Talk:Madame Web (film)/Archive 1

Filming start
Are we sure that "in the spring" means mid-2022 and not early-to-mid 2023? If it was to start this spring wouldn't that have to be this week? Surely, if that's the case, it would be very oddly worded to say spring when you actually mean in the next couple of weeks? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is true, I was uncertain of what to put for what he meant by the spring. Honestly, it could very well be early-to-mid 2023, but that does raise some red flags given its current release date. I'm totally open to it being changed as seen fit. Filming being this "spring" felt a bit off but close, but for all we know, it could be next year's. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While we generally try to avoid seasons due to them not being the same for everyone, maybe it is best to just quote what he said and keep an eye out for a clarifying source? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that would be the best course of action here. The only other reliable site I've seen talk about this was ComicBook, but they don't bring any clarification. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When I read the Deadline article, I took it to mean basically a year from now, in 2023. Though this much casting this soon seems a bit odd for that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Not actually a Madame Web film?
Didn't know if these rumors are worth mentioning, yet. Campea's tweet mentions a Deadline article, and apologies if I've overlooked this commentary already in article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was rummaging through commentary after seeing that and found some bits on Johnson potentially playing Julia Carpenter and another one wondering if this film was a Spider-Verse reimagining with other female characters in it, which I did add, because of Campea's tweet. The only Deadline article that I see as being in line with Camepea's statement is the Johnson cast one, which stated In the comics, Madame Web is depicted as an elderly woman with myasthenia gravis and thus was connected to a life support system that looked like a spider web. Due to her age and medical condition, Madame Web never actively fought any villains. For that reason, sources have stressed it’s possible the project could turn into something else. Insiders say due to her psychic sensory powers, she is essentially Sony’s version of Doctor Strange. (bolded key detail). I think we could note that detail, and address Campea's statement with the other commentary I added, as it seems more coverage of this film and what it could be are getting out there. Also, there have been some articles made on the Feige producing info after a YouTube video pointed it out, but none have been reliable ones. I did email ComicBook on it, however. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The latest Production Weekly listing here has replaced Marvel Studios with Marvel Entertainment for MW and removed Feige's name from the list, but kept the other producers and filming details, and added Roberts. I also brought this up at Talk:Sony's Spider-Man Universe, where the PW info in full has been subject to a recent discussion. I was also wondering if we should note Johnson and Sweeney tagging Marvel Studios in their socials immediately after their castings were revealed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is what I had expected, seemed really unlikely that they had it right. I don't think we should be mentioning Marvel Studios at all unless they say it themselves or we get it from a trade-level source. The actors tagging Marvel Studios on social media also seems like a mistake and not something worth mentioning. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Marvel Studios
Pinging editors involved from other articles to further clarify/discuss this. As I have stated beforehand, the Production Weekly listings are accurate and reliable sources. However, there seems to be a clear divide on if we ought to include this one specific bit from their information, which to me, seems to only really be skeptical due to the unexpected nature of it. Given Production Weekly removed it in their latest listing, only after it was reported on by some sites (which begs the question of whether it was something true, given the unlikelihood of them listing inaccurate information), I am willing to propose hiding the information, or at least noting it as a separate bit of information, given the credibility of the source for their listings. As I did pay to obtain this information, I do stand by its inclusion, but am open to adjusting it as others see fit, so long any pre-conceived and/or unsupported skepticism are left in check with what all of the available sources are saying. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No industry outlet has reported this - none. A co-production between Sony and Marvel would absolutely be heavily reported in outlets like Deadline or Variety, and not only has it not been, it's not even been hinted at. The silence speaks volumes: Production Weekly is almost certainly incorrect. If we get corroboration from a reliable industry outlet, I'd support re-adding it; you keep insisting Production Weekly is reliable, but clearly in this context they absolutely are not reliable. Hiding the contested claims would temporarily help solve part of the problem but not the bigger dispute over how reliable Production Weekly listings are. I'd support straight-up removing the claims entirely. I understand you pay for access to this magazine, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should pay for publishing demonstrably incorrect information. Toa Nidhiki05 19:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should probably hide it until we get secondary confirmation, since there is uncertainty about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As we do with other sources when they retract their reporting, since Production Weekly adjusted their listing we should do the same here. I still think it's considered a reliable source (its listings have been cited by other RS's in the past, and it has been used as a source on Wikipedia before), but we can always start a discussion at WP:RSN to clear things up. Especially given the many reverts (and edit-wars) I have seen across pages which cite PW. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to exhaust time with this, and I think the best course of action is to hide the information, but not outright remove it. If others would like to, the reliability of Production Weekly could be brought up to WP:RSN, as InfiniteNexus suggested. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently CBR made an article covering the filming start, which cites Production Weekly for the producers (including Feige) and the filming. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire article is simply reprinting the old Production Weekly's claims, and we've already established that claim is demonstrably incorrect given PW has redacted it. Boston.com makes no mention of Marvel Studios or Feige in their post, which is not based on PW. Toa Nidhiki05 12:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought an updated PW publication removed Marvel Studios, so it was a non issue? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I had also thought any mention of Marvel Studios was removed after the listing was updated, but apparently this was not the case. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the latest PW listing from June 30 removed them, so it appears CBR may just be going off of what we have on the article currently. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So in other words - misinformation here could have led to that? I think it's fairly urgent we remove the inaccurate content, then. Toa Nidhiki05 17:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it "misinformation", as there seems to be a clear bias against believing that only the Marvel Studios info could be inaccurate instead of the other filming and producers info. The info was believed to be true then, but we can't say it is inherently true now given the skepticism of the Marvel Studios info in it. That's not to say all the other filming info is false, especially given the July 11 start and other locations and timeline info was verified by other sources. The hiding of the Marvel Studios-Feige disputed info is a good compromise for now, but I find it within our best interest to understand good faith in the PW additions, as nothing more than civil information gathering and sourcing and not intentional misinformation or alleged falsehoods spreading, and for us to probably raise any concerns of PW's reliability to a more centralized sector focused on just that. The facts changed, and as such, our presenting of it had to change, but the fact that PW removed the Marvel Studios info from it only after I had put it out there and it got noticed does raise some concerns of whether it was true from the start or if it was something they weren't supposed to put out there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's more likely that this was a mistake rather than a "leak". Even reliable sources make mistakes sometimes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It very well could have been a mistake getting out of hand, or something else. Given the secrecy and mysterious nature, and the reports surrounding this film, I wouldn't put a collaboration of some sorts past it, but I digress. There's not much we can do beyond hiding the info for now and waiting to see what, if anything, comes of it. If it is something that is happening, it likely would be meant to be kept a secret. A few odd points that led me to believe in PW's information was that no producers were announced for this film at all until this listing, plus the recent MCU-Sony connections and the new Sep 2019 deal, and reports of this film being something more. It's a lot of information and mystery, much of which is difficult to verify and know for sure, but is worth keeping an eye on in case it goes anywhere, even though we can't detail it all on here due to the concerns about its nature. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently the director of photography for the film, Duane Charles Manwiller, posted on his Instagram on July 2 about location scouting in Boston and confirmed his role as DP in a response here. In his Instagram account bio, he states Current project: MADAME WEB: Marvel Studios/Sony Pictures. Now, his account isn't verified, and his role in this film isn't noted on his agency's page or resume for him. It does add further credence and is something to take note of. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe instead of reading tea leaves and divining signs, we can just wait for an actual industry outlet to report on any tie-in? Toa Nidhiki05 17:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just making notes of this until anything gets reliably reported on. I'm not trying to sway anything to happen here. You don't have to respond negatively to my contributions and efforts if you don't agree with them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Until we have confirmation that it is Marvel Studios, I have added “Marvel Entertainment”, while keeping the hidden “Marvel Studios” in place ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sydney Sweeney Character casting
Is CBR a reliable source about her casting of Julia Carpenter & CBR states that "According to reliable industry insider Jeff Sneider of The Hot Mic podcast, Sweeney is portraying "the second" incarnation of Spider-Woman in Madame Web. All I'm saying is Jeff Sneider is an unreliable person to trust sometimes, I just think a more reliable source should report the character she is playing. Brandon Targaryen (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Sneider has had quite the track record for accurately reporting industry news. He used to work for several reputable trades before going WP:SELFPUBLISHED. As long as a third-party source, like CBR in this instance (which is a decent source for comic book and adaptions news), is used to cover the info, it can be used. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Epps, Roberts, Scott
As I stated in my edit summary, I understand the formatting when it comes to the cast section, but since we have a billing block that clarifies who's being named in it, I don't see why these three additional names are being withheld. I just don't see the reason why. Rusted AutoParts 20:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:FILMCAST: "Casts vary in size and importance. A film may have an ensemble cast, or only a handful of actors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so try to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the film: billing (such as from its poster, opening credits, or main on-end credits), speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links, etc. Following along these lines, the most known roles and most marketed ones are Johnson, the three Spider-Women (Sweeney, O'Connor, Merced) and Rahim. Not much has been known of Epps, Roberts, and Scott's roles, so they are presently not as relevant to the immediate cast listing despite being in the billing. The film is very close to release so there isn't much fuss over excluding them now until more details are available, which likely won't be until its release. After all, the billing is, as it states, a good rule of thumb, not a requirement. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

1990s reshoots?
The second citation in Filming already shows that there weren't any. They had a billboard for Beyonce's 2003 album constructed 3 days into filming. 2601:18C:9000:4020:48F2:93E:689A:219C (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The 1990s reshoots info is from a WP:SME. That is why it is there. WP:VNT applies. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2024
I saw this movie and would like to contribute to the Plot section Helicopter333 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You can make 10 edits and wait 4 days to automatically get the permission to edit this article (WP:AUTOCONFIRMED), or you can write your plot summary (should be under 700 words) right now on your computer and paste it on this talk page so an autoconfirmed editor can place it in the article. Hope this helps! QuietCicada chirp 15:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Plot
There is no plot section. Didn't anyone see the movie? I thought movies, once released, will have a plot in Wikipedia. JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Plot sections can be written by anyone and are not always a guarantee right upon release. If you want to add one, you can see the movie and then add one yourself. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the reason why there is no plot summary is because no one saw this movie. Gabe114 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Every morning I wake up and immediately check this article to see if another editor has changed the "Premise" section to a "Plot" section with a general summary, in hopes that I do not have to pay at least $23 CAD to make the contribution myself. <span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">Yue 🌙 20:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is genuinely comical. Didn't think it was possible that the page for a large studio film would not be updated within a day. Is the film really that bad? Cheese Sprinkles (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * judging by all the reports of how terrible it is, seems like a no. that and the reviews I have seen online say the plot was either terrible or non excitant ...LOL Holydiver82 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Web of Life
Can the plot summary say it's the Web of Life without the movie explicitly saying it's the Web of Life? Aresef (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2024
Change “Madame Web was supposed to the start of a new franchise” to “Madame Web was supposed to be the start of a new franchise” 172.251.52.39 (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅	 QuietCicada chirp 04:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Budget range
Wikipedia’s guideline for film infoboxes is to include all reported budget ranges, and Deadline wrote that “I’ve gotten phone calls that the budget for this film is much higher at north of $100M. But I’m also told Sony reigned it under net $100M with Massachusetts tax credits and post production London tax credits” so the range should be $80 million (the oft-reported number, including by Deadline in the past) up through the $100 million that Deadline is saying they’ve been told. They’re not rebutting the $100 million claim, but offering it up that some sources have that as the cost. TropicAces (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The Hollywood Reporter has joined Deadline in reporting the actual budget being around $100 million, not $80 million (“ it has been widely reported that Madame Web cost $80 million, but the actual number is in the low $100 million range, according to several sources”). Neither indicate it as a gross/net situation, rather a range of reported costs, which should be depicted as such. TropicAces (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Don’t want to get blocked over this so bringing in . As noted above, The Hollywood Reporter lists the production budget as possibly $100 million not the oft-reported $80 million (no mention of pre-taxes or as a gross cost), while Deadline says there are conflicting reports, with some sources saying $100 million and others saying that after taxes it did get to reported $80 million (two separate claims, not binary). Listing the budget in the infobox as “$80 million (final cost)” and “$100 million (before taxes)” is disingenuous at best (outright wrong at worst). Outside thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! TropicAces (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact, THR also reports the tax credits/incentives. I quote THR “Madame Web reportedly cost $80 million to make after production and tax incentives” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/bob-marley-one-love-madame-web-box-ofifice-1235828725/
