Talk:Spider-Man: Brand New Day

Filming extension

@Aldwiki1: you are claiming that the journalist's tweet says things that it does not. The advert isn't related to the Spider-Man shoot. It's another production. A different production team is filming an advert for an unrelated product. The journalist's tweet says all filming related to Spider-Man ends this week... it clearly says all Marvel related filming ends this week. the ad is for another production entirely. the tweet does not say any of this. We have a source saying Marvel requested a filming extension, and a source saying the extension is for filming an advert rather than the film itself. It is not SYNTH for us to state filming in Glasgow was extended until August 26, for the shooting of a commercial. It is SYNTH to claim that a different company is making an unrelated ad based on a tweet which says no such thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The journalist said "Spider-Man update. Hearing that the Glasgow shoot will finish this week with no extensions. Reports that an advert is being shot on same streets afterwards, hence the extended road closures." Nothing here states that the advert is related to Marvel. And later someone asked him, "Wait so Glasgow shooting will finish this week and never return, like they are finished in Glasgow?", to which he replied, "Yeah." So all Marvel related filming concludes this week. There was must have been some sort of misunderstanding or miscommunication when the extension was originally reported. Aldwiki1 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing there contradicts the original report that Marvel requested the extension. He is stating that there are no extensions for the film, but there will be additional filming for an advert. And we know that Marvel requested the extension. I don't see how you can interpret this another way without having some other information outside of the tweets. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All this is clearly suppsosed to mean that it was never Marvel who requested the extension and there was some sort of misunderstanding. Why would Marvel randomly film a commercial in Glasgow not related to Marvel in the midst of filming Spider-Man? And if it's not related to this film as you say, then why do we need to include it in this article? Aldwiki1 (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add, the Glasgow crew just took a wrap photo with the Spidey stunt double holding a sign that says "Wrap Glasgow." And the second unit director who's been handling the Glasgow shoot can be seen saying "Glasgow was amazing. We're done." in this Instagram story. Aldwiki1 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't our job to decide what something is "clearly supposed to mean", we have to go on what the sources tell us. The sources tell us that Marvel asked for a filming extension, and that it was for an advert rather than more of the film. Nothing in the tweets so far contradicts that. And it does make sense, as they may want to film an ad related to the film that is separate from the main/second unit photography. Until we get a source that explicitly says the ad is not related to the film, we can't be assuming that. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should be able to connect the extremely visible dots here. The original report said Spider-Man filming got extended. The same journalist later said the extension isn't related to Spider-Man, which logically translates to the extension not being related to Marvel. Why would the crew stay in Glasgow for two more weeks filming a commercial not related to Spider-Man even though Spider-Man just wrapped there today? We have crew members saying they're done in Glasgow and moving on. And you still haven't answered why this commercial shoot needs to be included in this article even though you say it's not related to the film. Aldwiki1 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The journalist never said the ad was unrelated to Spider-Man, you made that up. Like I said, if a reliable source came out saying the ad was unrelated then I would agree with the removal. But that hasn't happened yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made it up? Having a modicum of common sense is making it up? It gets reported that filming is extended, later same source says that the reports were false, and you somehow manage to claim that the extension is still related to Marvel. Now that is making it up. This might be one of the most ridiculous discussions I've seen on this platform. This article has 110 watchers; can someone else chime in here? This is just getting absurd. And you still haven't answered why this commercial shoot needs to be included in this article even though you admit it's not related to the film. Aldwiki1 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"later same source says that the reports were false" -- please point to where this happened, as the sources provided so far do not support this. I am going off of what the sources have said. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this is just beyond absurd. Still refusing to answer the only relevant question. Until someone else chimes in, I'm done. Aldwiki1 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over this discussion. @Aldwiki1, while I mean no disrespect, it appears plain to me that Adamstom.97 is acting in good faith, and is basing his opinions and assertions here on what the sources actually say, while you are, by your own words, basing your assertions on what the sources are clearly supposed to mean. On Wikipedia, it's not our job to discern or decide the meaning of what is said in the sources.
Our purpose here is solely to report what the sources actually say, without putting our own spin or interpretation on it. Above and beyond that, while this discussion has been ongoing here, there has been a back-and-forth addition and removal of the source in question. That appears to be in clear violation of established Wikipedia policies. I'd prefer not to see this devolve into an edit war, or for either of you to violate the three-revert rule.
So, while I have no objections to continuing this particular thread of discussion, I am restoring the status quo of the source in question, and would strongly suggest that it not be removed again until there is clear support for so doing. Again, as per Wikipedia policies, we go by what the sources actually say, not what we may interpret as being what they are clearly supposed to mean. If a majority of people agree here that the information in question should be removed, it will be. But let's see if we can avoid an edit war here. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 22:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user has repeatedly refused to provide a reason as to why this advert shoot needs to be included in this article even though they've already admitted that it's not related to this film. I'm sorry but that doesn't seem like good faith to me. I'm not even sure why you added back the information. The user you're defending has already admitted that the information isn't related to this article.
Also, if you scroll up a tiny bit, you'll find the discussion about Zendaya where I say the exact thing you said about sources, that it's not our job to interpret them, but the exact same user replied by saying that it actually is our job to do that, however, in this specific discussion, they're doing the exact opposite of that. That also doesn't seem like good faith to me.
You say the user is going off what the sources are saying. Please kindly show me the exact part in these sources where it says that Marvel will be filming a commercial in Glasgow two weeks after Spider-Man already wrapped there and the crew has moved on. Because that is what the user is claiming the sources say. The sources say filming got extended. Then they say it turns out the extension wasn't related to Spider-Man. That's it. Nothing more. Common sense and logic says if it's not related to Spider-Man, then it's not related to Marvel. And if it's not related to Spider-Man, which the user has already admitted is the case, then it shouldn't be included in this article. It's that simple. We literally have the original reporter and the second unit director saying they're completely done in Glasgow. What else do we need? It's fascinating that something so straightforward has turned into a whole thing. Aldwiki1 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 says Marvel extends Glasgow shoot for new Spider-Man movie... The Herald can exclusively reveal that Marvel has secured permission from Glasgow City Council to extend the shoot. Filming for Spider-Man: Brand New Day will now continue until August 26 - 11 days longer than was previously anticipated. That same journalist later added on Twitter: Spider-Man update. Hearing that the Glasgow shoot will finish this week with no extensions. Reports that an advert is being shot on same streets afterwards, hence the extended road closures. He does not deny his own earlier report that it is Marvel who asked for the extension, he just says that the extended road closures are for an advert rather than the current film shoot. You are choosing to interpret that as the ad being completely unrelated from the film, but the tweet doesn't actually state that. So we have a source stating that Marvel requested an extension for filming, and a follow-up source saying it is for an ad. That would make sense if Marvel / Disney had a unit shooting an ad related to the film, separate from the main/second unit shooting. That is just speculation on my end so I did not add anything about that to the article, I just added what the sources said. If we get clarification that this ad is a completely unrelated production and the initial report of Marvel requesting the extension was wrong then I would agree with the removal. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He does not deny his own earlier report that it is Marvel who asked for the extension" That's the thing, though. He doesn't need to. Why would he? He naturally assumes people will understand that the extension isn't related to Marvel if he just says "Spider-Man filming finishes this week. Extension was for an advert shoot." Because he said Spider-Man ends this week, he assumes people will interpret that as the advert also not being connected to Spider-Man, because that's the natural reading of that tweet. He's not going to think people will overanalyze his wording to extract some vague meaning that the advert is somehow still related to Marvel. Why would he?
"If we get clarification that this ad is a completely unrelated production" We won't, though. Why would people cover some random ad shoot filming in Glasgow? That kind of thing happens there every week, I assume. It's some generic ad shoot that nobody will talk about so this false information will just stay in the article.
Also, I see you've changed your tune on the advert being related to the this film vs. Marvel. Earlier in your replies you'd admitted that the ad shoot isn't related to the film, and now that you were challenged on it, you're saying it actually is for the film. That alone should this end this discussion here and now but I know it won't. Somehow.
We have wrap photos, we have crew members saying they're done in Glasgow, we have the journalist saying Spider-Man filming is completely done in Glasgow, and then we have you claiming they're actually not done in Glasgow. Just because the journalist didn't assume someone would pick apart his wording to death. Unbelievable stuff, really. Aldwiki1 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not changed my tune about anything, why would I be insisting on including the content in this article if it was related to this film? That was never my position. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "We have a source saying Marvel requested a filming extension, and a source saying the extension is for filming an advert rather than the film itself." That's one.
"He is stating that there are no extensions for the film, but there will be additional filming for an advert." That's two.
"The sources tell us that Marvel asked for a filming extension, and that it was for an advert rather than more of the film." That's three.
You've said three times that the extension and the advert are not related to the film. For some inexplicable reason, you are choosing to read the journalist's tweet in the most unnatural way possible to extract the meaning that the advert is still somehow related to Marvel. Aldwiki1 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are trying to prove with those quotes. They are consistent with what I am saying now. Again, I have not changed my tune. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this is going nowhere. You're refusing you said something even though I just quoted it. There's just simply no way that can be in good faith. I'm done unless other editors decide to join. Aldwiki1 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not refusing anything. You are choosing to re-interpret what I said, just like you are choosing to re-interpret what the sources say. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So when you said "rather than the film itself", I was supposed to interpret that as "it is the film itself"?
When you said "there are no extensions for the film", I was supposed to read that as "there are extensions"?
When you said "rather than more of the film", you actually meant "it is more of the film"?
From now on you should put a disclaimer before your messages and tell people to understand the exact opposite of everything you say. That'll make it easier on everyone.
It was reported that Spider-Man filming got extended. It was later reported that the extension wasn't related to Spider-Man. The most natural way to read this sequence of events is that it was never Marvel who requested the extension, but you're choosing to read it in the most unnatural, warped way possible. You're choosing to believe that this random ad shoot is related to Marvel even though absolutely nothing in the tweet says that. Journalist reports a Spider-Man extension. The exact same journalist later says "No Spider-Man extension. Turns out it's just an ad shoot." Then you come along, put your own interpretation into it and turn it into a Marvel ad shoot. You're choosing to believe that Marvel will film an ad in Glasgow two weeks after Spider-Man wrapped there and the entire crew has already moved on to London. You're choosing to believe this even though the crew took a wrap photo, the second unit director said they're done in Glasgow, and the journalist said no more Spider-Man related filming in Glasgow, twice. Aldwiki1 (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "choosing to believe" what the sources say. The sources say that Marvel requested a filming extension, and that extension is for an ad. Until we get sources saying otherwise, that is all we have to go on. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, though. Like I said earlier, there won't be a source saying otherwise, because some generic ad shoot in the middle of Glasgow isn't going to attract any media coverage. It's probably a routine occurrence in a city like that, so this false piece of information is going to stay in the article for who knows how long. That's why I've been trying to get you to see reason, but it's proven to be an impossible task. Dropping the stick and moving on. Aldwiki1 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside editor to this, my interpretation of the info was that Marvel requested an additional extension, which was reported to be more filming for this movie, then coupled with the tweet, they are using that time to film an advertisement related to the film. Now based on how the journalist worded the tweet, it is hard to discern if that advertisement is actually related to this, but I would have to agree that given the previous newspaper article, the tweet doesn't fully negate that it isn't Marvel related. So I think noting the commercial should stay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is fascinating. We have crew members and the journalist saying all Marvel and Spider-Man related activity is finished in Glasgow, yet you all are saying that it actually isn't. If the second unit director of a movie and a local journalist told me that a movie is done filming, I'd believe them. But you guys don't. I wonder if you guys might be ignoring the journalist's second tweet where he affirms that all filming is done and the crew has left Glasgow for good.
I will concede that if you contort the journalist's tweet in the most unnatural way possible, like you guys are doing, you can just about wring out the meaning you guys are getting from it. All I've been trying to do is to get you guys to read the tweet in a natural way, and see it in the context of all the other sources that say all filming activity is complete. But don't get me wrong, this isn't me still trying to change minds or anything. It's clear that's impossible and I've already moved on. I thought I'd reply because Favre replied. Aldwiki1 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an Apple ad. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/tv/15244904/glasgow-given-another-us-makeover-ahead-of-major-filming/ "It’s not yet known what the filming is for but insiders suggest it could be an Apple commercial. A source told The Scottish Sun: "Crews are preparing for another major production this weekend in Glasgow. The streets have been transformed into a slice of New York, and there’s talk that Apple might be behind it, filming a brand-new commercial. Apple has been contacted for comment." The photojournalist who took the photos in the The Scottish Sun article said in the comment section of this Instagram post that the filming on those streets isn't related to Spider-Man. In the set video, the director calls action and a stunt performer takes a phone out of her pocket and pretends to use it as she's lowered from a rooftop. Is this satisfactory? Aldwiki1 (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside observer of this, this is the first real indication that the extension is unrelated outside of a tweet, but unfortunately, The Sun and its sister periodicals are not reliable sources. The Scottish Sun is assuming it being used to stand in for New York and "talk" of it being an Apple commercial are not sufficient confirmation that it is not for this film, and I think the New York connection further strengthens the likelihood that this adverb is for this film. Sony and Marvel have shot Spider-Man ads for their films before, particularly for Homecoming and Far From Home, so this would not be out of the ordinary. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 23:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored the part where the photojournalist also said the filming isn't related to Spider-Man. This is on top of crew members saying on multiple occasions that all filming activity related to Spider-Man is finished in Glasgow. Also on top of the The Herald journalist's second tweet where he reaffirms that all Spider-Man activity is finished in Glasgow. The Glasgow Times who first linked the extension to Spider-Man also had an article about this and they don't mention Spider-Man once; they just say it's for an ad. I don't know how many more context clues we need. This is just mind-boggling. Aldwiki1 (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that we do not here you or are not getting the point, it comes down to what is verifiable, not necessarily what is true. As far as I can tell, the Glasgow Times not mentioning what the ad is for does not mean we can infer anything from that on either end, while the Sun is not reliable and a deprecated source, so it cannot be used. The set video you posted can also not be used as inference as WP:Original research. Despite the journalist's tweets, we have a reliable source saying Marvel requested the extension, so sources are in conflict here. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 00:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite the journalist's tweets, we have a reliable source saying Marvel requested the extension"
But the journalist is the reliable source. They're one and the same. He's the one who first reported the extension. He's the author of the article that is currently referenced on the page. He originally reported the extension on The Herald (archived version). He later removed the "August 21–August 26" dates from the article (current version), which led me to add the Glasgow Times article that still had them. (Not sure why he didn't remove it from that one also.) Later, he tweeted that the extension was actually for an advert, and when he was asked under the same tweet if Spider-Man was completely finished in Glasgow, he said that was correct. So there aren't multiple sources conflicting here. There's only one source who later corrected himself. Aldwiki1 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Trail that this is the first true indication that the filming could be unrelated to this film, but it is an unreliable source which does not really trump the reliable source that we currently have. Please don't use this new unreliable information to re-state all of your previous points which have already been discussed enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My last message had nothing to do with The Sun article. I pointed out how the author of the article referenced on the page, the reliable source you mentioned, has corrected himself, to the point where he even removed the information from his original article. Aldwiki1 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His article still states that the extension was requested by Marvel... - adamstom97 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. The Herald article still states filming for this film was extended by Marvel until August 18. The filming being used for an advert does not directly contradict that or confirm that it has nothing to do with Marvel. This to me appears to be that principal photography was completed, and the ad was shot during second unit production, a common occurrence with large-scale film productions. Not once is it said outright that Marvel is not filming a commercial. If that were true, why would they request an extension for something unrelated? The main filming in Glasgow being completed and Marvel extending filming for a commercial can both be true and are not mutually exclusive. The dates being removed from The Herald do not confirm that Marvel did not request the extension for filming a commercial. If that were true, then I would have expected a correction from The Herald or that whole article being taken down. These repeated arguments sound like WP:SYNTHESIS to prove a point. Wikipedia goes by what is verifiable without coming ot our own conclusions or interpretations. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 15:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald article still states filming for this film was extended by Marvel until August 18.
We're past that date, though. The original report on The Herald said August 21–26 were the dates for the Marvel extension. Those dates were later removed from the article. And the commercial in question, the commercial you guys believe is related to Spider-Man, is being filmed right now on those dates, from the 21st to the 26th. If the commercial was filmed between the 15th and 18th, the dates currently supported by The Herald article, you might have had a point. But as evidenced by set photos and the Glasgow council website, it's being filmed right now from the 21st to the 26th, the dates that were originally reported to be part of a Marvel extension but were later removed. Aldwiki1 (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That website does not confirm that the commercial is not related to Spider-Man. What you are doing is blatant SYNTHESIS. We do not know that filming stopped on the 18th, just that that was for how far Marvel extended it, which The Herald article reflects and was present in the article. I will note a probable oversight but the Glasgow Times article is just the same as the original version published in The Herald, and is by the same author, so it is outdated at best and likely inaccurate. Based on that, we know Marvel requested an extension for Spidey until Aug. 18 for a commercial. The commercial being filmed from the 21st to 26th could be unrelated, and that is likely why it was removed from the Herald's piece. Judging this, this article should return to reflect that filming was extended for a commercial until the 18th and refrain from mentioning the later, likely inaccurate dates. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the information in the article as such, citing the Herald's piece as it presently is. This looks like it was a problem of your own making, Ald. Again, we do not synthesize sources. Whatever is shooting for the 21st-26th is not Spidey and holds no bearing here. The Glasgow Times ref was inaccurate. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This looks like it was a problem of your own making, Ald. Again, we do not synthesize sources."
How was I supposed to know at the time that it was incorrect? When I found out that it was false, I immediately removed it. But it got reverted, this discussion was started, and since then I've been telling you guys the exact same things you just told me. And believe me, I'm well aware I brought this upon myself. I tried to improve the article and it blew up in my face. I found the article about the extension, then I found the tweet that refutes the extension, and then both of those things were used to argue against me. It's comical, really.
