Talk:Spawn (1997 film)

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

Sex Cut??[edit]

Wait, two versions of the film - PG-13 and an "X-Rated Sex Cut" ?? Where is this cut? I believe this may be someone's joke, as the version I have is the R-Rated Director's Cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.154.159 (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necroplasm[edit]

Please expand the Necroplasm article.

Race importance[edit]

Does the change of skin colour really warrant such heavy and badly written discussion?

Apparently the issue of race and other changes were discussed at length by readers in the letter pages of the Spawn comic books, and responded to by McFarlane. So while it would require careful work and proper citations the discussion could certainly be included based on those published sources.
These kinds of production and casting details are often added to film article but finding reliable sources is the difficult part. -- 109.76.245.185 (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel[edit]

A new sequel has been mentioned at this site[1], which got its information from the current Wizard magazine. Posting this here if anyone wants to make a section out of it on the article or wants to keep an eye on it. Nehrams2020 08:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lead character in the film[edit]

I deleted the paragraph detailing how the character of Al was portrayed as white in the film, this is not true. The actor was Michael Jai White. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.63.116.72 (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about who plays what character. The lead character, Spawn aka Al Simmons was indeed played by an African-American, Michael Jai White. However, Terry Fitzgerald (Al Simmon's best friend and an African-American in the comic book) was played by D. B. Sweeney (a white actor). The article was correct in noting this change from the comic book.
Please investigate the above wikilinks if there's anymore confusion. I'll revert the edit for the umpteenth time, but I'll try and make the article clearer so we don't run into this problem again.
--Drewcifer3000 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

missing from the plot[edit]

Near the end of the the plot summary it says "Wynn goes to prison after the bomb inside him is destroyed" Bomb? What bomb? It doesn't say anything about a bomb. RJFJR 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different versions[edit]

It would be useful if the article could elaborate a little further on the differences between the theatrical version and the Director's Cut. Annie D 08:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also not 45 minutes of additional footage. that's the uncut animated cartoon vs. the pg-13 version of said cartoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C201:14BE:34C3:C2CB:CAF3:FEC6 (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it and left references. https://www.etsy.com/se-en/listing/635732034/spawn-directors-cut-vhs-video-movie-film?ref=related-4 Also, I remember (I owned the Director's Cut VHS) from either "the making of" or "Todd McFarlane interview" that the MPAA at the time's main issue besides violence (This as mostly AL's death scene in the beginning being too graphic, and I remember the scene lingers on his Burning much longer than in the PG-13 version.) was referencing "THE BATTLE BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL" and all references were changed to "THE BATTLE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL."

Remember this was over 20 years ago. the MPAA at the time did similar with The Frighteners, which was going for a PG-13, and the MPAA said that there was no way that The Frighteners would get a PG 13, so at point in prodcution, they basically just said "F-it" and added in as much R rated content as they could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.223.108 (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess somebody is an idiot because they changed it back. check my sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.223.108 (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for name calling. One of your edits removing a good reference to Google Books and instead add a link to Etsy.com that didn't seem to provide any useful information. Other editors may have misunderstood what you were attempting to do and reverted the article back to the way it was before. It always helps for follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain your changes with an edit summary, unfortunately the people who reverted your changes did not explain themselves either. You might also want to sign your talk page comments using ~~~~ which will automatically be replaced with your signature (username or IP address) and the date.
I think I understand what you were trying to do. I've fixed similar problems before, sometimes the marketing droids say things like "45 minutes of additional footage" but it is a lie, or at best misleading. Instead of a longer directors cut and extra scenes in the main feature, they are actually referring to bonus materials and featurettes when they say "extra footage". Readers need to be skeptical (45 minutes longer is unlikely 1) but as an encyclopedia we should do better and rephrase the marketing lies into something more objective and neutral.
If you want to get anything changed it always helps to have sources, and this comparison of the different versions of Spawn from movie-censorship.com might be worth adding to the section, as it explains "The Director's Cut is 143.04 sec or approx. 2 min 23 sec longer than the Theatrical Cut." -- 109.79.70.102 (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Spawnsoundtrackcover.jpg[edit]

