24 Frames

Movies: Past, present and future

« Previous | 24 Frames Home | Next »

'Spider-Man' finds its new Peter Parker: Andrew Garfield

July 1, 2010 |  5:10 pm

Garf
Sony Pictures has found its new Peter Parker: British heartthrob Andrew Garfield.

The studio announced Thursday afternoon that it had cast the 26-year-old star of the upcoming "Never Let Me Go" and "The Social Network" in one of the most closely scrutinized casting decisions in recent Hollywood history. Garfield also starred in "Lions for Lambs," "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" and the acclaimed British miniseries "Red Riding."

The fourth film in the series is planned to be a "Spider-Man" origin story that Sony earlier in the year said would focus on "a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises."

Sony, worried that a fourth film with original director Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire would be too costly, decided to scale back and reboot the series. The studio hired Marc Webb, the director of "(500) Days of Summer," to helm the project. It is due in theaters July 12, 2012.

"From the first time we saw him in the upcoming film 'The Social Network,' to his glorious screen test, which floored all of us, we knew that we had found our new Peter Parker,” Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures, said in a statement.

Among those said to be considered for the part were Josh Hutcherson ("The Kids are All Right"), Aaron Johnson ("Kick-Ass"), Anton Yelchin ("Star Trek") and Jamie Bell ("Billy Elliot").

-- John Horn

Photo: Andre Garfield in "Boy A." Credit: The Weinstein Company


Clicking on Green Links will take you to a third-party e-commerce site. These sites are not operated by the Los Angeles Times. The Times Editorial staff is not involved in any way with Green Links or with these third-party sites.

 
Comments () | Archives (40)

The comments to this entry are closed.

WOOHOOO!!!! I'm a big Spidey fan. I loved Raimi's Spidey 2. Spidey 3 becomes pretty good after you see it a couple times on Blu-Ray. It has a lot of heart. After 3 though I doubt many people wanted to see where the character would be taken. I totally respect Raimi for sticking up for his beliefs though.

I think Marc Webb should be given a chance. He did an excellent job on Days of Summer. I'm confident that he has what it takes to do the character drama aspect justice. If he fails then please Sony relinquish your rights to Spidey.

I'm looking at Garfield and immediately I'm liking him more than Tobey. I like him a lot more than the other candidates. I think Maguire pulled off nerdy well but he never came across as a smart-ass. Here's hoping Garfield has that in him.

Good God!! A 26 year-old playing a teenager? Aren't there enough 18-year-old actors who could realistically play a teen? This is as absurd as a 1930's movie I saw on TCM--"Saturday's Heroes," about a team of college football players who were portrayed by actors in their late 30's.

Have you seen Grease?

Stockard Channing was 36 when she played a teenager in that film.

Frankly, this guy was the only actor I could not stand in 'Parnassus'.

Terrible choice. He wasn't even in my top 3! I've seen him in Lions for Lambs and the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus and although he's a fine actor I just don't see him being Spider-Man. He might be fine as Peter Parker, although he's 27 and will be playing a high schooler, but i don't think he'll fit as Spider-Man, which is the role you have to cast for the franchise. That was the problem with Tobey, he could be Peter-Parker but never lived up as Spidey. Logan Lerman should have gotten this role, he was age appropriate and from his past films I saw a lot of characteristics of both Peter Parker and Spider-Man. This movie just lost the little promise it had.

Hey Gill watch "A Touch Of Evil" Charlton Heston plays a Mexican! Seriously!

As the previous poster said, a 26 year old? He'll be 27 by the time they start a new movie and 30 when they start a sequel.

No disrespect meant for the actor but it's not rocket science to think this guy might be a little too old for the role of a nerdy teenager.

I would have preferred the let Sam Raimi wrap up his vision for spiderman and then let the franchise sit for a couple of years before attempting a re-boot.

His work in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus gives me confidence in his ability, but I still can't help but view this whole project as flawed on the conceptual and creative fronts. I can't imagine a reboot of a film franchise less than a decade old bearing golden fruit.

I still don't see why they can't just carry on and do spider-man 4 instead of a stupid origin story. Count me out. Bring back Raimi.

Don't you mean Chekov? You listed his real name as the character he played in Star Trek.

Yes, and Stockard Channing looked like a 36 year old in high school!

This film might be amazing, but the reason for the reboot is that Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire will cost too much? The Spiderman Trilogy with Raimi and Tobey grossed near enough 2 and a half billion throughout the three films - if something's not broke don't fix it. Just getting a little greedy are Sony.

I've never like the movies. Toby Maguire is too much of a fink to play Spider Man.

i kinda like the old peter parker better than that freak.

it's a little early for a reboot

Disappointing. A proven actor would of been nice don't you think? Marvel if you're gonna reboot a superhero franchise you've gotta do it right, think big, get an established cast and the right look. That's why DC are better than you. But go for it release your cliche filled crap setting up your box office hit but most defiantly panned critically Avengers, and let DC slyly release Batman 3 and The Man Of Steel or do something about it and get a good lead.

I have the first three Spiderman movies in my collection. I am quite satisfied with these. I will be jumping ship from here.

He's a fine choice.
It's the whole "reboot" idea for a film series that's only three films deep.
Better to simply pretend Spider Man is eternally a teen than keep regurgitating the same "origins" angle. Do we really need to see another "pilot" episode for this series?
I think we all get it.
So many, many great stories yet to tell, why spend the time and money on another origins film? Is Rami's original really that outdated? Can it honestly be done that much better? Ultimately a lot of the attention for this film is going to be on comparing Rami's version to this other guys.
Is that what they (the Studio) wants?

"Sony, worried that a fourth film with original director Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire would be too costly, decided to scale back and reboot the series. The studio hired Marc Webb, the director of "(500) Days of Summer," to helm the project."

It should have said: "Sony, wanting to save money, plans on destroying a franchise that made them a boatload of money by replacing Sam Raimi with a director that last made a relationship movie and Tobey Maguire with an actor that not many have heard of. This combination should produce a movie at the level of Batman and Robin (the movie that destroyed the Batman franchise for a decade) "

Ummmmm....didn't we already cover the origin of Spider-Man on film?

James Bond by Marc Forster.
Spiderman by Marc Webb.

What's next, The Punisher reboot by Wes Anderson?

The guy looks young enough to play 18, but I agree he might be getting a little stale by the time they shoot a sequel. And the real reason they decided to reboot the franchise? They saw the money and excitement generated by the "Twilight" movies (think teenage girls screaming and spending money) and realized that if they wanted to capture that young audience, they needed a young heartthrob with superpowers. Aka Spider-Man/Peter Parker. And because Robert Pattinson was busy being a vampire, they got another handsome, young, Brit to make the girls scream.

You know, Sam Raimi did a great job overall...really enjoyed the first two movies. But, why didn't they match the REAL, original Spidey story more...that would have likely kept them on track more. In particular, Sam should have brought the Gwen character in early, in school, and Mary Jane could have been a supporting role until episode 2 or 3, when Gwen was killed by the Goblin. Sony and Sam should have been thinking "This is a Jame Bond-ish type franchise...let's set ourselves up for the long haul.".

Let's see if they inject Gwen into this re-boot. Remember, she wasn't Peter's squeeze for some time, then they became a hot item, then after quite a while, Gwen was killed by Goblin/Norm Stacey, and Harry went off the deep-end, and then Mary Jane and Peter hooked up. Keep the story simple, keep the number of villains down to 2/episode AT MOST (one is preferable, I think), and let's give the Bond series a run for the money.

Won't see it. Sounds like teen-drama Spidey; wasn't the Twilight series enough?

Have you guys ever seen A Clockwork Orange? They got a man in his late thirties to play a 14 year old. Still a masterpeice though.

 
1 2 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video







Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: