Spider-Man actor and director announced

[Tellus Explorer]

I'm an easy mark, so he actually became my frontrunner when I saw him him flipping...because flipping.

I'll miss Andrew Garfield, though. I thought he was a great Spidey. To answer your question, Marvel struck a deal with Sony. Both studios can use the character, though Sony is producing the solo films. Because of the new deal, Sony is axing the prior franchise, which means no more Andrew.

Yeah the guy above my post answered me pretty much, and then I Googled it :p

Though I agree, I thought Garfield was a pretty good spiderman too....

TBF I thought he was better than Maguire... Never was a fan of his acting.... Or his face.

The first Spidey movie he did was great, but the others sucked imo

[Rhom]

Yeah the guy above my post answered me pretty much, and then I Googled it :P

Though I agree, I thought Garfield was a pretty good spiderman too....

TBF I thought he was better than Maguire... Never was a fan of his acting.... Or his face.

The first Spidey movie he did was great, but the others sucked imo

I agree. Garfield nailed the awkward teen with the weight of the world on his shoulders. Having watched the Tobey Spidey movies last week as well, I just didn't feel like he connected with the role.

[Kyoshi]

It isn't an origin story, they've said they aren't doing that.

http://screenrant.com/spider-man-marvel-cinematic-universe-origin-story/

It was a total reboot. They used different characters (to a degree) from Spideys rogues gallery just to differentiate them slightly. The love interest in The Tobey Maguire films was Mary Jane Watson, in Garfields films it was Gwen Stacy (played to perfection by Emma Stone.)

Spider-man - 2002 - Green Goblin (Norman Osborne)

Spider-man 2 - 2004 - Doctor Octopus

Spider-man 3 - 2007 - Sandman, Green/NewGoblin (Harry Osborne,) Venom

3 was an awful waste of characters, the studio pretty much forced Venom on them and it pretty much killed the franchise.

Spider-man 4 - never got off the ground. Was officially cancelled January 2010.

Reboot

They began production of tASM in December 2010 within a year of cancelling SM4.

The Amazing Spider-Man - 2012 - Lizard. The Gentleman had a brief scene at the end.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - 2014 - Electro, Green Goblin (Harry Osborne.) Rhino was in a scene at the end, Felicia Hardy appeared but not in her Black Cat form. The Gentleman again appeared. And they were heavily setting up a sinister Six film.

Spider-Man is a very valuable franchise, and Sony need to make films with a certain regularity to retain the rights. tASM2 was not received well, again it suffered from studio meddling like SM3. So Sony struck a deal to get a bit of Marvel studios success, and in exchange Marvel get one of their biggest characters back (and his villains, Norman Osborne is integral to a number of comic storylines.) So yes it's a bit ridiculous we're constantly rebooting but Spider-Man is a character who's probably worth it. Sony will be hoping for a bit of stability, they had hired people to write a Spider-Man 6!

Thanks a lot. That clears it up for me.

[Tellus Explorer]

I agree. Garfield nailed the awkward teen with the weight of the world on his shoulders. Having watched the Tobey Spidey movies last week as well, I just didn't feel like he connected with the role.

Its something to do with his lanky build and slow.... almost delayed responses too

If you haven't already and get the chance, watch this film he was in called Boy A

I'm not sure if it's one of his first, but he really brought that character to life with the awkward, reserved/detached personality....

[DaveSumm]

I think I'm still confused. My issues isn't with Miles Morales vs Peter Parker. I only wonder if we need another Spiderman movie so soon, with a different guy playing Peter Parker. But with everything apparently disconnected from the movie we've just seen. They seem to keep abandoning each project only to reboot or do whatever it is what they're doing is called.

This is like the time George Clooney was Batman, and then Val Kilmer, and then another guy. It nearly ruined the franchise. I'm glad they waited a while until the Nolan reboot.

But the biggest issue I have is that they don't seem concerned about improving the story they're telling. They just get a new guy as Parker and a few months later we have a Spiderman movie.

Well the big advantage here is that he can appear in other MCU films. So we will probably see him in Infinity War.

From Sony's point of view, basically they had two disappointing Spider-Man films alongside Marvel who were churning out gold (financially, let's not got side tracked with MCU quality), and so they basically handed the creative side to Marvel. Sony still gets a load of money, Marvel gets to use the character. A no brainer for Sony really, there's no way anything they produced alone (either ASM 3 or Sinister Six) was ever gonna be as successful as something that exists in the MCU.

None of this would be a problem if they'd never made the Garfield Spider-Man's, but I think there was the potential for being sued for loss of earnings (same reason Terminator films keep getting made) so they had that to turn out something or lose the property.

[Jack Bauer 24]

Perfect choice. Sony knocked this one out of the park.

[Rhom]

I was going to debate the premise that they weren't making money... but looks like the movies have been hemorrhaging cash from the start.

Adjusted for ticket price inflation:

1 Spider-Man Sony $564,216,100 5/3/02

2 Spider-Man 2 Sony $488,489,000 6/30/04

3 Spider-Man 3 Sony $397,184,000 5/4/07

4 The Amazing Spider-Man Sony $273,481,900 7/3/12

5 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Sony $197,740,000 5/2/14

Its pretty startling that Spider-Man 2 didn't make more money than the first outing. It was the best film of the original three and usually sequels get a bounce in a situation like this. :dunno:

Looking at the same adjusted numbers for the MCU

1 Marvel's The Avengers BV $623,357,900 5/4/12

2 Avengers: Age of Ultron BV $449,772,700 5/1/15

3 Iron Man 3 BV $396,323,800 5/3/13

4 Iron Man Par. $360,087,500 5/2/08

5 Guardians of the Galaxy BV $334,352,600 8/1/14

6 Iron Man 2 Par. $319,114,300 5/7/10

7 Captain America: The Winter Soldier BV $253,217,800 4/4/14

8 Thor: The Dark World BV $200,895,800 11/8/13

9 Thor Par. $182,431,700 5/6/11

10 Captain America: The First Avenger Par. $180,684,600 7/22/11

11 The Incredible Hulk Uni. $152,455,700 6/13/08

So looking over that list, even the weakest of the Spiderman movies at $197m comes in just barely before Thor 2. It outperformed the original solo outings of Thor, Cap, and Hulk.

[Grand Moff Mithrandir]

Wow he looks much younger than 19.

So wait, was the casting handled by Marvel or Sony?

[Rhom]

Wow he looks much younger than 19.

So wait, was the casting handled by Marvel or Sony?

I'm sure it was a joint decision.

[The Anti-Targ]

I was going to debate the premise that they weren't making money... but looks like the movies have been hemorrhaging cash from the start.

Adjusted for ticket price inflation:

Its pretty startling that Spider-Man 2 didn't make more money than the first outing. It was the best film of the original three and usually sequels get a bounce in a situation like this. :dunno:

Looking at the same adjusted numbers for the MCU

So looking over that list, even the weakest of the Spiderman movies at $197m comes in just barely before Thor 2. It outperformed the original solo outings of Thor, Cap, and Hulk.

Those are very distorted views particularly because they are only about the US (+Canada?) Markets. This is what Spider-man has grossed worldwide since Toby Macguire's first entry

global/US/foreign $Millions

1 Spider-Man 3 Sony $890.9; $336.5; $554.3

2 Spider-Man Sony $821.7; $403.7; $418.0;

3 Spider-Man 2 Sony $783.8; $373.6; $410.2

4 The Amazing Spider-Man Sony $757.9; $262.0; $495.9

5 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Sony $709.0; $202.9; $506.1

ASM2 being the lowest grossing still made a ton of money and definitely was profitable. So haemorrhaging money is an inaccurate characterisation of the situation. It's suffered reduced profits, but every movie has been a tidy earner for Sony. And it is clear there is still a substantial and enthusiastic viewer base, given ASM2 still made >$700 million globally. The interesting thing about ASM2 is that it made more than ASM outside of the USA and in unadjusted gross terms is the second highest earner outside the USA with SM3 being the highest. The 2 generally regarded as worst movies making the most money in the "foreign" market. Almost certainly a ticket price inflation thing, but interesting nonetheless that it didn't suffer a fall in popularity to the extent it did in the USA.

Safe to say that Spider Man done at least semi-competently will earn plenty for both Marvel and Sony. The good thing is that Spider Man is Marvel's baby and they will have a strong desire to do right by him. I fully expect the first solo movie to hit the magic $1 billion mark for Spidey for the first time..

[Nictarion]

Not familiar with this kid at all, but I think Garfield looked far closer to how I picture Spider-Man. I never particularly liked Tobey McGuire in the role, and I can't say I'm excited about this new kid either.

[jarl the climber]

Source.

Tom Holland as Spidey, with Jon Watts directing.

Does that mean we have to see Uncle Ben get killed again?

Wow, reading through the thread I've seen that this has been adressed.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

well Donald Glover WILL be Spiderman. In the lamest way.

http://hiphopdx.com/news/id.34374/title.childish-gambino-to-voice-marvels-black-spider-man

I'm not opposed to Donald Glover playing Spider-Man; I just think that any Spider-Man who isn't Peter Parker is just a poser.

Sometimes comic fans are so gullible. Miles has about as much a chance at becoming the main Spider-Man for the forseeable future as Doc Ock did a year ago and Jean Paul Valley had at being the main Batman forever.

Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, Bruce Banner, Tony Stark, Steve Rodgers, Diana Prince, will always be the main version of their character. Miles might show up at one point. But Spider-Man's the Peter Parker show.

That's the thing. For me, Spider-Man is FAR LESS about a superhero who wall-crawls and slings-webs and FAR MORE about the life of Peter Parker. Even then, Spider-Man is about Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Flash Thompson, Gwen and George Stacy, Mary Jane Watson, Harry and Norman Osborn, Kurt Connors, J Jonah Jameson and the Daily Bugle staff, etc. Peter Parker is one of the rarest of superheroes whose gallery of non-heroic characters are just as iconic and as numerous as his rogue's gallery. That is why Spider-Man will fundamentally always be Peter Parker. Our understanding of what it means to be Spider-Man is so intrinsically tied to Peter Parker's personal history and relationships, perhaps even more so than the villains, who exist mainly as stumbling blocks for his personal relations and as dramatic foils for the dangers and responsibilities entailed in Peter Parker's powers.