Image:Spawnsoundtrackcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Spawnmjwhite1.jpg[edit]

Image:Spawnmjwhite1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Easter Eggs[edit]

The Spawn DVD contains two Easter Eggs (1) a Marilyn Manson Video and (2) the Clown's Backwards Line. I own the Director's Cut DVD and verifed both exist on this version. The video is titled Long Hard Road Out of Hell and is here on YouTube. I'd like to see this disclosed within the main article. Are there any objections or concerns? Conrad T. Pino 04:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returned to article after delete with no discussion. Conrad T. Pino 18:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Manson video[edit]

Restored Marilyn Manson video section after delete without discussion asserting copyright infringement. IMO reference to another site is not infringement and even if it is that only justifies deleting the reference only; deleting the entre section isn't warranted in any infringement case. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Spawnmovieposter.jpg[edit]

Image:Spawnmovieposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First black superhero movie?[edit]

It seems to be not true that this is the first movie with a black superhero, see 1993's Meteor Man: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107563/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.135.174 (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first "black superhero" so the article was changed to first "black comic book superhero". Lame.
It's not great either to have something mentioned in the intro that isn't in the article body.
It's an important film though, and the article could do with a section about Legacy and if I can find a more sources I'll start. -- 109.77.211.217 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack - Powerman 5000[edit]

Can anyone provide a link verifying that some version of the soundtrack shipped with the Powerman 5000 track "When World's Collide"? I've looked at Amazon.com, discogs.com and rateyourmusic.com (I also own the limited US CD) and I can't find any version that shipped with that song. 2601:404:C200:F6C4:D024:CD31:CE43:861D (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed mention of Powerman 5000 from soundtrack article. They were never on the soundtrack and didn't really become popular until about 2 years after the release of the Spawn soundtrack. The Spawn soundtrack was released (according to the article) in July 1997 and Powerman 5000 first hit single "When Worlds Collide" and album "Tonight the Stars Revolt!" weren't released until July 1999.2601:404:C200:F6C4:6D4D:7AF4:91FE:63CF (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spawn (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB refs for the Accolades[edit]

Saw that some refs were needed for the awards, added IMDB award links. Please review, and if you have questions or need more refs, just let me know! MasterData (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Edit here, I also added the newest news about the sequel script being done, announced by Mcfarlane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterData (talk • contribs) 14:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is in fact a good source for the awards. If you have a problem with this, talk to me. MasterData (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this has been fixed repeatedly already but unfortunately many editors don't understand WP:CITEIMDB and think it means IMDB cannot be used ever.
IMDB can be used in some situations including Accolades.
It doesn't matter though a citation isn't necessary here in this article because we can point to the article for 24th Saturn Awards. -- 109.76.232.215 (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack section be split into a new article proposal[edit]

I didn't start the proposal, however I do think it would be a good idea to split the soundtrack as this article is about the film, and thus the soundtrack takes more space and makes it somewhat harder to read. MasterData (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spawn (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spawn (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budget[edit]

Various sources put the budget at $40 million but as I'm always skeptical of Hollywood Accounting and the tendency of Box Office Mojo to round figures off, it should be noted that when reviewing the film for industry publication Variety magazine Todd McCarthy was more specific and called it a "reasonable $45 million production investment" from New Line. -- 109.79.173.175 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times article (already included in the article using named ref "Matzer") also puts the budget at $45 million in what appears to be a comment from Dippe or Goldman. That was important in keeping the 'Spawn' budget to a relatively modest $45 million. -- 109.76.245.185 (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the letter pages of Spawn 59 (March 1997) McFarlane talks about the "$45 million we were after"
In the letter pages of Spawn 62 (June 1997) McFarlane calls it "a $47 million movie". -- 109.76.245.185 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SF Gate also calls it a $45 million film. Box Office Mojo sucks so bad. -- 109.76.245.185 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20th Anniversary[edit]

Screen Junkies did a Live presentation at SJ Central 2017, called "Does It Hold Up". Looking back at the film 20 years later. It features McFarlane and White as guests.

