Basically-Unknown 27-Year-Old Brit Cast as Spider-Man

[AndyDursin]

I thought the idea was Spidey was supposed to be YOUNGER because Tobey was getting older

So this decision gets a "huh??" X10.

He's got a role in David Fincher's Facebook movie coming out, so that had to be the reason for the casting...but on the surface, between his age and background, it's a really weird choice.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/soni-pi ... pider-man/

[Monterey Jack]

Okay, Peter Parker is supposed to be back in high school in this new reboot...and they cast an actor who's a year OLDER than Tobey Maguire was in the first Raimi movie?

[AndyDursin]

Okay, Peter Parker is supposed to be back in high school in this new reboot...and they cast an actor who's a year OLDER than Tobey Maguire was in the first Raimi movie?

Yeah, I don't get it. Apparently this guy won a BFTA for some small British movie, but...I dunno. Maybe he needs to be in college, not high school!

[Eric W.]

They just saved a king's ransom by going with this guy, though.

He's probably talented and frankly being a relative unknown means you come to the table with a fresh, clean slate.

[AndyDursin]

I don't think it was so much a cost-cutting move in comparison with the others they tested -- none of them were household names, some had more experience than others. The difference was that the others were younger. As in, 10 years on average.

What's important to remember is that even though some people are calling it a "reboot," I think with the casting of this guy, who's 27, it sounds more like plugging in Roger Moore for Sean Connery.

The script is by James Vanderbilt -- who wrote the Raimi SPIDER-MAN 4 that wasn't made (as well as Fincher's "Zodiac"), and apparently is comprised of a concept he wanted to make before that, which Raimi wasn't crazy about (whatever that means).

So continuity wise and such, I don't think the tone is going to be ALL that different. And I think hiring Webb was a fresh, good idea -- hopefully this guy will be as good as Sony advertises. I could have seen Joseph Gordon-Levitt doing it, but undoutedbly THAT would have cost more money.

[AndyDursin]

Nikki Finke just mentioned his performance in that upcoming Fincher movie was the reason for his casting.

This answers the financial question --

I'm told Garfield's pay scale on the film is around $500,000 salary on the first film, $1 million for the second one, and $2 million for the third film. All of the finalists were presented with those terms in a deal for one film and two options.

[Monterey Jack]

What's important to remember is that even though some people are calling it a "reboot," I think with the casting of this guy, who's 27, it sounds more like plugging in Roger Moore for Sean Connery.

I'll never understand why they cast an actor three years OLDER than Connery to replace him as 007. Connery was 41 in Diamonds Are Forever and frankly looked like hell, and they hired a 45-year-old for the next film? At least George Lazenby was 29 in OHMSS, and had he continued with the role, would have been young enoiugh to go almost a decade in the role before being replaced.

[AndyDursin]

What's important to remember is that even though some people are calling it a "reboot," I think with the casting of this guy, who's 27, it sounds more like plugging in Roger Moore for Sean Connery.

I'll never understand why they cast an actor three years OLDER than Connery to replace him as 007. Connery was 41 in Diamonds Are Forever and frankly looked like hell, and they hired a 45-year-old for the next film? At least George Lazenby was 29 in OHMSS, and had he continued with the role, would have been young enoiugh to go almost a decade in the role before being replaced.

I hear you, though it is kind of a different situation though, because Spider-Man is a perennially youngish character to begin with. He's never portrayed as anything much more than a 30-year-old, it's always a high-school/college/post-graduate time frame with Peter Parker. Bond is always Bond -- other than these Craig movies with the character being younger, what difference does it make how old Bond is?

As far as why Eon went with Moore, I think a) it didn't really matter because of how the character was written, and b) he was the right choice. Plus Moore was in really good shape, much better than Connery had been in when they made DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. Besides, Eon wanted Moore -- he had been in the running before, he was established, and after the Lazenby disaster they desperately needed to get things on the right track. It's not that different than when they went to Brosnan after Dalton -- Brosnan was up for the role before, they wanted him, and while Dalton wasn't the disaster Lazenby was, he wasn't a commercial draw either. They needed to "restablish Bond" immediately and it made sense to go that route, not just cast a "younger guy" for the sake of doing so.

And in retrospect Moore did just fine -- only in A VIEW TO A KILL was the consensus that he was "too long in the tooth" and tired looking.

The other problem with Lazenby is that you're assuming the series would have gone for another decade with him in it. Let's face it, he might have been 29, but the guy came off as a real weak link, a prettyboy model without a lot of charisma -- as evidenced by a career that went absolutely nowhere. I don't think he "killed" OHMSS because the movie itself was so good -- but the film would have been infinitely better if Connery (or anyone else) had been in it. And Lazeby was an obnoxious jerk to work with on top of it, another reason he faded away.

[Monterey Jack]

And in retrospect Moore did just fine -- only in A VIEW TO A KILL was the consensus that he was "too long in the tooth" and tired looking.

That's being very generous. It's funny...Moore still looked fairly okay in Moonraker, but even though For Your Eyes Only came out only two years later, Moore looked about fifteen years older. The same thing happened with Connery between You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever. Still in fine shape in YOLT, but paunchy, graying, and obviously bewigged only four years later in DAF. Bond actors tend to age REALLY fast in a short period of time.

[Eric Paddon]

I find myself agreeing and disagreeing in part with both of you! First, Andy, I reject completely the argument that Connery would have made OHMSS better or done excellent because I am totally unconvinced that Connery at that point in his career could have credibly pulled off the sensitive love story of the script. Connery's rough machismo in the part, which IMO is personified at its worst by his seduction of Molly Peters in "Thunderball" just does not signal a character that one can take seriously tenderly asking Tracy to marry him. Plus, the other spot that won't out is that if Connery does OHMSS, then they don't cast Diana Rigg, period since Rigg was hired solely to balance Lazenby's inexperience.

But I do agree with you Andy, that Moore was the right choice at that point in time in 73, and that he did make the part his own over time with "View To A Kill" being the one film he shouldn't have done.

[AndyDursin]

Well, obviously we'll never know, but personally, I would have liked to have seen Connery do OHMSS. That film's script had a LOT more going for it than THUNDERBALL or YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (or most Bond films for that matter), so I can't see how one can definitely say how Connery would've interpreted the role or, perhaps, been inspired by (or not) that movie's break from formula. We'll obviously never know either way. That being said, I'd have taken Connery at 65% over Lazenby, I just thought he was out of his league in that movie -- maybe not as bad as some of the press he received at the time, but he didn't add anything to the movie either.

But I know what you are getting at Eric. Connery might have been in "good shape" in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE but he also looked kind of tired in the part, like he was already highly disinterested in it. (I've never been crazy about that movie anyway).

One of the things I actually enjoy about DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is that he looked puffy but didn't seem as bored as he did in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. It's like an odd, halfway kind of performance, like he took it completely for the money (which he did), but at least seemed to have a better time making it.