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

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.

Yes, David - Charlton Heston DOES play a Mexican in "Touch of Evil" - and he does it well. Because he's Charlton Heston, and he was one of America's greatest actors.

The age of the actor is sort of a mute point to me... chances are he'll pull it off (take the puffy hair away, and he actually looks a bit like the ol' Peter Parker). I just hope they don't bastardize the original story too much, which puts them on some course they can't continue. That's what happened to the other series...all of a sudden 'bang', Mary Jane and Peter are hooked up seriously, and then Goblin and her find out Peter's identity. You've painted yourself in a corner. Thank God they went of a reboot instead of bringing along little baby Peter Jr. (like that other corrupted movie script).

But, in the end, it's all about immediate returns on the dollar. I'm starting to think that had just as much to do with the reboot than the script failing, i.e. having to pay Raimi and returning actors too much money so that (Heavens To Betsy!!!!) they only make 0.75 Gadzillion Dollars profit.

For a Spiderman "reboot".
Or that we have start back in High school, again.
I invested alot with Toby, Sam etc, if the next movie doesn't include them
I'm out. Done. Finished.


There are so many other avenues they could have taken. Why not allow Spidey to grow up a little? Is a run-in with Punisher out of the question? What about Daredevil? The beloved cross-over works in comics & while they don't always work with movie characters (Jason vs. Freddy & Alien vs. Predator), comic books are already scripted, plotted & story-boarded. A Marvel team-up needs to happen. Screw the re-boot!

*yawn* Now speculation can begin on whether this will turn out to be plain horrid like the Twilight films, or painfully average like most of the films releasing this Summer. No personal offense to Marc Webb(whose name is perfect for a Spider-Man film) or Andrew Garfield but the quickest way to ruin any excitement over a Spider-Man based film for me is by claiming it will be a reboot origin story. Love it or Hate it Spider-Man 3 did not diminish the quality of the first two films so completely resetting the film franchise is extremely unnecessary, and insulting. Sadly I've had to give up on my hoping that Venom(not Topher Grace's Venom), and Carnage would see their day on screen since they are apparently going with the Ultimates incarnation.Ultimate Venom and Carnage are straight pathetic in comparison to the true incarnations.

Very Disappointing-I had trouble with spiderman 3, but recently saw it again, and enjoyed it. I can watch 1 & 2 over and over again, and excited that my son is now getting into the movies! I feel this is a GREAT MISTAKE, and from what I've read, it's about Sony's greed and the all mighty dollar! I guess 2.5 Billion was not enough! Spiderman is, and has been the greatest super hero franchise created in Hollywood! No other franchise, in my opinion is worth watching except for Batman, Ironman & Hellboy! I like some of the other super hero movies, but they just don't call me back again, and again, and again!! Maybe they'll make it like the new superman, and destroy what's left of the spiderman franchise!! Stupid executives, always thinking with there wallets!!! I Won't See It! I can't sit there and go through what they did to superman!!

Stupid decision by Sony to go back and redo Spider-man again. Yawn. Also, the kid from Kick-@ss would have been FAR better than some pretentious British moron. Another dumb decision.

This movie will fall totally flat...it's an easy and sensible prediction in fact.

At first I thought this was going to be some teeny B.S. reboot with zero substance or character...but this guy doesn't seem like the "cute" teen actor they would cast...which gives me a tad more hope. He has genuine acting skill and he could bring a more grounded Spider-man to life (I liked the first two Raimi movies...but they were still a little too cutesy.)

Even though I would have prefer Tobey Maguire, I think Andrew Garfield is a good choice. He is talented: he was good in "Boy A" and endearing in "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"
Spiderman is growing up, the actor has to be older so I don't think Andrew Garfield is too old for the role.

First of all, I liked all three movies..despite some of the goofiness of the third film.. Tobey Maguire is the perfect Peter Parker. And as far as cost.. like its been said, after grossing billions...shut up about the cost!

Part of good brand recognition is knowing how to stay consistant and knowing when NOT to mess with your product. Apparently Marvel has forgotten that particular business lesson.

I agree its WAAAAAAAY to soon for an origin reboot. If I were going to say that there is one reason to replace Maguire, its if you wanted to go the other way and show an older and more confident Peter Parker/Spiderman who's been in the game for years.. Cut the teen bull crap. It might bring money in, but its still an inferior product.

If the next Spiderman movie is teeny and another origin story, I'll just skip it.. I'm sure whatever the next worst movie out at the time is will be much more worthy of earning my money.

I agree with sam, i look at him and see instantly likeable, that said i was hoping for bell( he should play human torch tho). Great diractor and the entire film in high school is a big plus. pumped for this movie now

Doesn't matter who plays Spidey... this reboot idea is just... just... ugh... I hate the fact the whole entertainment industry is trapped by this whole idea of monkey-see-monkey-do and they think that just 'cuz the Batman reboot was a success this will be too. They even went and got themselves a hip new director like Batman did. However if anyone saw "Memento" then you would know Nolan was perfect for Batman. As someone else pointed out with Marc Webb at the helm we'll end up with Spider-Man by way of Twilight. And, now, a British heart-throb is playing Spider-Man and, not to sound pedantic or anything, Spidey is an American icon (I would have rather seen Donald Glover play the part than a brit). Yeah... definitely getting a "Batman and Robin" vibe from this whole catastrophe.

I don't know what I'm more sick and tired of (coming out of Hollywood) lately...'pre-quels' or re-casting well-known movie characters with different faces, with the 'assumption' that movie-fans will simply 'accept' the newest actor/actress in the part. Case in point: why even bother re-booting the 'Superman' movies with a new face, when Christopher Reeve did such an honorable job, even through the (horrible) 3rd and 4th sequel ? LEAVE THE SERIES ALONE, and move on to another project. Why risk destroying the existing fan-base ?

What's next, a 'Bladerunner' pre-quel ? gimme a break already...time to step-up and hold-tight to the ever-shrinking budjets, until you get some actual TALENT and ORIGINAL IDEAS coming out from the vast pool of writers out there.

Instead of relying on QUANTITY of movies hitting the theatres (in a superficial, 'vain' attempt at raking in the profits) let's re-structure the business by going back to time-honored movie-making history, and focus more on QUALITY of movies...

...I can almost gaurantee, if we had a return to true 'epic' films that take 4-5 yrs to put together, and only released 5 or 6 a year (as opposed to 20-30 a year) you would see an across-the-board increase in profits.

Bottom line: avoid the 'junk' projects, and go back to quality films that MEAN something.

Who CARES what the teen-base wants to see ? they've got Nickelodean and Cartoon Network to fall back on.

Give the ADULTS what they (we) want, and you'll make more money in the end, and you can use that money to make even BETTER films, and get back the 'prestige' that Hollywood once had.

Here's another idea: In 'I am Legend', Will Smith's character jogged past a movie-marquis sign which showed a bloody 'Superman-S' insignia, super-imposed over the Batman insignia...and since that day, not a word has been mentioned about what it meant, or if anything was actually being planned, based on such a 'unique' idea (or 'teaser' if ever there was one) for a movie.

There ya go Hollywood...make it happen.

I'll be first in line to see THAT kindof superhero movie...

I'm tired of plum acting assignments being handed over to UK players. An actor from the U.S. barely stands a chance performing in ANYTHING in London or Australia; here--because of being completely bewitched by that damn accent, automatically there's an association that the performer is: intelligent and talented!
We've got plenty of talent and promise right here in the U.S. Why not start casting some of our own?

« | 1 2


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...




Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: