The Plot Holes in Spider-Man 3

[LordSimen]

The biggest plothole, in my opinion was the symbiote attaching to Peter's suit. Where the hell did his cowl/head mask part come from? The symbiote just attached to his suit and then it covered his head, but the suit stopped right at the neck. I know it's there right in the next scene, but I never really bothered to question it until now. Is the symbiote so sophisticated that it create its own exact replica of a head mask that Peter wasn't even wearing then?

All other plotholes, to me, were not significant enough for me to remember or care about right now..

-TNC

I wondered that too, in the end i just assumed that the suit created the mask through a combination of the knowledge of the basics of the suit he was wearing on the rest of his body and Peter's knowledge of what the mask is supposed to look like.

 

[sylabdul]

i'm starting hate people that obviously forced themselves to like this 'movie'...hey i watched SEVERAL times to get myself to enjoy it, but the flaws are out there like a sore thumb.....at least admit it doesnt stand up next to the previous ones....as far as the script...

 

[Venomosity]

A 'Pumpkin Bomb' exploded in Spidey's face but didn't scar him in SM1, the same thing disfigured Harry's face and outright obliterated Eddie Brock/Venom in SM3.

Nice one.

The symbiote could've reacted differently to it.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I'm not trying to be a dick, LordSimen. I'm usually in the SR boards so I know how you guys are feeling.

That window thing was annoying but not major. It was just like there was no end to how powerful they made Harry. He can sneak up on Peter, take pumpkin bombs to the face, metal pipes and garbage cans, sneak off in a split second, and a glider blade kills him? He was Superman in the movie until they needed him to die.

Plotholes don't ruin movie for me unless you contradict you own logic.

I love Spidey 2 but the only plothole I noticed was how Harry knew where Ock's lair is. On the other hand, Ghost Rider contradicted its own premise.
The Butler should have said something in Spidey 2 when he said." your father never obsessed over his work."

 

[LordSimen]

i'm starting hate people that obviously forced themselves to like this 'movie'...hey i watched SEVERAL times to get myself to enjoy it, but the flaws are out there like a sore thumb.....at least admit it doesnt stand up next to the previous ones....as far as the script...

I'm starting to hate people who are just FISHING for reasons to hate the movie. I loved the movie and found it just as good as the previous installments so no, I won't admit anything just to appease your opinion.

 

[chaseter]

Here is a plot hole...

In SM2, JJJ is willing to make up a story about poisoned food to sell papers. He also smears Spider-Man across the front page of his paper and distorts stories saying that Spidey and Ock robbed bank and that Green Goblin and Spider-Man attack editor. Yet in SM3...Eddie photoshops a pic and Jameson fires him and says they have to print a retraction. PLOT HOLE.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Here is a plot hole...

In SM2, JJJ is willing to make up a story about poisoned food to sell papers. He also smears Spider-Man across the front page of his paper and distorts stories saying that Spidey and Ock robbed bank and that Green Goblin and Spider-Man attack editor. Yet in SM3...Eddie photoshops a pic and Jameson fires him and says they have to print a retraction. PLOT HOLE.

That's not a plothole, JJ's a dick that would never admit his own mistakes. I hope I misunderstood your joke.

 

[gdw]

More pontless than a plot hole, but Sandma's daugter.

She's introduced with her illness, and all it does is give them a reason for peter to forgive him.

they make his entire purpose being to find a way, or money to find a way to cure her, but that is never resolved.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

^ I agree. For that last scene to have had the impact needed, I needed to know more about Sandman's relationship with his daughter. Constantly looking at a locket and a pack of letters were cute, but didn't give any context.

 

[christpunchers]

Here is a plot hole...

In SM2, JJJ is willing to make up a story about poisoned food to sell papers. He also smears Spider-Man across the front page of his paper and distorts stories saying that Spidey and Ock robbed bank and that Green Goblin and Spider-Man attack editor. Yet in SM3...Eddie photoshops a pic and Jameson fires him and says they have to print a retraction. PLOT HOLE.

Heh, the scene was very short too. Eddie brock should get a job at a design studio, doing photoshop work. The thing is venom/eddie was an afterthought after avi pressured sam to include him, thats why you get the half logical story. Sure yeah it makes sense but the whole brock story felt very rushed.

 

[The Kid]

Once again I feel you people have no idea what the term 'plot hole' means. A plothole is not a character choosing a choice YOU YOURSELF wouldn't choose, a plothole is a hole within the plot.

Just because YOU wouldn't forgive him doesn't mean the character in the movie wouldn't.

It's an inconsistency within the story actually.

And Sandman's story being settled so nicely is inconsistent with his rampaging ways.

 

[xii22_loop]

the image of him swinging home naked.

haha that actually could have been a good "comic relief" humorous moment to have in the movie, instead of the silly butler stuff, emo music dancing stuff

[ unfortunately there seems to be alot of stuff that could have been different for the better ]

 

[LordSimen]

It's an inconsistency within the story actually.

And Sandman's story being settled so nicely is inconsistent with his rampaging ways.