They discuss various aspects of the film. McFarlane mentions "unevenness" (08:20) of the special effects. He explains that due to test screenings the studio gave more money for additional effects shots but that there was difficulty finishing (10:45) those shots. He discusses the difficulty of getting a PG-13 rating, with the MPAA judging the scenes based on their "intent" (13:40).

They discuss the effects and the performance of John Leguiziamo as the Clown, and McFarlane and White both say that Leguiziamo really did eat maggots (15:00) which he had also said himself on Twitter:

  • @johnleguizamo (October 4, 2014). "Yes I did eat maggots in #spawn but only swallowed a few! Ha ha! Don't go there! @PaulyShore @paulmooneyjr @kathynajimy @CedEntertainer" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
    They also mention how he improvised and changed some of his lines.

Point is there is more detail that could be included in the article and this is still a work in progress. It's easier to quote written sources than video though, and it helps show notability when other sources repeat the same information in print. -- 109.76.245.185 (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources:

  • Starlog Magazine Issue 242 Scripting Spawn page 27
  • Femme Fatales Volume 6 number 5, has Spawn and Melissa Clark on the cover. Internet Archive has many other issues but not that one.
  • Cinefantastique February 2001 Todd McFarlane Toys, Jessica Priest, quote from Clarke on her character:
    Melinda Clarke, who played the character in the SPAWN movie, referred to her character as "a classic bad guy in vinyl."
  • Cinefantastique July 1997 Spawn page 14

Maybe I'll dig into these later. -- 109.76.197.121 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book citations[edit]

This article was littered with drive-by request for citations where editors clearly hadn't bothered to check the other sources included in the same paragraph or sometimes even in the same sentence. Little effort had been made to fill these citations, many were years old. Many of the sources would have been easy to check, but it seems I was the first person to bother. It is also highly likely that difficult to check sources (such as out of print copies of Wizard magazine) were ignored, and citation requests added to sentences when it was very likely the reference covered both sentences in the same paragraph.

Despite these many bad faith citation requests, and I made a good faith effort to add more sources. I added an article that article looking back at race changes of characters by historian Scott Manning (who has his work included in Encyclopedia Britannica) that extensively quotes the letter pages of the Spawn comics, where fans criticized the character changes and McFarlane responded. The article also included citations to the specific issues of the Spawn comics where quotes came from. That article is a convenient secondary source but the article is not being used to source any new information, it was only being used a convenient secondary source instead of the the comics themselves a more difficult to check primary source. Not only that but the citation request was almost certainly a bogus request because Wizard magazine was another difficult to check source.

It does however highlight that the comics are a difficult to check but great source for comments from McFarlane and verifiable public information about fan reaction, that could be used to expand the article. -- 109.76.245.185 (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to the use of that article as a source should also be brought to the Jessica Priest article. -- 109.76.245.185 (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous IPV6 editor is not yet using edit summaries and has not yet made a comment on this article talk page. Instead a comment was made on my user Talk page, and despite the repeated lack of good faith and failure to discuss I will copy that comment here:
  • Blogs and self-published sources aren't allowed as refs on Wikipedia. 2A00:23C5:2E01:FB01:D874:74C4:B819:D629 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
As I already explained above, the reference is a convenient way to verify the more difficult to access primary source, namely the comics. I don't agree with the assertion that WP:BLOGS is applicable, and even if it was the guideline doesn't say such sources are never allowed it says "Exercise caution when using such sources" and I have exercised caution by not using any opinions from the source only the quotes from McFarlane. Deleting it doesn't improve the article or help editors. I made a good faith effort to fill citations and it was bad faith to delete a source without any explanation, repeatedly and without efforts to discuss.
If you still think it should be removed then please ask administrators for a Third opinion. -- 109.76.245.185 (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Web Archive has archived copies of the Spawn comics from issue 1 to issue 99 but unfortunately the letters pages of the original comics are not included in those archives. -- 109.78.201.130 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised I didn't find this last time I was looking through the Web Archive, Fangoria magazine 166 (1997) (SPAWN)Fear Today interview with writer Alan McElroy. Despite Spawn being on the cover there's only the one interview. -- 109.77.206.74 (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found more, the previous issue Fangoria 165 (1997) had another article about Spawn "To Hell and Back with Spawn". The writer was on set while Spawn fought Violator. Michael Jai White talks about the prosthetic makeup so often. Various different prosthetic visages designed by KNB EFX Group.page 22 Interview with John Leguizamo and he discusses his makeup too.page 23. I might finally have enough to write a section about the makeup ... whenever I eventually get around to it. -- 109.79.172.205 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the Movies[edit]

