MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB Spidey & Overture

Not a lot to say. I like the choice for Spider-Man… kid can act…
And Overture was a slow burn to this moment.
Sharon Waxman gets the play-by-play of how it happened today.

Be Sociable, Share!

43 Responses to “BYOB Spidey & Overture”

  1. IOv2 says:

    Hiring a Brit to play Peter Parker is like asking John Cleese to take over for Larry David on Curb Your Enthusiasm. He simply lacks the ability to be what Peter Parker 2.0 needs to be… a smart-ass. Also, hiring a Brit to play Spider-Man is tantamount to having Jude Law play Superman. It’s just gauche.

  2. a_loco says:

    Well, he’s no Donald Glover.

  3. The Big Perm says:

    There are no smart-ass Brits? Was Tobey Maguire really a wonderful amazing smart-ass?

  4. David Poland says:

    I love the idea of a Brit Curb Your Enthusiasm with Cleese in the lead. (And I think he may actually be on Curb this season…)

  5. leahnz says:

    what about downey playing sherlock, io, i don’t recall you having a shit fit then. and sherlock is as iconically english as spidey is iconically american
    that garfield is one seriously wild-haired and whiskery dude tho, normally he looks more like ‘teen wolf’ than spider-man (see: red riding hood). those brows alone look like they could nest a small family of birds, i suspect he’s gonna have to endure a rigorous regime of hair taming/removal to play the nerdy teen parker (if they are indeed going the high school route – again. are they? i have no idea. or they could just leave his hair all wild and mental and go the ‘wolfman meets spider-man!’ route, at least that would be different)
    and re: peter parker, yes just what cinema needs, io, another juvenile smart-ass
    part of what makes peter parker special is his lonely, angst-ridden, earnestly pubescent nerdiness and it must remain so for the duality of peter and his spider-man alter ego to work. however, spider-man always was a bit of a smart-ass and as much as it may pain you to admit it, many actors of differing nationalities can manage smartassery, americans do not hold the patent on it
    i can’t help but think the whole thing is an exercise in futility and too-soon-deja vu, but i guess stranger things have happened

  6. leahnz says:

    (i meant the ‘red riding trilogy’ in case that wasn’t clear, adding ‘hood’ in there was a boo boo)

  7. scooterzz says:

    re: spidy
    my problem isn’t so much that they cast a brit but that they cast too old…i thought they were going ‘high school’ on this one… i was hoping they’d go with lerman or hutcherson…..oh, well…
    re: overture
    on a strictly personal level, i’ve always liked chris mc gurk…i hope he didn’t get fucked too badly on this….

  8. Hunter Tremayne says:

    Yes, Brits are lousy at playing American smart-asses. Just take Hugh Laurie, for example

  9. MattMcD says:

    He was born in America. Not only can he play Spider-Man, he could do so in Arizona.

  10. Blackcloud says:

    He was in an episode of “Doctor Who” a couple of years ago playing a kid from Tennessee. Didn’t seem very convincing. But Spidey doesn’t speak with a Southern accent, so maybe he’ll be fine.

  11. storymark says:

    I don’t care in the least about him being British myself. It does seem odd that for the High School set reboot they cast a guy who will be just a touch older than MaGuire was when he shot the first.
    That – and he’s too much of a pretty boy. Parker’s supposed to be a nerd – not that I expected them to cast a DJ Qualls-type, but MaGuire had a bit of the nerd thing going. This guy makes it feel like they really are Twilighting this thing up.

  12. storymark says:

    That said – I’ll still give him a chance, I’m not writing this off or anything…. just seems an odd choice.

  13. IOv2 says:

    Leah, does this guy look like a Jewish kid from Queens? No, he looks like a British Jonas brother. Again, Tobey sucked as Spidey because he did not encapsulate anything of what the character is about. Spidey is not a mopey douche. He’s a smart ass that fights while talking smack to his foe. No matter who it is, Cap, Iron Man, Luke Cage, Spidey will let them know how he feels because he’s not exactly a mopey douche. He’s a very strong character and Raimi never seemed to get that at all.
    This casting pretty much is Tobey but with a pretty guy. Sony once again misses what Spidey is about and I guess that I will have to hope for Sony to lose the rights to this property, before I get a really good Spider Man movie.

  14. IOv2 says:

    Hugh Laurie is Hugh Laurie. Seriously, did you people miss the whole LARRY DAVID JOHN CLEESE thing? Or are you just acting foolish? Spidey is a Jewish kid from Queens. Excuse me for not buying this kid as Spidey because just on appearance alone, this guy looks like he’s sparkle more than goof on Kraven while fighting him.

  15. storymark says:

    Why do you keep insisting Parker is Jewish? Other than Lee being Jewish, is there a basis? Just doing some quick searches, I’ve found Jewish groups who insist he is, but objective analysis of the actual comics (by others, I didn’t just dig through the whole history) shows no overt declaration of any religion, but several hints towards protestant beliefs.
    Don’t go all knee-jerk defensive on me – this is an honest question.

  16. storymark says:

    Following up, here’s on the the pages I was reading, which also incidentally mentions at least one specific time that Aunt May was cited as a Christian, which would likely indicate that the kid she raised is, too.
    It also includes excerpts from a Newsweek article about the religious affiliations of comic characters (I have no idea why they felt the need to run such an article, but anyway) which also lists Parker as Protestant. Granted, not iron-clad proof of anything, but another indicator.

  17. IOv2 says:

    Storymark, Joe Quesada is a jackass that thought Brand New Day was a good idea, so that’s his interpretation but I have always taken Spidey to be a Jewish kid from Queens. I could have sworn I got this from a Stan Lee interview or from that doc he did with Kevin Smith. Nevertheless, I think this comment from Chud pretty much sums up the pick of is guy; “Comment #33 (Posted by Pete)
    What they haven’t told you is that to connect with today’s audience, the new Spider Man is set during Peter Parker’s years at Eton. Pete will need to balance rugger and real tennis lessons, the Oxford entrance exam, and discovering his new-found powers as a crimefighter among the high-rise towers of Slough.”

  18. IOv2 says:

    Oh yeah… this guy is 27? TWENTY SEVEN? Geez, this just gets better and better. Oh yeah the fact that’s born in America does not make him an American sort of like Emma Watson being born in France does not make her French. I give it to Sony, they technically hired an American, so they can slide on that one.

  19. storymark says:

    I don’t really care about his religion, was just curiouse as to why you were so sure.
    And as I said, I couldn’t care less about his being British. Worked out okay for Batman. They’re actors – their whole purpose is to be people they’re not, so I’ll reserve judgment until I actually see how he does.

  20. Wrecktum says:

    I’m not a big fan of Shia LaBeouf, but, to me, he’s more the type of actor we need to see playing Spider-Man. Jay Baruchel is a bit TOO nerdy, but he’s also more in line with the Peter Parker aesthetic than this guy.
    The bottom line is that Sony is pushing this project through for totally cynical reasons. If they don’t make a Spider-Man movie soon then the rights revert back to Marvel (i.e. Disney). This is absolutely the wrong reason to push a project into development and can only mean dire consequences for the finished project.

  21. IOv2 says:

    Story I do get where you are coming from but he’s 27, he’s British, and he has that hair. They went with an Ed Cullen clone and that’s just depressing because Spidey is not exactly a chick magnet.

  22. IOv2 says:

    Wrec, you are a hundred percent right on the above and that’s worrisome to me.

  23. storymark says:

    Oh, yeah, I totally agree on the rest. The Brit thing doesn’t bug me, but his age and especially his look, do. I hear he can act – great. All I’ve seen him in was Parnasus and I wasn’t impressed, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But I do agree that this is looking more and more like a hollow cash grab.

  24. Blackcloud says:

    That would make it different from Spidey 3 how, exactly?

  25. Man, it’s almost like the people making these movies don’t give a shit about the fans or source material. Hmm…weird.

  26. storymark says:

    “That would make it different from Spidey 3 how, exactly?”
    Not at all, no doubt. I just tend to hold on to a little optimism until it’s shot down.

  27. storymark says:

    “Man, it’s almost like the people making these movies don’t give a shit about the fans or source material. Hmm…weird. ”
    In this case, that’s becoming clear. But it’s hardly a universal rule. Raimi, at least at the start, cared. Nolan, Snyder and others all make efforts to respect the source material, even when making adaptorial changes.

  28. I don’t think they ever cared and merely made/make arbitrary nods to the source material to keep appearances up. For whatever reason, comic fans seem to forget that literature is nearly impossible to directly adapt. Things get conflated, left out, added in. While this idea is perfectly clear, obvious and accepted in book adaptations, geeks seem to think it doesn’t apply to comics because there’s pictures (or, something).
    This Spidey casting indeed strikes me as “Twilighty” and that’s probably the case because as we were all talking about in a few entries back, that’s a pretty nice niche to cash in on.

  29. storymark says:

    “I don’t think they ever cared and merely made/make arbitrary nods to the source material to keep appearances up.”
    I disagree. Yes, changes are absolutely necessary any time a story is adapted from one medium to another. It’s ridiculous to say as a blanket statement that this automatically means those involved don’t care at all for the source material. A positively Wellsian level generalization. It’s true for some, likely many who become attached to these “geek” properties. But not all. Raimi was a Spider-Man fan, and while he made changes that he felt were necessary as a filmmaker, he seemed to be genuinely interested in preserving the core of the character, and included far more than “nods” to the source material.

  30. Ummm….what about the organic web-shooters? HUGE variation….totally unneeded. A true Spidey fan would never do that.

  31. storymark says:

    Again, disagree. I think the organic webshooters were a good choice. I always felt that his building such advanced tech as a high school kid was quite a stretch anyway. Making them organic eliminated one more thing that requires hefty suspension of disbelief in a story with more than enough, and saved on exposition.

  32. Eric says:

    Have they announced what they’re calling this thing yet? I still think “THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN” would be just right. It’s the classic title and without a number it implies we’re starting over.
    Also, count me as one more vote in favor of the organic webshooters. They streamlined the plot, eliminated some potentially-implausible exposition, and were thematically appropriate without being contrived.

  33. Cadavra says:

    Yeesh. Everyone’s complaining about Garfield, but except for Scooter, nobody’s suggested who they think would’ve been better. It’s like a non-political Tea Party in here: bitch, bitch, bitch but no answers. Give the kid a chance already.

  34. But Cadavra-
    the dude is 27 and isn’t the typical high-school geek that even partial fans of Peter Parker/Spiderman expect. Even Maguire was pretty nerdy in the first one, this kid looks like a heartthrob and that goes against the whole idea. I’d prefer any of the people they were rumored to be looking at including Jamie Bell.
    And that is a good point about how the organic webshooters streamlined things. Well played my nerdy counterparts, well played.

  35. jeffmcm says:

    Another day, another pointless and unbased-on-any-reality IOI rant about fanboy stuff.

  36. IOv2 says:

    Jeff, why are you insulting me? What did I do that makes you so mad at me? Geez man, get over it and move on. We were having a discussion in here. If you want to insult me then email me. If you want to discuss something then discuss something. Oh yeah, unfounded would be a better choice of wording, and people around the net are not happy with this casting. Oh I forgot, you are internet inept and would not know how to find anything on the net because Google confounds you so.
    Now Cad, Wrec brought up Shia and I agree with him. What you need for Spidey is an actor who looks dorky but has that inner bit of strength. I hate to bring him up to you folks, but Michael Cera would be a great Spider-Man. The same with Eisenberg or Anton Yelchin. Seriously, why is Yelchin not freakin Spidey?

  37. storymark says:

    Of everyone mentioned (can’t say I have an encyclopedic knowledge of young actors out there), Yelchin would have been my pic.

  38. IOv2 says:

    Seriously, did they not want a young kid to play Spidey? It just seems so odd to once again go to the well with a dude, whose going to be close to 30 when the film comes out as Spider-Man. It’s just such a weird choice. You know what English kid would have also been a nice Spider-man? The kid from Kick-Ass.

  39. Y’all complaining about Garfield’s age realise Tobey Maguire was also 27 (or 26 if my sums are wrong) when the first Spider-Man came out, right? Right?

  40. leahnz says:

    i think the consternation is because, while i complained more specifically about garfield’s feral-looking cabbage hair, bird-nest brows and whiskers hindering his ability to look young enough to play the late-teen nerd peter parker rather than his actual age, garfield’s casting is somewhat odd in light of yelchin and hutcheson and johnson and the other dudes vying for the role were all around age 20 — because the production was supposedly ‘going young’ for the reboot, presumably to extend the life of the ‘young spidey’ franchise w/toby deemed too long in the tooth going forward — and then, out of left field it’s again with the older toby-age choice (at inception as as pointed out my kam), seemingly at odds with the original casting imperative. garfield must have really impressed somebody
    (i heard today the reboot is set w/peter p at uni, so if that’s true then the garfield choice is slightly less odd, even if he’s physically at odds w/ the traditional peter p persona. and it made me wonder if the speculation here a while back by…i’m thinking it might have been scott mendelson, or maybe even martin s. who suggested it, they come to mind but that might be totally wrong – that the reboot could very well be based on ‘spider-man: the animated series’, or maybe it was ‘the new animated series’, both of which are set w/peter parker at uni. that the theory might hold water)

  41. IOv2 says:

    KC, yes, I do believe some of the same complaints were heaped on Tobey back in 2001. If they are going to start with Pete at university than this choice makes some small sense in terms of age. If they start with him in high school as they sort of implied a few months back then it’s once again very very weird.
    After reading what they allegedly paid the guy, no wonder all of the other guys may have passed. That’s just cheaping out in ways that I believe Marvel would not even do.
    One last thing, this kid better kill it in the Social Network. If his UNBELIEVABLE PERFORMANCE THAT LED TO HIM BEING SPIDER-MAN is just unbelievably ordinary or bad, then the people at Sony really do have their heads squarely up their hindquarters.

  42. The age thing is an issue because they stated the reboot was going to go back in time to a much younger Peter Parker. In the first Spidey, he’s a senior in high school. My understanding was that in the reboot, he’d be even younger. That being said, why choose an older actor?

  43. Cadavra says:

    IO, I agree Yelchin would have been a splendid choice, but between this and STAR TREK, the brother would be working 24/7 for the rest of the decade. I wasn’t necessarily defending Garfield himself, only saying that people should cool their jets and see how he does. (That’s why it’s called acting.) And let’s not forget that a lot of people went apeshit over the choice of Daniel Craig as 007 and ended up eating a crapload of crow pie.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon