Sony's rebooted 'Spider-Man': Who needs a star when you have Spider-Man

The Hollywood Reporter's Borys Kit has something of a scoop about the casting for Sony's new, rebooted "Spider-Man," saying that the studio and director Marc Webb have narrowed their search for the new Peter Parker to basically five possible candidates. But the real news is that unless you're an industry insider or a die-hard moviegoer, you probably haven't heard of most of the actors.

It should hardly be a surprise to discover that the lead role for one of the biggest franchises in Hollywood will probably go to a total unknown. In today's film business, if you have a gigantic tent-pole film, it's the film that's the star, not the actor, which is one of the many reasons why talent agents look so glum these days. Outside of seven or eight instantly bankable, gold-plated movie openers (starting with Johnny Depp, Will Smith, Robert Downey Jr. and Adam Sandler, and going downhill fast from there), the star system is in steep decline. 

If you're going to make a summer tent-pole like "Spider-Man," you're spending the majority of your money on 1,500 special-effects shots, not the guy on screen who does the web-slinging. It's why, when J.J. Abrams rebooted "Star Trek," he went with Chris Pine in the lead, who to this day is probably not as well known as Abrams himself. In fact, at least for franchise films, the casting process seems to have far more in common with assembling a cast for a TV show. If you have a strong concept, you don't need a big star, simply an actor who'll best fit the concept. If they're a really great fit, then they become a star.

It's already about to happen with CBS' "The Big Bang Theory," the hit comedy about a bunch of hilariously nerdy Cal Tech physicists. CBS cast total unknowns in the lead roles, but now that the show's a rating's winner, Jim Parsons, the gangly actor who plays the insufferably brilliant Sheldon Cooper, is already busy getting auditions for every hot new Hollywood comedy, because filmmakers can see that he's a budding Steve Carell in the making.    

Maybe the same thing will happen on the big screen for the new star of "Spider-Man." According to the blog post from the Reporter, the only vaguely recognizable actor being considered is Jamie Bell, the young British actor who made a splash years ago in "Billy Elliot" but hasn't had any similarly broad exposure since. The other candidates include Alden Ehrenreich (who's best known -- and I'm not making this up -- for being spotted by Steven Spielberg in a bat mitzvah comedy video); Frank Dillane, who had a small part in "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"; Andrew Garfield, who's worked in British TV; and Josh Hutcherson, who was in "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and "Zathura."

Like I said, they're not household names. But that's the whole point. When you're revving up a new version of a storied franchise like "Spider-Man," the lesser known the actor is, the better. You want someone who won't be asking for any back-end money or complaining about having to agree to star in at least two sequels. Getting an acting gig in a Hollywood franchise is almost like signing on to a Disney TV series. There isn't a lot of fairy dust involved anymore. You're just another cog in the machine. 

Photo: Jamie Bell, right, with Devon Alan in the 2004 dramatic thriller "Undertow." Credit: Dale Robinette / United Artists

 

Comments

[grimgrum]

Andrew Garfield may be an unknown, but he's got two very good films where he can claim lead actor status. Boy A and Red Riding 1974 were both excellent films that go a long way to showcase his range and potential.

[LA Times Reader]

While I get the point of your article, it's another example of how wildly out of touch you are with the actual casting of things like TV shows.

Saying that the Big Bang Theory is populated by complete unknowns is just plain bad reporting - or stupidity, you take your pick. Kaley Cuoco was well-known from not one but TWO shows: 8 Simple Rules and Charmed. Johnny Galecki was on a little show called Roseanne for five seasons. While a lot of people outside of Hollywood may have forgotten that, you can be damn sure that the casting agents and producers convinced themselves that they were getting "name" talent when they signed them on. So, again, you prove my point that you know little about anything inside the daily workings of the town.

[je pressman]

How depressing is the news of a re-booted Spider Man ,well pretty depressing. Is this the same movie business responsible for grown-up movies like Amadeus,The Godfather, Ordinary People, L.A.Confidential,or Heat? The adult films seem to be fading out little by little.Right Goldstein,"Who needs a star when you have Spider Man?"

[wtf]

The description of the Spider Man reboot sounds suspiciously like Smallville to me. Then again, Raimi admits to loving Donner's Superman and Spider Man I had echoes of it. Are all the Spider Man films about ripping off Superman??

[jayMidtown]

In addition to the lead roles in the smaller films grimgrum cites, Garfield also had fairly substantial roles in The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus and Lions for Lambs. He's a rising actor for sure.

[Wooly Bully]

Patrick Goldstein has a point but besides asking "Who needs a star when you have Spider-Man", I think the bigger question this article begs to ask is do we need another Spider-Man movie?!

Just seems like another reason to stop going to the movies. Only after box office continues to plummet will studios get that audiences are clamoring for better movies, not this dreck.

[JDT]

Weird. If you said "They include the star of "the Bridge to Terabithia" and the teenaged "Voldemort" from the Harry Potter series, then two of your unknowns would not be unknown to the majority of family movie watchers. But then, your article wouldn't make sense? I see why you downplayed their actual achievements so as to make your article follow some predetermined idea.