No, it isn't. The entire story sets up that he isnt that bad of a guy and merely has bad luck. He's a sympathetic villian from the start. Also, the lesson for Peter to learn in the movie was Forgiveness, which he learned, because he knew that he himself hasn't exactly made the smartest choices in life either. So yes, It was completely consistant. Just because you don't agree with Peter's choice doesn't make it a plot hole. It isn't one.

 

[LordSimen]

It's an inconsistency within the story actually.

And Sandman's story being settled so nicely is inconsistent with his rampaging ways.

No, it isn't. The entire story sets up that he isnt that bad of a guy and merely has bad luck. He's a sympathetic villian from the start. Also, the lesson for Peter to learn in the movie was Forgiveness, which he learned, because he knew that he himself hasn't exactly made the smartest choices in life either. So yes, It was completely consistant. Just because you don't agree with Peter's choice doesn't make it a plot hole. It isn't one.

 

[LordSimen]

It's an inconsistency within the story actually.

And Sandman's story being settled so nicely is inconsistent with his rampaging ways.

No, it isn't. The entire story sets up that he isnt that bad of a guy and merely has bad luck. He's a sympathetic villian from the start. Also, the lesson for Peter to learn in the movie was Forgiveness, which he learned, because he knew that he himself hasn't exactly made the smartest choices in life either. So yes, It was completely consistant. Just because you don't agree with Peter's choice doesn't make it a plot hole. It isn't one.

 

[gdw]

No, it isn't. The entire story sets up that he isnt that bad of a guy and merely has bad luck. He's a sympathetic villian from the start. Also, the lesson for Peter to learn in the movie was Forgiveness, which he learned, because he knew that he himself hasn't exactly made the smartest choices in life either. So yes, It was completely consistant. Just because you don't agree with Peter's choice doesn't make it a plot hole. It isn't one.

That bad luck this is BS. There was no bad luck in getting arrested after turning to crime, or just in turning to crime all together. So his daughter is sick, the road to hell is paved etc . . . You can make him sympathetic, but there was no resolution to anything about him. You can't introduce something like his daughter and have it go no where.

 

[LordSimen]

That bad luck this is BS. There was no bad luck in getting arrested after turning to crime, or just in turning to crime all together. So his daughter is sick, the road to hell is paved etc . . . You can make him sympathetic, but there was no resolution to anything about him. You can't introduce something like his daughter and have it go no where.

What you're talking about is a loose end, which is his daughter's story- Not a plot hole.

 

[gdw]

I was going on from the bad luck bit. Just went off on yet another rediculously bad plot point within this film.

 

[SPIDERMAN117]

Well Remember In The AMS Or Comics Idk Eddie Tells Some Line To Peter Like"We Know Everything About you,Your Little Secret",Or Something like that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3lJMM-zDKY 3:47 He Tells Him That In The AMS

 

[slapshot63]

He cleaned Norman's womb...possibly with some help of Spider-Man

Whoa, I missed that scene...

 

[Vile]

I'm still not convinced on the whole Bernard-revelation bit. It simply makes NO sense.

What does a butler know about the gliders? Nothing. I doubt Norman and him chatted about what new defense contracts ol Normy was getting.

He cleaned his wound? So what? Again, he knows exactly DICK about gliders, so how would he know about the blades?

He's 'seen things'? Again...so what? He's a freakin' butler! What does he know about performance enhancers, personal transportation devices or grenades that vaporize people?

But all that doesnt matter in the first place - to keep the secret because he didnt want to tarnish Norman's name? ....uh....the guy was a murdering psychopath and his SON was slowly going insane and was about (and did) follow in his footsteps...WHY NOT TELL HIM?

That entire scene looks like it was filmed as an after thought when after Sam watched the movie he realized "Dammit...I forgot about Harry!"

 

[TarachnidX]

Ok so in this movie, it is Peter's choice when to wear the black suit because it is usually in a case in his closet. Well then why does he have to painfully try and take it off in the bell tower when he could have probably just put it back in the case and burn it!

 

[Vile]

Ok so in this movie, it is Peter's choice when to wear the black suit because it is usually in a case in his closet. Well then why does he have to painfully try and take it off in the bell tower when he could have probably just put it back in the case and burn it!

Hard to say if thats a plot hole, really - one could argue that in the beginning, the symbiote was aware of Pete's growing addiction to what it had to offer - he'll be back, kinda thing. That being said, when he decided to ditch the symbiote FOR GOOD, it didnt want to leave it's host so it resisted.

 

[LostSon88]

The symboite is connected to Peter...when it realized that Peter wanted to take it off for GOOD, that's when it started fighting back.

 

[blackvenom]

has any one else noticed that in spiderman 3, Eddie brock is the new photographer, but in spiderman 1, before Peter gets a job at the DB, But when JJ asks for pictures of spiderman, the black guy says, we can't get any pictures of him, eddie's been on it all week!" WTF? has he worked there yet? Is it his dad? STOP SCREWING UP THE PLOT! i think Ramai put that in spiderman 1, as a easter egg of venom, but after spiderman 3, it just ruined the plot. Look it up