Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I always thought that Toby was the better Peter Parker and that Garfield was the better Spider-Man.

 d-usa wrote:
I always thought that Toby was the better Peter Parker and that Garfield was the better Spider-Man.

I'd agree. I still like Andrew Garfield, I just think Toby Maguire did a better job of playing Peter Parker.

I love the first, the second on made Jr sad because it is well acted, but a horrible screenplay

Grant Gustin for Spidey?

Any issues with have one actor play a DC/Marvel Superhero?

 whembly wrote:
Grant Gustin for Spidey?

Any issues with have one actor play a DC/Marvel Superhero?

The bigger question is why you'd think in such limited terms for casting that role.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Slightly off topic....Marvel ticked me off when they canceled the cartoon Avengers Earths Mightiest Heroes to parallel the movie with the absolutely horrible Avengers Assemble

You are not alone.

I wonder if they'll bring back Kirsten Dunst, cause, that scene in the rain.

It made your Spidey Sense tingle?

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Slightly off topic....Marvel ticked me off when they canceled the cartoon Avengers Earths Mightiest Heroes to parallel the movie with the absolutely horrible Avengers Assemble

Eugh, I second this. Tried a couple of times, but I just can't get through an entire episode.

I also take issue with the new 'Ultimate (I think?) Spiderman' cartoon. Replacing 'Spectacular Spiderman' with that dreck made me deeply unhappy. I don't trust Marvel with cartoons atm (which is wierd because Disney is doing some great things atm). Hell, are there any good superhero cartoon series right now? Any at all?

(also missing Young Justice)

This is all around good news

Marvel now has more say in the movies themselves, spidey in the MCU, and no more Amazing Hipster Man.

I think overall it'll be pretty easy to shift the current spider man into the MCU. Seems like the two movies have taken place in about a year in universe time. More than enough time for a new kid to start to show up around the city. And with Shield down no one is there to "recruit" or bring him in and everyone is way busier dealing with bigger threats.

Add in that Garfield would look pretty perfect with the current crop of super humans (because he'd look appropriately weedy) and I think it works. I'm also slightly justifying not rebooting and keeping Garfield around. The flaws in the Amazing Spiderman movies (though few to me) were not his acting or his portrayal of Spiderman.

Wow, this is big news. Did not see it coming.

Garfield's done, and Sony/Marvel need to start afresh if they want this to work.

On one hand, I won'r believe that until I see an official announcement (largely because I don't want to).

On the other, if it is true, then that has pretty much caused my interest in this news to pull a 180 degree switch. If what was the good news that two of my favourite film franchises were going to cross over/merge has become the news that one of them is essnentially being axed (or at the least, had its lead recast), then I shall be mightily pissed off.

 Paradigm wrote:
On one hand, I won'r believe that until I see an official announcement (largely because I don't want to).

I imagine someone has already posted it but just so you feel more confident Marvel themselves posted that it was official yesterday.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
On one hand, I won'r believe that until I see an official announcement (largely because I don't want to).

I imagine someone has already posted it but just so you feel more confident Marvel themselves posted that it was official yesterday.

He means the link about Garfield no long being Spidey.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Garfield's done, and Sony/Marvel need to start afresh if they want this to work.

Too bad, while I wasn't a huge fan of Garfield I thought he was OK.

Here comes another origin story and reboot for Spidey!

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
On one hand, I won'r believe that until I see an official announcement (largely because I don't want to).

I imagine someone has already posted it but just so you feel more confident Marvel themselves posted that it was official yesterday.

He means the link about Garfield no long being Spidey.

Indeed. Like I have said, I'm very pleased the MCU will be getting a Spiderman, but dramatically less so if that means killing/recasting the current franchise.

Is there any surprise that Garfield's out? Marvel Studios is all about control. They'll want *their* actor to play *their* Spider-Man, which will be much more 'faithful' to *their* comics. Even if it really isn't.

Of course, another recast starts to turn the role into what Batman became during the '90s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Garfield's done, and Sony/Marvel need to start afresh if they want this to work.

Too bad, while I wasn't a huge fan of Garfield I thought he was OK.

Here comes another origin story and reboot for Spidey!

On the bright side, at least we get to see Uncle Ben die again.

That old coot always creeped me out.

Or they doing like JL and just have a new guy as part of the team, no origins story.

Who all doesn't have their own origin story right now? Black Widow, Nighthawk, and Hulk?

I guess Hulk technically had the old movies, but the same could be done with Spidey: acknowledge that people already know where he came from and let them watch the old movies if they want to.

 d-usa wrote:
Who all doesn't have their own origin story right now? Black Widow, Nighthawk, and Hulk?

I guess Hulk technically had the old movies, but the same could be done with Spidey: acknowledge that people already know where he came from and let them watch the old movies if they want to.

It's been a while since I've been able to bring myself to watch it, but I believe Widow had some backstory done in Iron Man 2, and I'm pretty sure the pre-Avengers Hulk film coverd his origin at least briefly. Hawkeye has nothing, but how much backstory does 'man who is good with bow' need? (Ok, doing by Arrow, a lot, but that's beside the point)

If they are in fact scrapping Garfield and the ASM series, I would honestly rather them go with one of the other Spidermen there have been. The Mosely guy from Ultimates springs to mind, and I'm sure there have been others over the years.This a) avoids the 'another reboot' problem (even if they don't cover the origin in much detail, it will still be a reboot) and b) will stop people drawing comparisons between the new guy and Garfield. Because frankly, the new guy woud have to be bloody good for that comparison to go in his favour.

 gorgon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Garfield's done, and Sony/Marvel need to start afresh if they want this to work.

Too bad, while I wasn't a huge fan of Garfield I thought he was OK.

Here comes another origin story and reboot for Spidey!

On the bright side, at least we get to see Uncle Ben die again.

That old coot always creeped me out.

Marvel are against origin movies now. Even in phase 1 Hulk didn't get one, because everyone already knows how he became the Hulk. Just like everyone already knows that Peter got bitten by a radioactive spider and instead of getting cancer or dying from poison, he got super powers. Look at some of their newer properties - Guardians didn't have origin stories for the team members. The most we got was Quills intro which was simply to explain how an Earth child wound up on the other side of the galaxy with a bunch of mercenaries. Ant Man won't be an origin story - Hank Pym is an old and retired Ant Man, and the movie will be a 'legacy' movie where he passes the torch. Even the series for Netflix seem to be skipping the origin stories.

It's also been hinted at in the movies so far that SHIELD knew about a lot of heroes in the world already. The Avengers were just the guys Fury personally wanted in his 'response team'. If they reboot Spiderman again, guaranteed he'll show up in Civil War as if he was already there. As someone said, swing into a scene beside some other hero like Cap or Stark and just start kicking ass.

Ya, definitely do not do another Spider-Man origin story. The world can not handle seeing that story again and I'm sure Marvel knows that.

 gorgon wrote:
Is there any surprise that Garfield's out? Marvel Studios is all about control.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Look where this, as Nick Fury would put it, "overabundance of control" has got us. Besides, the articles said that Sony retains creative control for their movies.

 gorgon wrote:
Of course, another recast starts to turn the role into what Batman became during the '90s.

Widly different situation there.

 Ouze wrote:
Here comes another origin story and reboot for Spidey!

If Sony wants to do that, sure, but Marvel won't bother telling Spidey's origin. They're slotting him into Civil War, a film that is already the third Captain America film and has Stark and has to intro Black Panther as well.

 Paradigm wrote:
I guess Hulk technically had the old movies, but the same could be done with Spidey: acknowledge that people already know where he came from and let them watch the old movies if they want to.

Hulk's origin was told over the opening titles of The Incredible Hulk, in a montage. Spids can have the same thing.

 Paradigm wrote:
If they are in fact scrapping Garfield and the ASM series, I would honestly rather them go with one of the other Spidermen there have been. The Mosely guy from Ultimates springs to mind, and I'm sure there have been others over the years.This a) avoids the 'another reboot' problem (even if they don't cover the origin in much detail, it will still be a reboot) and b) will stop people drawing comparisons between the new guy and Garfield. Because frankly, the new guy woud have to be bloody good for that comparison to go in his favour.

I personally want Miles Morales (and not just because Donald Glover should play him) but they've said it's Peter Parker.

I was never a fan of Garfield, so I'm ok with this

Considering what he did at Comic Con, make Daniel Radcliffe Peter, hes got the build and the looks for it

I was of 2 minds about Garfield. Sure, some of his scenes were good but a lot of his 'nervous ticks' and things made me think he was more of a recovering drug addict than anything else.

 Compel wrote:
I was of 2 minds about Garfield. Sure, some of his scenes were good but a lot of his 'nervous ticks' and things made me think he was more of a recovering drug addict than anything else.

Funny enough, that was why I liked his portrayal so much. He was deliberately far from word-perfect with the lines, so actually sounded human and fallible, without going to Shia LaBoef levels of stammering, stuttering or repeating every third word.

Better some ticks and infletion than just reading lines from a script, especially for a character like Parker who is famed for being easy-going, wisecracking, and making it up as he goes along. The best example being the scene where May asks about his soot-covered face

"I was cleaning the chimney."

"We don't have a chimney."

"Whaaaaat?" *Pulls face that says 'then where they hell have I been for the last few hours?"*

This is Donald Glover's big chance. He can do it, and turn Spiderman into the questionably competent comic relief he should be next to the veteran world savers of the Avengers!

We live in hope Gitzbitah. We live in hope.