 * Afterwards it also points total a 100M+ cost Solit.act (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

While I appreciate the vote of confidence you have in my opinion, please be aware of the WP:CANVASS guideline and to avoid the appearance of WP:VOTESTACKING, the best course of action is to usually solicit participation by posting a notice at a WikiProject (such as WT:FILM). With that said, this can be considered an appropriate notification. I will also ping, who has a bit more experience in this realm.My initial thoughts are that a budget range is used when two different production budgets are being reported by high-quality sources. Per the budget field of the Infobox film template:

Unless there's a reasonable argument to ignore the range, we should acknowledge what Deadline and THR are reporting. Also, it might help if someone lists the sources in this discussion for others to look at when weighing in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Haha whoops, almost got out here getting myself blocked for different reasons. I’ll post to that page. Thanks/sorry again for the tag, mate. TropicAces (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nah, it is a neutral notification out in the open and would be considered appropriate in this specific instance. Just wanted to make you aware of that guideline for future reference. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a range is the way to go here. Whilst it is fairly clear that the 80 mil figure is the net figure here after the tax credits, it is not very clear what the 100 mil figure represents. I does make sense that it represents the gross budget, but the problem is none of the sources explicitly place it in that context. I would use a number range in the infobox and provide the specific context for those figures in the article body. Betty Logan (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I put my previous message in the wrong place, sorry. Deadline says about Madame Web that "a $52M global opening here means this reported $80M net production will not break even, but not suffer as much as originally feared". https://deadline.com/2024/02/box-office-bob-marley-one-love-madame-web-1235828289/
 * So what is this " $80M net production" Deadline is reporting? This is clearer in the same article, where Deadlone says "Sony reigned it under net $100M with Massachusetts tax credits and post production London tax credits, where the VFX were handled".
 * While we are discussing and there’s no agreement I think it’d be make sense TripicsAce stop reverting the stable version (before the edit warring start).

Solit.act (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You’re cherry-picking lines from the article. Deadline wrote “I’ve gotten phone calls that the budget for this film is much higher at north of $100M. But I’m also told Sony reigned it under net $100M with Massachusetts tax credits and post production London tax credits, where the VFX were handled.” That blurb indicates some sources have the amount at above $100 million, others below (presumably the $80 million figure). You’re then ignoring The Hollywood Reporter’s “Rothman is known for keeping a close watch over budgets and it has been widely reported that Madame Web cost $80 million, but the actual number is in the low $100 million range, according to several sources.” This again indicates that while the oft-cited figure is $80 million, there is talk around the industry the actual cost (even after taxes) is above $100 million, thus the need to list the range as $80–100 million, since (1) figures besides $80 million have been reported, and (2) there’s no direct indication the $100 million figure is purely a gross-budget. TropicAces (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact, THR also reports the tax credits/incentives. I quote THR “Madame Web reportedly cost $80 million to make after production and tax incentives” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/bob-marley-one-love-madame-web-box-ofifice-1235828725/
 * Afterwards points out how much it could have costed without the tax incentives, like 100M+.
 * So all sources provided agrees that there’s a real final budget of 80M. They are not disputing how much it costed to Sony to be produced.
 * The 100M+ is just how much it would have costed without tax credits. That’s why I don’t agree adding the 100M figure, Sony didn’t spend that money. This is pretty clear because both say it’s a 80M net production.
 * This is same situation that happened with The Marvels article. Yet I don’t agree with the solution they found out there. I mean you can just explain in the article itself that before tax credits there would be a bigger cost. You don’t need to put that on the info box, since all sources agree that the final cost was 80M.