Can't use unauthorized Youtube videos as sources in the article but I can include them here in case anyone wants to check Siskel and Ebert arguing about Spawn. The article will have to make do with citation reference to the date and number of the episode. -- 109.79.161.65 (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leguizamo[edit]

Billing order per poster: John Leguizamo, Michael Jai White, Michael Sheen, Theresa Randle, with Nicol Williamnson, and D.B. Sweeney

The version of the poster in Wikipedia is too low resolution to see the billing order list so here is a higher resolution version of the poster just to make it clear that Leguiziamo had top billing and that is why he is listed first in the Infobox. -- 109.77.199.95 (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budget/Runtime[edit]

@User talk:109.76.147.170 I'd rather we discuss disputes on the article talk page than my own talk page. We should stick to Template:Infobox film rules regarding not "cherry picking" budget estimates. If we favor one estimate but ignore other sources reporting different budgets, then we would be cherry picking. From this source, it seems we should report the budget as $40–47 million. Unless McFarlane was giving an off shoot number cuz he likely didn't remember the correct budget? If this option is still an issue, we can do what I did for Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) and add a footnote detailing how multiple sources report different budget estimates. In regarding the run time, I'm trying to find a source that supports the 96 minute run time. Armegon (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems The Numbers also supports a production budget of $40M. I see no reason why not to include it if it's supported by two verified sources. Armegon (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, article talk page is best, but I didn't think there was much to discuss. I was really just providing your with extra detail, that you might find helpful or might as easily ignore. Sorry for maybe being a bit too verbose.
Budget: BOM and NUM just aren't as good as people think, good enough might be the best way to describe them. Industry trade paper Variety and the Los Angeles Times are vastly more reliable and credible sources especially when it comes to the subject of Hollywood films (and I'm fairly sure, more often than not, that's where the other two get their figures. Only small problem to be aware of with Variety is that it too might report more than one budget figure over time). Having said that I admit there probably isn't enough reason to ignore the rules WP:IAR/WP:LOCALCONSENSUS about cherry picking and actively ignore the figure from BOM, even if McFarlane himself did say the budget was $45 (and $47).
Runtime: BBFC website can be confusing and you need to click on the FEATURE section of the page to see all the runtimes, but I assure you the Theatrical runtime really is 96m 12s. It might avoid further confusion if I change the BBFC reference to use a different link instead https://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/spawn-film (BBFC confusingly has many pages for the same film). -- 109.76.147.170 (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW Variety puts the runtime at 97 minutes, see the technical details at the bottom of the page after the review [2]. Different sources, different ideas about rounding up or down. -- 109.76.147.170 (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said I have my criticisms about the accuracy of the figures provided by Box Office Mojo, and they make mistakes sometimes, but when it comes to film runtimes in general they are abysmal. -- 109.76.147.170 (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we got the runtime settled. As for the budget, just to clarify, you want to keep as is? I'm a bit confused. Armegon (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ignore all rules but I'm willing to leave it as it is. -- 109.78.217.102 (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to leave as is. Armegon (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spawn_(1997_film)&oldid=1208872626"