Talk:Spider-Man: Lotus

Hi everyone, I noticed that the paragraph about the Re-Imagined Cut (the recut version of Spider-Man: Lotus) was recently removed for being “unsourced.”

The release of this version is verifiable via the director’s official YouTube channel, where it was publicly posted, so I’m wondering whether that counts as an acceptable primary source under WP:V for a simple factual statement (i.e. that the recut exists and was released on YouTube).

If additional sourcing is required, I’d be happy to help locate a secondary mention or citation. I just wanted to clarify the reasoning before re-adding the information in a properly neutral, cited form. Thanks in advance for any guidance.

Reception

Is there a reason for the absence of the reception section? Can I write it? Redjedi23 (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Because this is a fan film that isn't notable, but for some reason certain editors believe it is notable and opposed deletion. You are welcome to find reviews from reliable sources for the film, but I doubt you will be able to find much. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Film critics don't review fan films. Since there is no critical commentary, I'm not sure how this passed WP:GNG, but here we are. It was written in the lead that the film received mixed reception, but was sourced to a random site with embed tweets of random people's "reviews". I removed it. Mike Allen 19:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I usually just WP:LETITGO when an AfD of mine fails, but this one was particularly frustrating and bewildering. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

you picked the wrong moment Nbisbo (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Controversy

There’s an element of the controversy that I believe shouldn’t be ignored, which is the inclusion of the doctored screenshots (that were released in addition to the real ones). These specific screenshots were disproven by the director himself as well as the VFX team & a large portion of the cast & crew. In the age of the internet where misinformation can spread like wildfire, I think there’s a responsibility to accurately document the details. Westeggfolks (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You haven't provided a source, so I'm going with no Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Trout me, pull the trigger.)} 17:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The source is already linked in the page. Not only does it mention those screenshots in the article, but it also includes the director’s address video, which spends a chunk of time disproving the doctored screenshots. https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-lotus-fan-film-director-controversy/ Westeggfolks (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

One CBR article is not enough coverage. and still, 'when they were 13' or whatever isn't needed. Age doesn't really matter. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Trout me, pull the trigger.)} 18:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Here’s an article from Newsweek that also mentions the fake screenshots and includes Konop’s video: https://www.newsweek.com/spider-man-lotus-fan-movie-racist-allegations-explained-1817914

Sure, I can agree that the ages don’t need to be included (I mentioned them for the sake of illustrating the timeline, as the director’s age played a role in the coverage of the film), but the falsified screenshots played a massive role in the dialogue around it. I think it’s too significant to be ignored. Westeggfolks (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Aren't we kind of missing the forest for the trees? Someone's personal messages were released to the public, and the ones who wrote things not intended for anyone to read are the ones who get attacked? Just how far have we sunk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.88.142.172 (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)