Villain For Spider-Man 3?

Originally posted by Silverstein
Obviously I know that Eddie Brock is Venom...im just saying why would IMDB just cast Topher as Venom? its like casting Tobey simply as Spider-man...Tobey is also Peter Parker. Just like if Topher were ACTUALLY playing Venom, he'd have to also be Eddie Brock, but WHY ISNT HE CASTED AS EDDIE BROCK??

Exactly one of the reasons why I have my doubts about him being cast as that. They always say its "Peter Parker/Spider-Man" or "Dr. Otto Octavius/Doctor Octopus". If Topher was cast only as "Venom" and not "Eddie Brock/Venom", that makes no sense. It would make more sense for him to be solely Brock, and then when he turns into Venom, they have someone else play him, someone bigger. So yes that's very fishy.

Although I don't think that necessarily is 100% proof that he's not cast as Venom either. We just don't know yet. Hopefully they'll say something soon so this thread doesn't reach the final moments of self-destruction.

Originally posted by NoFate007
Exactly one of the reasons why I have my doubts about him being cast as that. They always say its "Peter Parker/Spider-Man" or "Dr. Otto Octavius/Doctor Octopus". If Topher was cast only as "Venom" and not "Eddie Brock/Venom", that makes no sense. It would make more sense for him to be solely Brock, and then when he turns into Venom, they have someone else play him, someone bigger. So yes that's very fishy.

Excellent point.

Which only shows they look around the rumour mill and see Venom,so they just slap that one besides Topher's name.

Im sure everyone knows why there are not much rumours of Harry's character becoming a villain...because HE IS BECOMING A VILLAIN, a goblin. Rumours arent rumours if you got proof, and the proof is in SP1 and 2.

Most people WANT Venom/brock in sp3, they hold onto any 'proof' of venom being in sp3, its really annoying. LOL Topher wearing a muscle suit for the role of Eddie Brock...

There's nothing wrong with wanting Venom in SM-3,if he was the only villain and being played by a suitable actor.

But when they want him squeezed in with Harry and Sandman,and played by a pint sized cutie boy.Then I question their love of the character.

ya thats what i also meant, squeezing the venom in. Along with Sandman, Spiderman, parker mj relationship, harry and the goblin...introduction of eddie brock...eddie was fired in SP1 right??? or did they keep him

Eddie Brock wasn't in SM-1.

he was mentioned...in a one liner

"Eddie's been on it for weeks..."

LOL! Wow his whole 2 and a half seconds of fame.He wasn't even mention by full name,let alone seen 😛

Dr Conners got a mention too.

im just saying was brock COULD be still working at the bugle...no mention of him losing his job.

There was no mention of him at all in SM-2.....

obivously no mention...

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/2498.asp

Dunst's look for SM-3.

Damn this girl ain't pretty 👇

ugh, kirsten dunst is really ugly...i dont know what sam raimi sees in her

She was in Bring It On...now though........well...let's just say the best screen moment she had was the nipple shot lol

Originally posted by Doc Ock
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/2498.asp

Dunst's look for SM-3.

Damn this girl ain't pretty 👇

Did you read this part: "From what I can tell,they are focusing more on Peter Parker than Spidey in this one."

...

As if that was a change of pace from the last two movies, or something!!

And people eat this stuff up like they were starving from mass media deprivation. They buy into the half-assed propaganda, how the same stupid ideas keep being presented as if they hadn't been done, not only before, but by almost every single superhero movie ever made. Certainly that has been the trend for most of the recent superhero movies. All of this "we want to focus on the man behind the mask," again with the implied but usually unspoken clause "for a change." Pathetic. The only valid reason they would do this nonsense is to save money and to attract women. The more screen time given to a pretty-boy's unmasked face, the more teenybopper girls are going to pay to see the movie. Feh!

Originally posted by NoFate007
She was in Bring It On...now though........well...let's just say the best screen moment she had was the nipple shot lol

😎 💃 😆

Originally posted by Herr Logan
Did you read this part: "From what I can tell,they are focusing more on Peter Parker than Spidey in this one."

...

As if that was a change of pace from the last two movies, or something!!

And people eat this stuff up like they were starving from mass media deprivation. They buy into the half-assed propaganda, how the same stupid ideas keep being presented as if they hadn't been done, not only before, but by almost every single superhero movie ever made. Certainly that has been the trend for most of the recent superhero movies. All of this "we want to focus on the man behind the mask," again with the implied but usually unspoken clause "for a change." Pathetic. The only valid reason they would do this nonsense is to save money and to attract women. The more screen time given to a pretty-boy's unmasked face, the more teenybopper girls are going to pay to see the movie. Feh!

I know.

Like we need even more focus on Peter after the last two movies.And they only had one villain in them.

How the hell is Harry,Sandman and whoever Topher is playing going to get adequate screen time???

I'm sick of the Peter/MJ stuff 😠

Originally posted by Doc Ock
I know.

Like we need even more focus on Peter after the last two movies.And they only had one villain in them.

How the hell is Harry,Sandman and whoever Topher is playing going to get adequate screen time???

I'm sick of the Peter/MJ stuff 😠

I think everyone is sick of the Parker/Watson chase by now. Who cares if the Dawson's Creek part of the movie draws in more of a female audience, its the third film, go out with a bang like Episode III did.

Amen. Now Logan, I understand what you're getting at, more superhero screen time instead of the 'man behind the mask' as you say. Are you implying that you don't want that in SM3 or in any comic book movie. Because, on a certain level, it's REQUIRED that the man behind the mask get a chunk of screen time. Now Superman, what's there to do? If they focus more on Clark Kent than Superman kicking someone's ass, then people are going to get board. However, there are such instances where getting to know the man behind the mask; the break in action, if you will; was very intriguing. Episode II is an example of that. Even when there was the mushy gushy Anakin/Padme stuff, it was still intriguing and appealing. I'm not saying EVERY comic book movie should focus more on the normal guy instead of the superhero, but sometimes it's good to have things like that. You just have to know how to pull something like that off.

BTW I'm am now a year older. My birthday was Monday. I was hoping for some info on this accursed movie when I came back, but alas!

Happy belated birthday Drache 🙂

If the bar was still open,I'd buy you a drink 😉