"Whatever is shooting for the 21st-26th is not Spidey and holds no bearing here."
Thank you for finally conceding that and making the change. Now if you just take one more tiny step, you'll see that there was never a Marvel commercial to begin with. That’s why the journalist removed the dates from the article and later clarified. He said on the 12th that there are "no extensions" (this is important!) and affirmed that Spider-Man activity would finish in Glasgow that week. Given all this, the only logical conclusion is that this "Marvel commercial" never existed, and that the commercial mentioned in the journalist's tweet is the same one filming now through the 26th. How do we know this? Because the commercial's shoot dates line up exactly with the dates the journalist misreported as Marvel's extension. It's that simple, really. The misreported extension dates and the commercial shoot dates are exactly the same. And how do we know the extension was misreported? Because the journalist himself literally debunked his own report by saying "no extensions". Aldwiki1 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the rest, which I understand can be frustrating, I read that as the film itself not having extensions, not that Marvel was not using the extensions for a commercial. I did not read it as the journalist refuting his own report, because it does not directly say that. If he was saying his initial report was wrong, I think he would have clarified as such, rather than just removing some of the dates outright. It looks like two different commercial filming dates got mixed up here: One that Marvel requested the extension until the 18th for, and another one that filmed from the 21st to the 26th. I think that is the most logical take we can gather from this information. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 20:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daredevil

I am surprised Matt Murdock is still listed here even though so far we have no recent sources confirming his appearance (as to my knowledge).


Maybe perhaps hide it till a new verified source confirms? KBHWKFANATIC (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to remove or hide this information from the cast list in the discussion from last month, and I do not see that changing anytime soon. We did not remove or hide the reports of Alfred Molina, Willem Dafoe, Andrew Garfield, etc. from No Way Home when they were reported back in December 2020 (Sneider was the first reputable report of Molina, Garfield, and others for Collider back then), so I see no reason to believe this is any different. Sneider's report for Daredevil in this film also did note that he heard from some sources that the Punisher would be in this film and he did note that other sources cast doubt on that, so he was not confident in that report at that time (before it ultimately turned out to be accurate) but was more confident in reporting on Daredevil's inclusion. We have no way of knowing what will turn out to be concrete or confirmed in the long run, but we by on means have to hide information or wait to add information that Marvel has not confirmed when it comes from a reputable source, which Sneider is despite the numerous questions being raised about his reports. I do not think we need a new discussion on this matter every month and there is WP:NORUSH here in changing the information as it is presented and there is no harm in retaining it for that reason. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 06:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely shouldn't the wording say Daredevil is "rumoured" to appear, rather than "expected"? It might be a reputable source, but it is not official or anywhere close. ~2025-43099-44 (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is accurately applied given the report stems from a subject-matter expert source. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 20:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If he was only rumoured to be in it, we would not include him in the article. Wikipedia is not the place for rumours. He is listed because he was reported to be in the film by a source that we trust. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jones also voicing Tombstone

can it be noted in the cast that he's also the voice actor for Tombstone in the Spider-Verse films? since he's also recording for Across the Spider-Verse 2600:1004:B106:44F2:0:41:5874:6001 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also, it states in the filming section that he's reprising the role from Into the Spider-Verse, but the Deadline article never mentions that, so it can be surmised that he's playing the MCU version of Tombstone and not reprising the role from an animated property that is wholly superstar from the MCU/Sony Spider-Man Films. 2600:1004:B106:44F2:0:41:5874:6001 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the erroneous claim from the article. His return for Beyond the Spider-Verse is reflected in that film's article and is not relevant to this film, especially not in the "Cast" section, because they are two different franchises and different adaptations of the same comics character. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 18:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Premise / timeline

Are we sure we should be using this? It comes from a book blurb which apparently contains incorrect details, such as the wrong release date. We tend to be wary of these sorts of early marketing reveals. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that is the publication date for the art book and that it may have been posted too early and was likely supposed to be timed closer to the film's release. I'm not sure how definitive we can say this is, but I do recall we've used something similar for Multiverse of Madness's initial premise (via this ref) up until its NWH trailer dropped, so I think it is passable for now. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 22:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that premise is very inaccurate, it isn't the best example for us to follow here. Anyone else have thoughts on using this? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A trailer is likely very close to being released, and with it possible some press release material. I think until then this is fine, but we should ultimately defer to wording from a press release over this if they are vastly different. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spider-Man:_Brand_New_Day