancelmi
  • Young Peter Parker - Max Charles
  • Alistair Smythe - B.J. Novak
  • Kari - Sarah Gadon
  • Gustav Fiers (The Gentleman) - Michael Massee [NOTE: This the guy at the end who visits Harry at Ravencroft]
  • Jorge - Jorge Vega
  • G-5 Co-Pilot - Bill Heck
  • Gwen's Cabbie - Teddy Coluca
  • British Desk Attendant - Helen Stern
  • Statue of Liberty Lady - Aidy Bryant
  • Principal Conway - Cal McCrystal [NOTE: In-joke call-out to Gerry Conway]
  • Times Square Cop - Anslem Richardson
  • SWAT Team Leader - Mark Doherty
  • Lead Officer - James Colby
  • Helen Stacy - Kari Coleman
  • Howard Stacy - Skyler Gisondo
  • Philip Stacy - Charlie DePew
  • Police Captain - Robert Newman
  • Bodega Cashier - Adrian Martinez
  • Robber - Thaddeus Phillips
  • Air Traffic Controller - James McCauley
  • Dispatchers - Rachael McOwen, David Shabtai
  • Osborn Butler - Greg Connolly
  • Pilots - Timothy Adams, Tug Coker, Jabari Gray
  • Jorge's Mother - Jamie Lynn Concepcion
  • NY1 News Anchor - Pat Kiernan
  • NY1 Reporter - Jessica Abo
  • Chinese Grandpa - Clem Cheung
  • Armed Robbers - Dusan Hyska, Andrei Runtso
  • Ravencroft Guards - Brennan Taylor, Slate Holmgren
  • Bullies - Drew Beasley Matthew Tronieri, Dario Barosso, Salvatore Rossi, Peter Tzotchev
  • Doctors - Paul Urcioli, David Shih
  • OsCorp Department Head - Daniel Gerroll
  • Times Square Bystanders - Brian McElhaney, Jonathan Braylock
  • Corporate Lawyer - Steven Hauck
  • Dr. Jallings, Science Investigator - JD Walsh
  • Graduation Guest - Stan Lee

...

  • Key Spider-Man Stunt Doubles - Ilram Choi, William Ray Spencer

...

  • The Magnificent Six - Michael Einziger, Junkie XL, Andrew Kawczynski, Johnny Marr, Steve Mazzaro, Pharrell Williams
  • Associate Producers - Tom Cohen, Beatriz Sequeira

--Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you as always Tenebrae! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes template

Is this happening with anyone else? I can't see any RT content, but just this message "[placeholder for Rotten Tomatoes info from Rotten Tomatoes score...refresh in a few minutes]." I've come back in a few minutes and refreshed, a couple of times, and that message stays there regardless. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

user:Theo's Little Bot hasn't created the template (Template:Rotten Tomatoes score/1872181) for the film yet. It should soon, if the template is in use. I'm not sure often the bot runs that task, though, and I dunno if you can force it to create the page. || Tako (bother me) || 17:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Give it time. Until it does create the page, Tako added the text to bypass the "wait" message. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Plot section

There have been some issues with the plot summary as of now. Gwen's death in the film has been repeatedly censored as "the climax of the film", and ignoring the ending altogether. Just so everyone is aware, there are a few guidelines we must follow: WP:FILMPLOT, WP:SPOILER and WP:NOTCENSORED. So in short, Wikipedia does not censor spoilers. I do not want to get into an edit war and violate WP:3RR (as I have done three reverts within 24 hours), so I am taking this discussion to the talk page. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to censor it. Wikipedia is not censored and we must strive to be as complete as possible. Deliberately leaving something out because of spoilers directly contradicts the spoiler guideline. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I see. I'm at my third revert and I don't want to violate 3RR or engage in edit warring (as I would get blocked for edit warring), so can someone help me out? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be a censorship problem so much as one editor, u:Chharliie. If s/he continues to make edits against policy/guidelines without edit summaries or any visible effort to communicate or otherwise engage in discussion, just report them to AN/I for being disruptive Cannolis (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I did warn him for edit warring as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Though I did make this note, I have to ask: Why did you remove the fact that Gwen falls to her death? Sure, we currently don't elaborate beyond Spider-Man tries to save her, but the falling aspect is a major element to remove. Removal of it leaves her death ambiguous, far more so than theories about how she actually dies in the comics or onscreen. Including that bit is also a compromise for editors who want us to elaborate on her death in the Plot section, similar to this compromise I made, which Favre1fan93 agrees with. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the important part is that Gwen dies, but the falling part could be reworded somewhat. Maybe including the clock mechanisms would work as well? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's important to mention that she dies, but it's just as important to mention how it happens...at least somewhat how it happens; that's especially the case considering that the film portrayal of her death is a recreation (though not exact recreation) of her comic book death, a death that has become quite iconic in the comic book fandom. We should not be ambiguous about her death. That stated, you made a nice tweak of the text. Flyer22 (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, this third tweak is better than your second tweak attempt -- the "falls to the ground" text. "Falls to the ground" is a bit inaccurate, though her head clearly hits the ground before the webbing pulls her back up a bit; exactly how she dies is a bit subject to debate, though not to the same degree as the debate about her comic book death. Flyer22 (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Did Gwen and Spidey really "kill" Electro? (Plot summary)

I noticed in the plot summary for the past week it says that Pete and Gwen "killed" Electro. Do you think that's fair to assess it like that? Can electricity really "die"? Does Spidey kill? (Answer: usually not) Did Gwen and Peter in Amazing Spider-Man "kill" Electro? I'd say go with "defeated" or "destroyed". Kill is a tad final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.67.159 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate quote in Box Office section

The Reception > Box office section contains the following:

Brooks Barnes of The New York Times said, "Revenue climbed primarily because studios crammed an unusually large number of big-budget releases into theaters, but these giants also cannibalized one another, leading to a series of megaflops, led by “The Lone Ranger.”"[2]

The quote is clearly about the state of cinema box offices generally and is inappropriate and irrelevant to this Wikipedia entry. Terriblefish (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

In the last line of the paragraph "Sequels and Spinoffs", the word 'the' is repeated. I think it should say 'that the'. Thanks 173.233.32.131 (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 04:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Cast order

There has been some edit warring over which cast member comes second: Emma Stone/Gwen Stacy or Jamie Foxx/Electro. I don't know if there is a guideline regarding this, but if someone does please post it here. I just want us to come to a consensus so the fighting can stop; it is very annoying. Spidey104 19:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Why Emma Stone/Gwen Stacy should be second

- Emma Stone is listed second in the official plot synopsis - [1]

LoveWaffle (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Why Jamie Foxx/Electro should be second
Harry Obsborne is Green Goblin 2 not Green Goblin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.38.100.250 (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing reviews in lead section

In addition to the increasing number of negative reviews recently popping up, why is it unacceptable to put a leading sentence discussing reviews in the reception/critical response section? It explicitly says to not put a leading sentence there and "to let the reviews speak for themselves." Just about every other big movie that has a thorough article on Wikipedia has a leading sentence in the reception/critical response that summarizes the reviews. I just checked roughly a dozen movies that only recently debuted theatrically and each article has a leading sentence in the reception/critical response, including X-Men: Days of Future Past which hasn't even been out a week yet at the time of this comment. So why is Spider-Man 2 unique in that people must go out of their way to read all the reviews instead of simply being told it garnered "mixed or average reviews?" 143.112.32.4 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with 143.112.32.4 that it is inappropriate to forbid summaries of reviews from the lead section, which per the guidelines is supposed to summarize the article body. Looking at the "Critical response" section, it looks like we need additional sources to establish the overall consensus of critics. We can do this by Googling "amazing spider-man 2" "critics" or "amazing spider-man 2" "reviews" (with quotation marks to force plural terms in the results). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Adding, say, the RT consensus sentence without additional comment might work, but anything more than that risks the same trouble we had constantly in the Critical-reception sections until the recent trend to just go straight into the numbers: the tendency of fans to spin positively, and the tendency of some others to gleefully drop in such inappropriate tone as "bomb" or "blockbuster hit!" Allowing interpretive claims in the lead would just re-create the same problem there.
As for what other Wikipedia articles do, it's impossible to comment specifically without looking at all of them, and the anon IP only mentions one specifically. But other stuff exists — if something is not best-practices somewhere else, that doesn't mean it's OK to do it here. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I see no discussion on this talk page that suggests difficulty in determining what critics thought of this film. Searching for the term above reveals this and this. We don't have to struggle with how to word RT or MC if we can use this critical commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, then, quote the LA Times or the Variety summary. It doesn't have to be RT. The point is that we use a summary and not quote individual reviews in the lead. That would be a recipe for contentiousness: "Why this scathing quote and not this more diplomatic quote?" "Why not this blurby rave instead of a dry NY Times quote?" And so on. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

X-Men: Days of Future Past mid credits scene

I added a info of the X-Men mid-credits scene of in the plot section and the cast section. Sony and Fox both confirmed that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will add a mid-credits scene featuring X-Men: Days of Future Past. Here are some of the reliable sources:

  • Setoodeh, Ramin (April 16, 2014). "How did Peter Parker and Mystique end up in the same movie?". Variety. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved April 17, 2014.
  • Collura, Scott (April 16, 2014). "There's an X-Men: Days of Future Past Scene During Amazing Spider-Man 2's End Credits". IGN. j2 Global. Retrieved April 17, 2014.
  • McMillan, Graeme (April 16, 2014). "'Spider-Man 2' Post-Credit 'X-Men' Cameo Explained". The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved April 17, 2014.
  • O'Hara, Helen (April 16, 2014). "See An X-Men: Days Of Future Past Sting On Amazing Spider-Man 2". Empire. Bauer Consumer Media. Retrieved April 17, 2014.

The thing is, though not part of the narrative per se, it will still included in the final commercial release of the film. That's why I added it. Let's discuss here should there be concerns. Chihciboy (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Chihciboy: I'm not going to revert your edits, but all of this info should be in the Post-production section, or even a Release section, if that can be created, not where you currently have it. As you can see, there is already a little piece about it there, so feel free to amend and add anything you did (which is fine, just not where you did it) there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and combined the content. If you have any other changes, feel free to do them, or any objections, let me know here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks nice to me. Chihciboy (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is it gone?

It is still in the Post production section, as that is where it was it should be (and is). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2014

219.92.179.24 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Plot the Death of Gwen Stacy

Gwen Stacy does not in fact plummet to her death. While the gears crush the web holding her and sends her plummeting, Spider-Man manages to snag her with another webline as she falls. When he pulls on the webline to stop her from hitting the ground, the whiplash ends up snapping her neck.

This is a very important distinction and the death is taken right out of the comics death:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gwen_Stacy

It also is important thematically with the film as Captain Stacy had asked Peter not to involve Gwen in his heroics and Peter ignored the warning.

To be completely clear, I think the plot should be edited from this: "Spider-Man subdues Harry, but despite his attempt to save Gwen, she is sent falling to her death by the collapsing gears." to this:

Spider-Man subdues Harry, but despite his attempt to save Gwen, she is sent falling from the top of the clock tower. Spider-Man manages to web Gwen as she falls, but when he pulls on the web-line to prevent her from hitting the ground, the whiplash causes her neck to break. Spider-Man cradles her body as she dies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.106.186 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this article should be edited to more accurately state Gwen's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.106.186 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

See the #Plot section discussion above. And while Gwen may have died from a snapped neck in the comics (and I state "may" because, as the Gwen Stacy and Death of Gwen Stacy articles show, even that is debated and contradicted), I and many others clearly see her head hit the floor in the film. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Norman Osborn Death?

The plot summary is ambiguous. He never shows up again, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Japan

If Sony is a Japanese company, therefore making Columbia Pictures a Japanese company, it seams odd that the film is only called American. Please can someone shed some light on this. Thank You--9999 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Columbia Pictures is an American production studio. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

How? I appreciate it is part American but calling it wholly so is like calling "BBC America" a fully American corporation which isn't true. WARNER one (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Columbia Pictures is not part-American. It is an American production studio, as Favre1fan said. Sony Pictures Entertainment is also "the American entertainment subsidiary of Japanese multinational technology and media conglomerate Sony." On top of all of that, BFI lists it as an American-only production. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Box Office

The following paragraph in the Box Office section should be deleted as it discussing the general box office performance in 2013 and is actually contrasting it with what happened when The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was release in 2014.

Brooks Barnes of The New York Times said, "Revenue climbed primarily because studios crammed an unusually large number of big-budget releases into theaters, but these giants also cannibalized one another, leading to a series of megaflops, led by “The Lone Ranger.”"[108] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibberish01 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Done and thanks for the eye. Cannolis (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2014

Sir, I am asking you to allow me to edit The Amazing Spider Man 2 page. I will do only minor and true edit. Rajjnnie (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: You did not use this template appropriately. This is to make specific requests for direct changes. In order to be able to edit semi-protected pages, you must be autoconfirmed. You can read about autoconfirmation here. Sock (tock talk) 18:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2014

I personally think at the beginning we should mention that the film was praised for its performances(not just Stone and Garfield), action, visuals, and musical score. FireEmblem97 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: You are not required to use {{edit semi-protected}} template to initiate a discussion to improve the article. If you want some changes to be made, please suggest it in a "change X to Y" format and provide reliable sources that support the change/s you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

8th highest grossing

TASM2 is actually the 8th highest grossing film of 2014, which contradicts what is stated in the final sentence of the summary toward the beginning of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.85.117 (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Felicia link

Hey. So if it has been stated at various times that Felicia is Felicia Hardy then I don't see why we can't link Felicia to that article. I am against including her surname but linking needs to be done because her name looks very out of place like that. Scream4man (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought this was discussed here, but looking through the archives, I guess it wasn't. However, she is only credited in the film as "Felicia" and linking that to Felicia Hardy would be in violation of WP:EGG. The current format was deemed acceptable and the best option by editors of this page when this came up previously. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015

change the budget number from $200 Million to $255 as it's reported and linked from Deadline just before the movie release.

Jenna011 (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Budget concerns?

I understand there may be some concerns about the budget numbers, I'd be happy to discuss them. I've restored them for now as they are sourced. Chrisw80 (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Mate [2], and other 2 sources given are reliable. And forbes also stated its budget. Thats not an issue and wikileaks are not a trusted and reliable one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D'SuperHero (talk • contribs)
Hello D'SuperHero. I fail to see how WP:SOAP applies here, could you explain your reasoning for citing this? I'm disappointed that you reverted my edit without discussion first. The Wikileaks source references a document from Sony pertaining to the budget of the film used to calculate insurance for the project. It's original research, but original research can be used to verify information in articles when the information is trivial. I feel this information is trivial and a primary source with a range also supported by secondary sources is appropriate, as does Depauldem. Apparently you disagree, let's discuss it. I invite more discussion on the topic, especially if someone else would care to chime in on this? Chrisw80 (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
K, But will add as a footnote. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 11:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
As a footnote to what? It would make sense to place it in context. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so let's figure out and agree what we're going to do here. And I still don't understand your reference to WP:SOAP. Chrisw80 (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Footnote to budget content. I had restored for good as per now. By mistake it was been implemented and Soap policy does not apply here. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 11:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
That works well, best wishes. Chrisw80 (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The infobox page states: "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters). Budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, with the latter usually listing a mainstream website as the main source of the budget, such as the Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc. Such websites are preferred to cite as a reference, if possible. If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." Hence, wouldn't it be better to list the range we had before? Depauldem (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Before any action is taken or decisions made, there are two RfCs going on about this: Template talk:Infobox film#Request for comment and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Forbes article by credible contributor. In the meantime, there is no consensus for using user-generated content by unpaid (or token-paid) bloggers who are not part of Forbes staff and whom Forbes itself says in a legal disclaimer do not represent the opinions of the magazine. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The RFC is unanimous on the writer being an RS. You yourself have agreed to this. In any event, this article does not concern the use of that source. Depauldem (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
As for a range, we should not be lumping together two different things: a range that goes from net (the actual budget, which is what most secondary sources give) to gross (what the budget would have been without tax rebates, subsidies, etc., but which the studio did not actually spend and so does not have to recoup to make a profit). People normally give a range of similar, comparable objects — for example; Box Office Mojo says $250 million and By the Numbers says $260 million. Thats apples-to-apples. A range of net to gross is apples-to-oranges and misleading.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Per the infobox: "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters). Budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, with the latter usually listing a mainstream website as the main source of the budget, such as the Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc. Such websites are preferred to cite as a reference, if possible. If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." What part of COST OF ACTUAL FILMING do you not understand? Depauldem (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, but "What part of COST OF ACTUAL FILMING do you not understand?" If Disney paid $250 million after getting a rebate, then the ACTUAL COST was $250 million. Who is paying for movie? Disney. What did Disney pay? $250 million. If I want a $300 coat and I pay $250 after rebate, then the ACTUAL COST was $250.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
But to get that $50 rebate, you did pay the store $300. Amount spent to acquire coat is $300. Net out of pocket cost to you is $250. But the store got $300 for a coat priced at $300, regardless of your rebate. Likewise, if I have to spend $300 million to make a movie and then get $50 million based on a percentage of that $300 million from the government after it's done, the actual cost of filming was $300 million and the net out of pocket (which comes after production is wrapped) is $250 million. At all times, $300 million was spent to get the actual filming completed.Depauldem (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
But the coat didn't cost me $300. My budget for the coat was $250, and whether the coat was on sale, had a rebate, or came down via haggling, the result is the same. And because I only spent $250, I can make a profit on the coat if I sell it for $275, whereas I would lose money if I bought it for $300 and sold it for $275. The abstract, phantom number of $300 has no meaning. Why try to mislead people into believing that a movie did not recoup its cost when it did? The infobox line says "budget", not "theoretical cost of the movie if this, this and this were not real." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You just are not hearing me. If the rebate on your coat worked like a film incentive, then your rebate would be based on 16.66% of the cost of the coat. When, and only when, you spend $300 do you become eligible for the 16.66% government rebate, which amounts to $50. To the person who sold you the coat, a total of $300 was spent. Are you honestly going to tell the store you paid $300 to that you didn't actually give them $300??? Depauldem (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I would say that you are not hearing me. As far as the person spending the money is concerned, I have spent $250. Can you honestly tell me that the coat cost me $250 when I received $50 back? And are you telling me it matters one whit whether that $50 came from a rebate, a sale or haggling, since the dollar amount I paid is exactly the same? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
In any event, why are we having this discussion here, rather than on either of two RfC with which we're involved? Why make this harder on ourselves and others by decentralizing the same essential discussion?--Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
On that, my friend, we agree. Let's keep it in the other places. Depauldem (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party, just wanted to say I'm always in favor of gross budget over net budget, simply put because net budget confuses the reader. Let's say a movie costs (theoretically) $300 million, but the studio spends $250 m. after rebates because it was filmed at (a) state/country. The same movie gets filmed at (b) state/country where rebates are higher, so the same studio spends $200 m. Same movie, same studio, same theoretical cost, different actual spending. This does not alter the fact that the movie costs $300 million to make. In a crazy scenario where rebates cover the 100% of the budget, what would you say the film's budget was? Zero? Those are my two cents. Punkalyptic (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre hidden vandalism on this page

There's a case of strange vandalism on this page, and I don't know how to edit it.

I was reading this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_in_film

and when you hover over the Spiderman URL under the top boxoffive list, it gives you a preview. All the other previews are normal, but this pages preview says "This is a bad movie. If you disagree, you are wrong."

Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/rlhEuXa

When you view the page, everything is normal. Not sure how to fix this, but I'm sure someone here does.

- Chrisvacc (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The article was very briefly and obviously vandalized [3] and the change was quickly reverted. -- 109.76.198.1 (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"Spider-Man 5" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Spider-Man 5 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Spider-Man 5 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Amazing (2014 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Amazing (2014 film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Amazing (2014 film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Amazing 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Amazing 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#The Amazing Spider Man (again) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference AuroAtmos was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Barnes, Brooke (May 4, 2014). "Not Quite Amazing, but Spidey Does Swing". The New York Times.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Amazing_Spider-Man_2/Archive_1&oldid=1200949670"