Things you noticed for the first time on DVD

But wasn't his belt buckle metallic too?
 
When Sandman was born it finally downed on me.. how did the lockset remain intact and not become part of Sandman??? :wow:
Its a Plot hole, I remember having a big discussion about it back in May.
 
But wasn't his belt buckle metallic too?

I'd assume so, but considering the locket was thrown away by the force of the machine, presumably the belt buckle was too. And obviously Marko would not be reaching for his belt buckle. :cwink:
 
I think they said in a deleted scene, Sandman was revealed to have the power to demolecurize inorganic objects he came into contact with or something.

My reason for why the locket didn't demolecurize:

Cause it is a minor thing no one cares about. Minor things like this I don't see as a problem. The Butler thing and character development we can talk about, and that is a legitimate problem to have, but I don't feel the locket thing is.
 
Wasn't he wearing it around his neck, though?

Indeed he was, Ock. But if you watch carefully, you can see he tears it off his neck and tosses it out of harms way/the range of the machine a few moments after it goes on.
 
Indeed he was, Ock. But if you watch carefully, you can see he tears it off his neck and tosses it out of harms way/the range of the machine a few moments after it goes on.
If thats the case how does it get back into the middle of the pit, which would be in harms way? Did the locket realize the coast was clear and decided to crawl back? :ninja:
 
Wasn't he wearing it around his neck, though?

Yeah...and? I'm saying that the force of the sand being flung at such a high speed would have propelled the locket away.

If thats the case how does it get back into the middle of the pit, which would be in harms way? Did the locket realize the coast was clear and decided to crawl back? :ninja:

It wasn't in the middle of the pit, Marko had to reach outwards to grab it.
 
It wasn't in the middle of the pit, Marko had to reach outwards to grab it.
But he didnt have to reach that far to get it. Ok so it wasent right in the middle of the pit but it was still in the vicinity of the area that got affected. The only way it couldnt have been affected if it was near the edge of the pit, which it wasent.
 
Not a big one, but i notice the train from Spidey 2 driving by in one of the shots.
 
I noticed the message that Venom puts in the web in the final battle, "Spider-Man stop us if you can." or something like that, Spider-Man is in the same font as a version of the comics

This for example:
spider-man_sinspast_cover1.JPG
 
I noticed the message that Venom puts in the web in the final battle, "Spider-Man stop us if you can." or something like that, Spider-Man is in the same font as a version of the comics

This for example:
Which is the font from the 90s cartoon
 
come on people. peter forgave sandman for him accidently killing his uncle, not for all the other **** he did.

do you really think if spider-man is swinging around one day and sees sandman robbing a bank or something, he wont stop him?
 
Yeah, because it's totally not understandable that Sandman, who Peter TRIED to kill, wouldn't join up with Venom who promised getting back at Spider-man. Peter totally couldn't have understood Sandman's position and therefore couldn't forgive Sandman. Yeah. Right. :whatever:

You guys complaining about Peter forgiving Flint obviously do not understand the first concept of forgiveness.
Spider-Man is a pseudo cop, a vigilante. Marko killed his uncle and went on a robbing spree to save his daughter...yet he tells his wife and Peter that he is a good man and is sorry for what he had done. But he teams up with Venom who expressed he wants Spider-Man 'DEAD'. So does killing an old man, robbing places, joining with Venom who kills a guy on a glider, and trying to kill a college kid with webs make Marko a victim of circumstance? The concept and plot was fine and dandy, the execution and dialogue was not...that is what I mock.

I understand forgiveness, but you don't seem to understand human nature.
 
They're just mocking the stupidity of the writing.

Yeah, I got that. :whatever:

But that last scene between Peter and Marko is very much a visual scene. I think it's a mistake to criticize the scene for it's writing because the writing doesn't tell you much. The meaning behind the scene is expressed more so in the actors' body language than anything else.
 
After another viewing, I noticed how stupid and naive Peter is.

Sandman: It wasn't my fault, the man from Spider-Man 1 made me accidentally kill Uncle Ben. I'm sorry

Spider-Man: It's ok, now go fly off into the wind, bye.

It was way too short to actually get across "real forgiveness".

But on the stupid Parker topic, I've mentioned it before... yet throughout the whole trilogy he really is this brainless guy. 3 just capped it off on how oblivious to other people Movie Parker is.
 
correct me if I'm wrong, but...I noticed that the symbiote is low on Eddie's shoulders, so we can see some of his back, and it's bare. When Peter pulls Eddie out of the suit he's wearing a shirt....o_0
 
correct me if I'm wrong, but...I noticed that the symbiote is low on Eddie's shoulders, so we can see some of his back, and it's bare. When Peter pulls Eddie out of the suit he's wearing a shirt....o_0

Hehe you're right. Never thought about that before. :woot:
 
correct me if I'm wrong, but...I noticed that the symbiote is low on Eddie's shoulders, so we can see some of his back, and it's bare. When Peter pulls Eddie out of the suit he's wearing a shirt....o_0

Well, as we know it, when the symbiote bonds to its host, it will absorb into the hosts clothing, hence the Spider-Man suit turns black. When Eddie gets the symbiote (which is still combined with Spider-Man's suit), it absorbs Eddie's clothes and it all makes the Venom suit. When the suit peels back and we see parts of his back, with no shirt underneath, the shirt was absorbed into the symbiote. It's all one piece.

So, think of it this way: when Peter is in the bell tower and rips off the suit, it was absorbed into his clothes (Spider-Man suit), so his clothes (Spidey suit) came off with the symbiote, leaving him naked. This means that when Peter makes the symbiote separate from Eddie, technically, the clothes should be absorbed in the symbiote, and Eddie should be naked when he gets pulled out...

...:wow:
 
Well, as we know it, when the symbiote bonds to its host, it will absorb into the hosts clothing, hence the Spider-Man suit turns black. When Eddie gets the symbiote (which is still combined with Spider-Man's suit), it absorbs Eddie's clothes and it all makes the Venom suit. When the suit peels back and we see parts of his back, with no shirt underneath, the shirt was absorbed into the symbiote. It's all one piece.

So, think of it this way: when Peter is in the bell tower and rips off the suit, it was absorbed into his clothes (Spider-Man suit), so his clothes (Spidey suit) came off with the symbiote, leaving him naked. This means that when Peter makes the symbiote separate from Eddie, technically, the clothes should be absorbed in the symbiote, and Eddie should be naked when he gets pulled out...

...:wow:

Good explanation

and yeah, that's why it stuck out to me...cuz Brock should be unclothed. Although I understand why he was clothed...that's still a stupid mistake ;p
 
So the general consensus is that we shoulda seen a naked Topher Grace?

:dry:

:woot:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"