Talk:Sony's Spider-Man Universe

Related films

@DisneyMetalhead: Would you agree we should have a related films section making mention of the SSU cameos in Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023), the latter establishing the world of the SSU as Earth-688? Envoyjuaner (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

A related films section has been reverted in the past as it has just been a table without much new information added that is not already covered elsewhere in the article. Such a table is not needed. I am working on adding what is true on the SSU and Spider-Verse connections to this article with adequate sourcing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I know. I disagree, and am opening a dialogue here on the talk. Envoyjuaner (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In what ways would such a table provide any useful details to this article specifically that is not already covered. On one end, it can be misleading to have another table of films as some readers could interpret those as being part of the franchise when they are not. Please see discussions on this in the archives, such as Talk:Sony's Spider-Man Universe/Archive 1#Related films and Talk:Sony's Spider-Man Universe/Archive 1#Related..."media"(?) vs Related films, where it was determined prose is sufficient to explain these details as is already done throughout the article and would be unneeded repetition. Including every single film with Spider-Man (Maguire, Garfield, and Holland) is unneeded repetitio of Spider-Man in film, and Garfield and Maguire are not connected to the SSU directly. A section just discussing the NWH and Across connections is already established at the MCU and Spider-Verse connections header in the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Really just to discuss the multiverse cameos — in particular Mrs. Chen in Across the Spider-Verse. Envoyjuaner (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I have noted that in the MCU and SV connections header here with my most recent edit, where other cameos in NWH, LTBC, and Morbius are already noted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@EnvoyJuaner: I would agree that a "related films" section would indeed be constructive. It isn't "misleading" as User:Trailblazer101 stated, as this can be clarified in pros/paragraph form beforehand. A film table would show similar details to what is shown on the films section above (i.e.: film title, release date, director(s), writers, and producers) and only continue to build what the Sony studio is doing per the sources I added before... MULTIVERSE. To not include the films on this article would be a disservice to the SSU as a whole.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times on this, the information on the multiverse connections is already included in this article. Including a table of films with information already given at each film's article is not necessary here, and I have yet to see any new points that prove otherwise to overrule prior consensus on this. This article is only for what is in Sony's shared universe, not for everything connected to the multiverse of Spider characters. That's why Spider-Man in film exists, and it would be unneeded repetition of the table there. Multiverse connections can be noted at that article if not already done so adequately. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And as I have stated multiple times, what makes the information of the mutilversal connections not noteworthy enough to include additional details, here? They are all connected through the multiverse. I'm not necessarily stating that they need to have a film table, although it gives the average reader a detailed overall insight to the connections. What is obvious however, is that the section detailing the multiverse needs to be expanded to include more details.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: similar to my other comments, it's worth noting that you didn't response to my comments here from June 2023 as well. A section detailing the related films, as the Sony's Spider-Man Universe does connect to various other franchises -- would be helpful, and it wouldn't be "misleading" if in pros of the section it was detailed how they are connected (i.e.: through the multiverse which is a large part of all of Sony's Spider-Verse franchises).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have been busy with a lot of things since then, on and off wiki, and you could have also rejuvenated this conversation once it went stale. Timing besides the point, it is not up to a sole individual to restart a discussion, and no one is obligated or mandated to respond (this is not a court proceeding). It would be unnecessary to implement a random wikitable at the bottom of the article when the films relevant to this franchise are already explained in detail where it is necessary. There is consensus not to include such a table in this article anymore, with the consensus established here. I don't see that changing anytime soon with very limited support for including it anymore. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, silence is the weakest form of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a "related films" section. Toa Nidhiki05 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101, InfiniteNexus, and Toa Nidhiki05: my intentions in reopening this discussion are entirely constructive, and based within the WP:BOLD outline. There are multiple connections between all of Sony's Spider-Man projects (both visible on screen, as well as behind the scenes). Mentioning these facts in pros (as has been done with the MCU details) is helpful, though it is still missing the previous Sony Spider-Man movies, and the Spider-Verse cartoon film series as well. The connections between the Spider-Verse, the various Spider-Man movies, and the spin-off villain movies are all noteworthy. My argument is that this article should explain how they are related. Once Sony is finished making any MCU films (which they were indeed doing for a time, before a new deal was sorted out), these connections will also no doubt be more greatly emphasized. As-is, I reiterate the connections should all be addressed in some for or another.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My stance on the matter hasn’t changed. Any future connections can be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Toa Nidhiki05 07:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My points still stand and nothing has eventuated to lead me to believe such a section is warranted when we already detail the actual connections elsewhere in this article. As Toa suggested, any connections to other media can be discussed when it is applicable and/or appropriate. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Random photo of Tom Hardy

I just want to point out how odd it is to include a photograph of Tom Hardy, and not any other photos. To have the star of the first movie is unusual. A better option may be to include images of the filmmakers that are linked to these projects. Otherwise, explain to me (and the average reader) why Tom Hardy's photograph is here to stay.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hardy is also a writer and producer of the Venom films, opposed to the different directors, writers, producers, etc. That's why it is included and no other images are... Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

...but why is only his photo on this article? Where are the other writers/producers? That still doesn't make sense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead Yet again you have removed this image against the consensus, and as such, I have issued you a warning. I and other editors have explained the purpose of the image in edit summaries and in past edits and discussions elsewhere. Just because it "doesn't make sense" to you is not a justifiable excuse to be disruptive and continually remove it while wholly knowing it is a contested edit. I strongly urge you to cease your removal of this image. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: the logic of including just one of the actors (who just so happens to be a writer/producer) still doesn't make any sense. I have expressed this and had no response since June of 2023 which is why I removed the image again. You stated that you and other editors gave valid reasons for the image, but if you're going to include an actor who is a writer/producer... where are the other actors/producers/writers? By what means does is it a requirement for an image to be on the article? Additionally where are those "other discussions" that you're talking about^?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The lack of a response does not give you justification to make a contested edit again (rather, a ping asking for a response would be more constructive), which you know has been contested for a while now. As I already explained, the fact that Hardy is also a writer and producer is notable as he is a recurring creative in the Venom films part of this franchise. One image in an otherwise imageless article is more helpful to readers than no images at all. There are multiple actors, writers, and producers, yes, though none who share all three roles and are as deeply involved in their franchise in this universe than Hardy, who was the first leading actor cast in the franchise and is therefore more notable and relevant than any other random actor, director, etc. How does that not "make any sense"? By "other discussions", I was referring to your continued past attempts to fixate this article in your own preferred version and making excuses to justify such repeated and contested edits, such as it "still doesn't make sense". Editors, including explained, this to you multiple times in edit summaries in which we reverted your removal. You can return to those through the page's editing history. You claim on your talk to "not intentionally being 'disruptive'", yet your repeated removal of this image and other preference changes despite multiple editors beyond just myself reverting and warning you for them in the past lends credence to doubt that and question what your intentions are then. You're lucky I haven't reported you for this editing behavior yet out of WP:Assuming good faith, though this has become quite disruptive in its repetitive nature after several months of on-and-off removals and changes against consensus for how this article's formatting and images are and without adequately explaining what your concerns are with the established article or how and why your changes would benefit it, and without further engaging in discussions once they've gone stale. It is not okay to be bold to restore your contested edits. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments all sound like your own personal preference. The solution to this would be several things that I have stated various times as well: Include images of the starring actors in each section (i.e.: Tom Hardy, Jared Leto, Dakota Johnson, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, etc.) or to include the filmmaker of each film instead (i.e.: Ruben Fleischer, Andy Serkis, Daniel Espinosa, S.J. Clarkson, J.C. Chandor, Kelly Mercel, etc.). I have also stated at various times why this would be a constructive enhancement of the article for every reader. There were no contested statements on my comment since June 2023... so I WP:BOLDly made an adjustment to the article, until a decision was made. My opinion that it "still doesn't make sense" is indeed meant to be constructive for the article. Thank you for assuming WP:GOODFAITH because, that is all that this is. My suggestion would be to have an open discussion with the various editors who have regularly contributed to this article, though it is worth pointing out seems that you regularly adjust the article to some of your preferences. Only looking to make the article consistent and more complete. That is all. Cheers m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

How is this their own personal preference? Trailblazer clearly stated that Hardy is the most involved and recurring in the franchise out of all the directors and other actors, as star of three films (counting the upcoming Venom 3) and a producer in two of them. You could still not consider it "enough" to warrant him being the only picture included, but it's clearly and objective measure of relevance to the franchise as a whole. To include a picture of the director of every film would be excessive and unnecessary, plus inappropriate for an article about a franchise, where relevant people are often those that are repeatedly involved, not just once. —El Millo (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Television Series Table

If both announced series are on MGM+ and Amazon Prime Video, then why make a column for it in the table. Shouldn't it be included in text and the column be removed? Syed Ahmed Qasim (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been moved to prose now. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Article name

@Trailblazer101: Hey yo if we are keeping Noir here, the announcement puts the actual name of this franchise as Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters again, quoted as Katherine Pope, President of Sony Pictures Television Studios saying it.

“We are absolutely thrilled to have Nicolas Cage starring in this series! No one else could bring such pathos, pain, and heart to this singular character. Along with our brilliant producers and partners at Amazon MGM Studios and Prime Video, we couldn’t ask for a better team to explore this reimagining of such an iconic character in Sony’s Universe of Marvel Characters.”

While I do think this is probably proof that all the recent Reddit/Twitter reports of the franchises are in the process of being merged are true (fitting all the way back with the Into the Spider-Verse-based post-credits scene of Venom with its "Meanwhile in another universe" tagline, the Mrs. Chen cameo scene of Across the Spider-Verse, and the reported live-action Spider-Gwen film with Hailee Steinfeld now in the works, to say those films would also need to be mentioned on this page in the future, the Spider-Verse franchise draft info being merged here), for now it's as simple as Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters being the main name again instead of Sony's Spider-Man Universe, focused on a full multiverse of characters instead of a single universe like early phases of the MCU or both the old DCEU and new DCU.

So do we propose a move-back, or what? 5.100.255.129 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The name of this franchise is discussed at Sony's Spider-Man Universe#Name and the former names are still commonly used to refer to it, even by Sony exces. That does not mean it ought to be changed. We aren't here to give credence to WP:RUMORS and we go by what is factually and reliably verifiable. The animated Spider-Verse content is mentioned in this article, though none of those are part of this franchise, which is for Sony's live-action spin-offs only. The SV franchise draft should remain where it is and there is no indication this live-action franchise and the animated franchise are somehow one and the same based on this one comment alone. This is all WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:Original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)