More Sony/Marvel Fallout: Younger Spider-Man Reportedly Sought, Webb Also Out

[buckwhizzle]

I always thought that Avery Brooks from Deep Space 9 would have made the better Nick Fury.

[Dirge]

It's been said, but I'm really gonna miss Andrew Garfield. I thought he was really great. Me and my friends who all grew up reading the comics thought he was as close to perfect you could get.

[JaggedFel]

Just saying, this adorable kid actor visited Marvel today

https://twitter.com/mrbabyboogaloo

good setup for 2020.

[RobinFan4880]

Marvel gets the merchandising money from a much improved franchise and the ability to use Spidey in the Avengers films. Sony gets to hitch its ride to team winner. Sounds good.

If they do go teenage Spidey, they should go young, like a real teenager, not a 30 year old man pretending to be 18.

[Sighphi]

What's a much younger actor? Like, what does that mean in Hollywood? Cause in my head that means they are going to get a teenager. Some one that is 25 isnt much younger. I guess 20 counts.

[ghostwoman]

First off, if they go much younger, it should be Miles, or not at all. No more teenage Peter Parker. I am sick and tired of teenage peeter parker. If there is Parker, make him OLDER. In Civil War Parker was already established and older. There is nothing wrong with two spider guys in a film, and if they want to rework the Ultimate TV show storyline where the two spideys meet that would be cool. Hell even having Peter's daughter don the spidergirl suit would be cool. Secondly. I am sick and tired of origin stories for the most part. They are unnecessary at this point with regards to spiderman. Right now this seems awful, and Sony seems to be missing what they did wrong with the Amazing spiderman, and what they can do to improve. I am so sick and tired of the same thing over and over again here. Drop the younger Peter Parker, it's not the 1960s anymore. I want the spiders to be much more modern. If you are doing civil war do it right, if you are doing a modern spider man, do it right. Older...not younger, unless it is miles, unless it is spidergirl.

[Acecool]

[QUOTE=ghostwoman;931126]First off, if they go much younger, it should be Miles, or not at all. No more teenage Peter Parker. I am sick and tired of teenage peeter parker.

Did we ever really get a teenage Peter Parker, Really? Toby was pretending to be a teen for about 20 minutes in the first movie. Garfield was teenage Peter for ASM but did not really deal with teenage stuff. Gwen found out in like the first half of the movie he was spider-man so no stood up dates. He didn't barely make it to class because he was fighting Lizard in the streets. No bullys. No homework. No grades. No social pressures. It was barely backdrop.

The reason Spider-man was so popular in the first place was precisely because he was a teenager and had to juggle teenager stuff while maintaining his secret ID.

I agree that essentially there doesn't need to be an origin story except as exposition dropped in the plot or some flashbacks. Maybe we could have Stan Lee explain the origin of spider-man in a voice over during the first scenes of the movie like they did in the old comics.

[Coal Tiger]

What's a much younger actor? Like, what does that mean in Hollywood? Cause in my head that means they are going to get a teenager. Some one that is 25 isnt much younger. I guess 20 counts.

They'll cast a 20-25 year old. Someone who looks young, but they don't want to hire an actual teenager.

[Time Like Lightning]

Did we ever really get a teenage Peter Parker, Really? Toby was pretending to be a teen for about 20 minutes in the first movie. Garfield was teenage Peter for ASM but did not really deal with teenage stuff. Gwen found out in like the first half of the movie he was spider-man so no stood up dates. He didn't barely make it to class because he was fighting Lizard in the streets. No bullys. No homework. No grades. No social pressures. It was barely backdrop.

The reason Spider-man was so popular in the first place was precisely because he was a teenager and had to juggle teenager stuff while maintaining his secret ID.

But wasn't his popularity, for that reason (being a teen hero), stemming from the fact that he was filling a void? There weren't a ton of teen superhero comics out there? Nowadays teens with superpowers is a hugely common element in media, from TV to film to comics. The teen aspect of Spidey isn't as novel anymore.

Now, if the new Spidey is Miles, though... he WOULD be filling a void. Or at least contributing to doing so.

[juggalord]

They'll cast a 20-25 year old. Someone who looks young, but they don't want to hire an actual teenager.

Probably closer to the low end of that scale. If they're smart, they'll want somebody they can hang onto for as long as possible. Look at RDJ. Provided that he hangs on through til the end of Avengers 3, he would have been in the role for 11 years. Sony & Marvel need an actor who can grow into the role and make it theirs for the long haul. Fans become invested in this character/actor connection and the studio knows this. Look at Jackman. He's not the ideal for the part of Wolverine, but he's made it his own. By the time he hangs it up, which might well be after Wolverine 3, he will have been in the role for 17 years.

Given that an adult Spider-Man is supposed to be mid-20s, you don't want an actor who's closing in on 40 by the time the character reaches that 25y mark. You want an actor who's closer to 30 by then. I also think that, in the now, having a younger, more baby faced Peter Parker would be a nice contrast to the aging cast of Avengers, who now range from 30 to nearly 50. A younger Peter Parker would also give some of his quips and juvenile humor some authenticity.

[andersfurby]

Have they actually said he'll be in Civil War. So far it seems that's only speculation. Also, is that serious, Disney wanting to buy Sony?

Marvels announcement States he will appear in an MCU film before a solo one in 2017. Choices are Civil War or Doctor Strange. Civil War is the obvious choice

[juggalord]

Did we ever really get a teenage Peter Parker, Really?

Exactly! Peter was supposed to be 15 or so when he became Spider-Man. Respectively, Maguire and Garfield were 27 & 29 when they took on the role. I never once believed that these nearly 30 year old men were supposed to teenagers, even older college aged teens. It's ridiculous and stretches the believability factor.

Growing up, I had the same problem with the TV show "Beverly Hills 90210" and Gabrielle Carteris' character Andrea. The character was 16, but the actress was almost 30. For somebody who grew up in the 1980s, the casting in 90210 came as a huge shock to me. The older actors stood out like a sore thumb when compared to the then recently ended "Facts of Life." All of those actresses were actually teens playing teens when the show first started. In fact, the youngest (Tootie) was actually only 11 by the second season opener. Being younger actually lent a whole lot more weight to their storylines, such as they were. The same could also be said for shorter lived shows like "Square Pegs" or "Freaks & Geeks." Imagine if they had replaced the cast of the latter with actors 10 years older. It would have been silly.

I'm not saying that Sony/Marvel should cast an actual 15 year old for Spider-Man. The rigors of an action flick, not to mention the long hours, demand that they hire somebody at least 18. I'm just saying that, if they want a teenage Spider-Man, they need to hire somebody much closer to their teens, within legally acceptable limits. 18-22. That's it. Pull a Hugh Jackman by getting a relatively unknown actor, who (initially) comes cheap, and can grow into the role.

Going with a younger actor lets Sony/Marvel keep the character in high school for more than just 10 minutes. If they can keep him there for 2 movies, that'd be great. Mine that for as long as possible, especially the Flash/Peter and post-Ben dynamics.

The reason Spider-man was so popular in the first place was precisely because he was a teenager and had to juggle teenager stuff while maintaining his secret ID.

Totally. The first first few seasons of Buffy illustrate this exact concept. SMG was barely 19 in the pilot, not much older than the actual character. Watching her deal with the conflict between the usual teenage BS and her slayer life felt interesting. Casting an appropriately young actor made that teen stuff feel much more legit. Had they cast the much older 27 year old Charisma Carpenter in the Buffy role, it would've felt insincere.

Taking Spider-Man back to basics as a teenager introduces a level of angst not really seen in the MCU thus far. Guys like Iron Man, Cap, and (shockingly) even Hulk are pretty well adjusted in their roles as Earth's protectors. Spider-Man, as a teen, is supposed to be more awkward and unsure of himself. Part of the Spider-Man schtick is itself a metaphor for adolescence. Aging Spidey up distances the character from the metaphor. So, while I love the older, married Peter Parker, I completely understand the need for the teenaged one.

It's the same problem, imo, that the X-Men films had by jumping straight into a fully formed adult team of characters. The whole mutant thing is a metaphor; a set of metaphors, actually. Singer kept the socio-political metaphor alive, but ditched the one about adolescence and puberty. Ditching the teen angle... Ditching the manifestation angle.... Singer basically removed half of what made these characters resonate. Even if they didn't look like outcasts, the awkwardness of youth made them feel like ones. That, imo, is what made books like New Mutants and Generation X so potent.

Taking Peter Parker out of teen years so quickly doesn't really give us a chance to see how this awkward teen becomes a man. We don't get to fully appreciate how Ben's death hits him. The power & responsibility issue are tough enough on an adult Spider-Man. To the teen version, it must've been practically soul crushing. You're 100% right. As much as I loved the Raimi movies, we've never actually gotten a teenage Spider-Man and we're worse for it.

[Rahul]

Spider-Man is not really popular because he's a teen. Part of his appeal is his always acrobatic image, the red and blue scheme which is kid friendly and a very unique power set. He has a youthful appearance, but that has nothing to do with his age.

But for the MCU, I'd rather they go with a really young Spider-Man, or a a guy in his 30's, because the transitional age Spider-Man is already mined to death in the movies.

[Firebeam]

Oh great, yet ANOTHER origin story I'll have to sit through so they can introduce a new lead actor. I can't believe they're already rebooting the reboot. All 5 movies have been huge mega blockbusters, why do they need to keep changing it? I thought Tobey was excellent. Garfield was excellent too, why change?

Edit: It wasn't Garfield's fault ASM 2 wasn't good. It was just a boring story and poor editing. It just ran too long.

[MarvelMaster616]

I think this was inevitable. Amazing Spider-Man 2 just didn't excite anybody and Andrew Garfield did not capture the same nerdy spirit as Toby McGuire. For a movie that's going to dig deep into the MCU, it needs some fresh blood. I just hope they don't make Peter or Miles or whoever they use in the movie too young. Otherwise, conflicts like Civil War are just going to fly over their head.