 * Solit.act (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Solit.act (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The THR article you cited pre-dates their report that the actual cost may have been $100 million. This isn’t really a debate, they outright say there are conflicting reports between $80 or 100 million, and the infobox is meant to reflect that… TropicAces (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but predates what????? The article is literally from yesterday. THR is pretty clear “Madame Web reportedly cost $80 million to make after production and tax incentives”. Deadline reports the very same thing that Madame Web is “a $80M net production”. The 100M+ is not a conflicting information, it’s just how much Madame Web could have cost if it didn’t have had the tax credits. Deadline is pretty explicit showing the 100M+ is just a figure that doesn’t consider the tax incentives and so is not the final budget Sony gave to the movie: “Sony reigned it under net $100M with Massachusetts tax credits and post production London tax credits, where the VFX were handled". So you started on this talk page saying there was no indication of tax benefits that would have diminished Madame Web budget to 80M. Then I present you two major sources sources reporting the very same budget final 80M. I don’t know where you want to go with that, all I can do is providing you  all major sources you mentioned in fact present the very same information: the final budget was smaller than it would have been without the tax benefits, the final/net budget was 80M. It’s all there on the very same sites you mentioned TropicAces. Solit.act (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess I’m just confused what you think “the actual number is in the low $100 million range, according to several sources” means? TropicAces (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean it’s not what I think, it’s what they say in their article. Deadline is pretty clear when they say they had phone calls with people who told them that the budget could have been “much higher at north of 100M”. However they say they were also told by the same people (during their calls) that “Sony reigned it under net $100M with Massachusetts tax credits and post production London tax credits”. So those unspecified 100m+ is just the speculation of how much the film would have cost without Massachusetts and London tax credits. And you could ask me “how do I know that ‘under net $100M’ stands for ‘a 80M final budget’ cost for Madame Web?”. And the answer is in the same article. Deadline starts the article saying it’s “a 80M net production”, very clear and specific. And only by the end of the article they reveal how they found out that 80M final budget cost, and it was by those phone calls they had. The Hollywood Reporter says exactly the same thing as Deadline, according to THR “Madame Web reportedly cost $80 million to make after production and tax incentives”, and this is exactly the same as the Deadline. And both also report a 100M+ figure which is how much the movie would have cost if it hadn’t had what THR calls “production and tax incentives”. And how do I know this? Because Deadline is pretty clear by saying that Sony needed those tax credits/incentives to keep the budget under 100M. I quote Deadline: “Sony reigned it under net $100M with Massachusetts tax credits and post production London tax credits”. Keeping budgets smaller than it could potentially be by using tax credits/incentives is more common than many people think. This is the same situation that happened with The Marvels, its budget ended up costing 220M but without tax credits it would have been 270M. You can see this in The Marcel WP article. London for instance is attracting more than ever Hollywood movies productions due to the amazing tax credits/incentives the British give to Hollywood movies produced there. Solit.act (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "However they say they were also told by the same people..."
 * Just a quick correction here that multiple phone calls could indicate multiple sources. It does not necessarily imply "the same people" on each call. Therefore, you may have to treat the conflicting reports as conflicting information coming from potentially different sources. With that said, it does appear that the $80 million budget figure is the number predominantly being reported in every source, even Deadline and THR, despite the ambiguity that it may have exceeded $100 million without tax credits.Is the $100m+ number worth mentioning? I think it is, at least in the body of the article. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah it makes sense. I agree, I think any major controversy is related to how much it could potentially have cost before the tax credits/incentives. For example when a very reliable outlet like Variety mention only the budget without detailing how Sony managed to get it, they simply go with “80 million”. You can see it this on Variety article from yesterday “it cost $80 million, so it will have a tough time turning a profit” (https://variety.com/2024/film/box-office/bob-marley-box-office-madame-web-marvel-superhero-fatigue-analysis-1235915657/amp/) and also on The Numbers (https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Madame-Web-(2024)#tab=box-office), The Numbers not always mention budget for movies, they just do it when they are really sure about it. For example, they don’t mention any budget for Lisa Frankenstein (https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Lisa-Frankenstein-(2024)#tab=box-office).
 * So I think GoneIn60 suggestion can work pretty well, we could create a subsection in the body of the article to breakdown how Sony managed to get the 80 million budget, where we can add it just get it due to tax credits and all the discussion surrounding how much it’d have cost without the tax credits/incentives.
 * If everyone agrees, I think the section “Production” is a good place where we could create a subsection to handle that. :) Solit.act (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2024
I'd like to add and change some words in Madame Web (film) please. Bubba-the-Viking (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red_information_icon_with_gradient_background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024
Madame Web box office is $61,067,275 not $77,400,000 Ps3satansclaw (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Typos
The article contains three instances of “Simms”, which should be replaced with “Sims”. 138.51.95.56 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)