The Plot Holes in Spider-Man 3

[Ryo Jin]

Naw...we simpletons surely wouldn't have spotted that!

 

[ParadiseCity]

Just another inadequecy of SM3

 

[Infini]

And it's not like the producers have forgotten it either. Avi Arad mentioned the reference in the 'Villains of Spider-Man 3'. Why they chose to allow what could have been such a easily evaded piece of discontinuity I don't know, though I assume it's just for the sake of that gag that was mostly cut out of the movie(Jonah's 'Eddie What? Rock' gag).

 

[dark_b]

ok i will say this again. this movei was having a lot of WTF moments and plot holes. but with eddie tehy really took itme to explain it.

what did eddie always said? eddie brock JR.

 

[Infini]

Still a 'WTF' situation. You think they would atleast recognize the original Eddie Brock name or mention senior if he worked for them at some stage.

 

[dark_b]

Still a 'WTF' situation. You think they would atleast recognize the original Eddie Brock name or mention senior if he worked for them at some stage.

there was no brock in spiderman 1. so this explanation would only be for spiderman fans. and it was. JR.

 

[Golgo-13]

Avi Arad also mentions that it was indeed Eddie Brock, Robbbie was talking about when he mentioned Eddie in SM1, in the Spiderman 2 Commentary.

 

[Zejr]

Just another inadequecy of SM3

Correct!

 

[Village_Idiot]

OMG !!!! , an inadequacy in a comic book movie , if you're upset about that , you should just stick to reading the Spider-man comics , there's absolutely no inadequacy in those

 

[Golgo-13]

Your point? He could say it was meant to be Eddie Van Halen for all we care, because in the movie it wasn't ever said that his name is 'Eddie Brock,' all we know is that the character's name is Eddie.

Dude, are we even speakin the same language? The film makers themselves said it was Eddie Brock in the past commentary, so it IS Eddie Brock. The fact that your saying now, that ppl watching the movie can say that it wasn't really Brock because they didn't say his last name, is a cheap cop out because the film makers **** up their own continuity.

 

[Kaizer]

well, even though Arad said it was Brock, it can always be interpreted as being a different Eddie when just seeing the movies. Or: It takes a long time for J.J to get his name, meaning he meets these people all the time, he may have hired Brock before but simply doesn`t remember.

 

[Golgo-13]

Yes, but, because they don't like the movie, the plotholes matter to them, but because the liked the other ones, they ignore it. It's ****ing hypocritical.

I liked the movie fyi. It's just that unlike the other two movies, the plotholes in this one are just so ridiculously noticable that any, and everyone is picking up on them. I mean, i'm one of those ppl who doesn't notice ****, without having it pointed out to them. It took a second viewing, and me reading these boards for me to notice Flash Thompson there at Harry's funeral. He's there, as plain as day, but i didn't see him the first time i saw it.

The plotholes in this movie are a little insulting, imo. It's as if the film makers thought that they were making the film for the mentally challenged, and that we wouldn't notice. They're ssssoooooooo obvious, it's offending some ppl.

 

[Golgo-13]

Or maybe Brock was freelance before, quit then got re-hired.

 

[Village_Idiot]

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.

in the book , when he takes it off the first time , he has a difficult time taking it off too , more like it was just stuck to his skin then fighting to stay on , half the plot holes to this movie can probably be explained if they read the book , they left ALOT out of the movie

 

[ParadiseCity]

YOu cant quit if you're freelance though...

 

[Dragon]

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

First, you remember this minute detail, but can't remeber "The Black Guy" is Joe "Robbie" Robertson?

Second, this is such a silly thing to focus on. Eddie isn't exactly a unique name. They could've had another photographer on the Bugle named Eddie. Maybe even -GASP- Another guy named Peter in the Bugle's history!!!!!

 

[ultimatefan]

There were a couple holes that bothered me: one is why JJJ didn´t seem to bother at all with the fact that Peter was dating his son´s ex-fiancee who ditched him in the altar, no less, and that MJ didn´t even try to warn Peter about Harry when she dumped him, given that she knows he´s Spider-Man.

 

[Dragon]

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.

It didn't need to be resolved. This story IS PETER'S, not Marko's. They establish the daughter to show who Marko is and what he wants. But the issue here is how Peter handles his rage over Marko shooting Ben. He imagines in his mind that Marko is a cold-blooded killer who murdered Ben with no remorse, when this wasn't the case. Peter had to learn that he wasn't always right. Which was the focus of the story.

Anyway, with marko's daughter, they never say her illness is anything requiring advanced some distant "cure". The establishing of the family's poverty suggests that she likely could be treated, but they simply can't afford the treatments.

 

[dark_b]

Dude, are we even speakin the same language? The film makers themselves said it was Eddie Brock in the past commentary, so it IS Eddie Brock. The fact that your saying now, that ppl watching the movie can say that it wasn't really Brock because they didn't say his last name, is a cheap cop out because the film makers **** up their own continuity.

who cares what teh filmmakers said? in the movie it is only eddie. and it is because theydidnt know what will happen in hte sequels. it was smart.
again in hte movie it was nto brock.

 

[Golgo-13]

who cares what teh filmmakers said? in the movie it is only eddie. and it is because they didnt know what will happen in hte sequels. it was smart.
again in hte movie it was nto brock.

Because they're the ones who made the movie to begin with. So if a character has the name Peter Parker attached to him, whether he looks or acts like what we thinks Parker should act like, he's Peter Parker because the film makers said so, and it's their film. Same goes for MJ, or, in this case ....................Eddie aka Eddie Brock. They said it was Eddie Brock being mentioned in SM1, not i, nor the fans......so they should stick by their own logic.

All they had to do is change the line "You hired him last week" to "he's been freelancing for us for sometime" or what have you, and there wouldn't even be an issue. It would have made JJJ seem like he doesn't care about his employees, even less, which is very in character with JJJ.

They (the film makers) just dropped the ball.

 

[DyeLorean]

Yes, but, because they don't like the movie, the plotholes matter to them

I do like the movie, but still couldn't help finding lack of explanation in many things.

Like someone pointed earlier, is just a movie, and this is just a forum to talk about it, just for the fun of it, and gather all our explanations and to talk about the movies. There's no need to make disrespectful posts.

That being said, in this last few pages there's been some good points. The whole butler scene ... the plot hole is that we don't know for sure what does he know, something we should know at this point cause it matters to the story.

D!

 

[TromaFreak64]

Yeah, I agree, they never ONCE mentioned that the symbiote knew everything about Peter!!!! NOT ONCE!!!

They shouldn't have to. When movies spell things out through dialouge and action and people can't figure it out, it drives me crazy.

It's like you people want them to take time to explain every little detail when you should have already known. We aren't all in elementary school?

EG: Now spiderman is jumping, now he is using his webing to grab a building above in order to provide the right projection so he can gain the speed needed to hit his next location with webbing to continue his swing...

What type of movie would that be if they had to do that.

This board is confusing most things people are calling "plot holes" are not such. They are people who disagree with certain characters reactions, and the majority of the so called plot holes are logical for anyone with half a brain to resolve.

 

[Mr. Socko]

This movie doesn't have that many plot holes, just stupid coverups.

"We believe this is the man who killed your uncle"
"Why haven't you told us before?"
"Ah.....we didn't want you looking for him"


Stupid coverups like that...

 

[spiderfan21]

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

It probably was just an easter egg, but Venom was forced into the movie by Avi Arad.

 

[DyeLorean]

This movie doesn't have that many plot holes, just stupid coverups.

Couldn't agree more.

D!