[Galactus]

I'm not opposed to Donald Glover playing Spider-Man; I just think that any Spider-Man who isn't Peter Parker is just a poser.

That's the thing. For me, Spider-Man is FAR LESS about a superhero who wall-crawls and slings-webs and FAR MORE about the life of Peter Parker. Even then, Spider-Man is about Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Flash Thompson, Gwen and George Stacy, Mary Jane Watson, Harry and Norman Osborn, Kurt Connors, J Jonah Jameson and the Daily Bugle staff, etc. Peter Parker is one of the rarest of superheroes whose gallery of non-heroic characters are just as iconic and as numerous as his rogue's gallery. That is why Spider-Man will fundamentally always be Peter Parker. Our understanding of what it means to be Spider-Man is so intrinsically tied to Peter Parker's personal history and relationships, perhaps even more so than the villains, who exist mainly as stumbling blocks for his personal relations and as dramatic foils for the dangers and responsibilities entailed in Peter Parker's powers.

This. Miles is a great character, and I enjoyed his book, but without the context of Peter Parker's life there's no Spider-man.

[red snow]

With increase in ticket prices (almost a certainty over a decade) for the Garfield films to underperform all the Macguire ones is bound to be seen as "lost" earnings.I think it's worth adding that while ASM2 was still profitable Sony were probably looking at the box offices of Marvel films that year too

Cap2 $714

GOTG $774

Thor 2 $644

IM3 $1215

Avengers 2 $1370

Man of Steel $668 For the sake of a non MCU comparison

Looking at those figures Sony didn't really have anything to complain about. Unless they feel that Spidey should be as popular as Iron Man (a fair argument but the RDJR factor shouldn't be forgotten) then the series was still doing as well as your average superhero film. So I think it's definitely a comparison to how well the Raimi films were doing. His first Spider-man film was a juggernaut and was in the top 3 with LOTR and Harry Potter (real juggernauts). It make $100 million more than Attack of the clones.

So it's definitely a case of Sony feeling their profits weren't being maximised. It suggests if the next stand-alone spidey isn't making $900 million - billion, they'll be scratching their heads.

[RedEyedGhost]

I'm not opposed to Donald Glover playing Spider-Man; I just think that any Spider-Man who isn't Peter Parker is just a poser.

That's the thing. For me, Spider-Man is FAR LESS about a superhero who wall-crawls and slings-webs and FAR MORE about the life of Peter Parker. Even then, Spider-Man is about Aunt May, Uncle Ben, Flash Thompson, Gwen and George Stacy, Mary Jane Watson, Harry and Norman Osborn, Kurt Connors, J Jonah Jameson and the Daily Bugle staff, etc. Peter Parker is one of the rarest of superheroes whose gallery of non-heroic characters are just as iconic and as numerous as his rogue's gallery. That is why Spider-Man will fundamentally always be Peter Parker. Our understanding of what it means to be Spider-Man is so intrinsically tied to Peter Parker's personal history and relationships, perhaps even more so than the villains, who exist mainly as stumbling blocks for his personal relations and as dramatic foils for the dangers and responsibilities entailed in Peter Parker's powers.

Great post! But I wouldn't have any problem with all of the Parkers being African American, and different ethnicities for some of the other characters.

[The BlackBear]

Bit more about the casting process and confirmation he'll be in Civil War.

http://screenrant.com/spider-man-captain-america-civil-war-tom-holland-auditions/

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Great post! But I wouldn't have any problem with all of the Parkers being African American, and different ethnicities for some of the other characters.

Same here! I would love to see Donald Glover play Peter Parker, and I think he would do a great job in that role. I would also love to see Peter Parker's life recontextualized as an African American. But Spider-Man is fundamentally about Peter Parker and Friends. That was the great strength of Spider-Man: The Animated Series and the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoons, both easily being the greatest TV/movie adaptations; there was an enormous emphasis on the life and times of Peter Parker.

[RedEyedGhost]

Same here! I would love to see Donald Glover play Peter Parker, and I think he would do a great job in that role. I would also love to see Peter Parker's life recontextualized as an African American. But Spider-Man is fundamentally about Peter Parker and Friends. That was the great strength of Spider-Man: The Animated Series and the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoons, both easily being the greatest TV/movie adaptations; there was an enormous emphasis on the life and times of Peter Parker.

Spectacular Spider-Man is hands down the best adaptation the character has ever had. And I think you've hit the nail on the head as to why I can't stand Ultimate Spider-Man, I could not care less about Nova, Cage, Iron Fist, and White Tiger (I just spent way too much time trying to figure out her name). Shoehorning these characters (and SHEILD) into Spider-Man's story just completely ruins it.

[Maltaran]

I read somewhere that Marvel rules state that Peter Parker must be a straight white guy, so if you want a black Spiderman it has to be someone else under the mask.