Friday, July 02, 2010

How old is Spider-Man, again?

(FYI, I'm doing this from Dallas right now - at the ScrewAttack Gaming Convention, which is pretty damn awesome so far.)

Anyway, the most frequent reaction people are having to yesterday's casting of Andrew Garfield as the new Spider-Man is how old he is - he's 27 - compared to everyone else they were looking at to play what was supposed to be a high-school aged version of the character?

Well, you might want to hold your horses: In his writeup of the story, HitFix's Drew McWeeny (
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/breaking-sony-pictures-announces-andrew-garfield-for-spider-man) drops some information that's certainly news to me (if, in fact, it's news at all.)

Sez Drew: "What we're hearing now though is that Parker starts the series as a college student, and that makes more sense with this casting."


So... College-age would mean... the same as the previous movies, just with new actors and an indie rom-com helmer standing in for Sam Raimi? Or is it still "Twilight" with Spider-Man characters? I'm having trouble deciding which bad idea I hate more...

"Spider-Man: The Quest to Retain Movie-Rights" is scheduled to suck in 3D on July 3rd, 2012.

17 comments:

Rubbav1 said...

I... I actually have nothing to say. I'm usually optimistic about these things but... no.

No, no, no, I sorry I'm going to stand with you and plant my cynical flag in the dirt. After all, I can't possibly see how this can be good. I just... I mean...god...

Joe. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leoja92 said...

It just gets worse and worse.

Guy said...

Holy crap, this'll be just like those two movies with John Wayne: Rio Bravo and El Dorado; essentially the same movies, just with different actors and kind of different scenes here and there.

Only this one's going to suck. Have they even said who the villain's going to be yet?

BFG said...

Crap.

Anonymous said...

I've been a huge Spider-man fan for most of my life, but I can't muster up any feelings at all towards this movie. Maybe because it's not a part of the whole Marvels Studio line of films, but at this point this movie can only surprise me, which may very well happen when I've set the bar so low for myself.

In other news, the current comics have been astonishing great (the 'Shed' and 'Grim Hunt' storylines in particular) and this is coming from someone who flat dropped the series for over 2 years because of that... unpleasantness involving certain vows and a demon. Seriously Bob, I don't know if you follow the comics but it's helping me cope with what Sony is doing to Spider-man.

BFG said...

If you love Spider-man, chase down a copy of GitCorp's DVD scans of the Amazing Spider-man. They partnered up with Marvel to scan a crap ton of their series, all the way back to issue 1. I've got mine, and between that and Marvel's online comic scans, I'm golden.

Derek said...

Wow in Dallas huh? I live in Dallas so that is pretty cool, hope you like it here. I just watched your piece on the Last Airbender and the little bit you had about Ang Lee's Hulk was interesting. If this movie is anything like that I would love to see it. I for one was astonished that Marvel didn't just build off of the original Hulk with Eric Bana (he actually looks like Bruce Banner) and the other actors because I felt the movie was well cast. Sam Elliot as the General also was way better than the other guy IMO, not to mention Ed Norton totally mailed in his performance; was it me or did I see some disgust in his face that he had stooped to a comic book film? The nerve......in short I loved the Hulk much more than the dumbed down "Incredible" version

By the way I totally agree with this post about Spider-Man, why are they drawing this out? Either bury this for another generation to discover with their own movies or at least keep the original actors, sheesh!

Moshi said...

Andrew Garfield is one of my absolute favourite actors (seen Boy A? If not, GO FUCKING SEE IT) and it fucking pains me to see him cast in tripe like this.

God damn

Dav3 said...

I agree with Derek. Ang Lee's Hulk was much better than people give it credit for. What was good about "Hulk" was far better than what was good about "Incredible". The problem is that what was bad about "Hulk" was also far worse than what was bad about "Incredible", and niether one's good outweighed it's bad.

Still, "Hulk" is the only movie that has really looked like a living comic book. The framing, the colors, the multi-paneled visuals, etc. It also did a much better job exploring the possiblities of a creature that gets stronger the more you fight it.

The Leterrier version was just too ordinary to be really great.

Anonymous said...

@Dav3

You mean that stupid panel design that Lee also used in 'Taking Woodstock'? I guess you could like that if you're going to be all purist about it but I just found the editing annoying. I would also said that there is a difference between a comicbook adaption and superhero adaption. Whereas in 'Watchmen' you could understand the style where in Hulk you're just taking the hero so who cares about the style. People care more about the character being consistence.

Taylor said...

I wonder if anyone is ever going to make a superhero franchise native to film.

Like, an actually new one...like even bring Stan Lee or Robert Kirkman onto the project if you want, but like make an all new hero.

Wouldn't that be awesome? You wouldn't have to worry about how to awkwardly translate the canon into a hour and a half movie, you wouldn't have to worry about ticking checkboxes of what fans expect, and you could tell an interesting story on film.

Who knows, comic book fans might break form and actually get excited about and hype up an interesting new property instead of just focusing on how preview stills match up to trivia archives.

Elton said...

Hi Bob, Well, I know this is not the bast place and neither the best time, but I would love to see, in a post here or in the ScrewAttack site, the list of authors and movies you had putted in GOverthinking 33.
I saw it 3 times already. I like your points and I really want to read some of that books (Atlas shrugged and Ringworld are on my list)
But hey, I can tell you something? Try a bit of more foreign literature, Machado de Assis, Saramago, Jorge Amado, and much other guys from America(continent) and other places. I am opening my mind a bit these days. Thank you.
Oh, it´s Elton B. M. from Brazil.

BFG said...

For the love of all that is worth your sanity, stay away from Ayn Rand. Far, far away. Ayn Rand is to philosophy, politics and social change as Ron L Hubbard is to religion.

Read Aristotle, read Nietzsche, read the Salem Witch Trials, then watch some hentai rape scenes, and then watch the very last episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion and you'll have Ayn Rand in a nutshell.

Taylor said...

Hmm...you're more extreme toward Ayn Rand than I am. I just thought she kind of sucked as a writer.

If you want objectivism put by a good writer, read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.

Adam M said...

Andrew Garfield is a quality actor (with a baby face) so i think he can be a pretty convincing high-schooler. Whether the film will be any good or not is an entirely different matter.

Claudiu said...

Bob, you're extremely inconsistent in your opinions. One moment you embrace change, the other you wouldn't give it a shot to save your life. I personally find you more and more entertaining rather than informing nowadays (may be because I seem to have different tastes than you).

I've read your opinions on this new Spider-man franchise for a while now, and I can say 'Hubub!' to that. Let's see the first trailers, and let's see some more information on the real project, rather than build a shrine to the last director and be firmly convinced there can be no better. After all, no one can erase that monster that was 'Spider-Man 3'.