At least this reboot makes sense.
It'd be cool if Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire had roles in this, though - especially since it's liable to be a bit more permanent than the others.
Whenever I imagine Garfield playing someone else, for some reason I keep thinking of Hobgoblin.
edited 23rd Jun '15 1:53:52 PM by KnownUnknown
War Zone wasn't really a reboot. The only reason it wasn't a straightforward sequel is because it was in Development Hell for so long that Thomas Jane finally gave up on it and left the project.
And then the final product pretty accurately reflected a film that had been revised and rewritten so many times over the course of a decade that nobody even knew what to do with it anymore.
edited 23rd Jun '15 2:01:03 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Well, there's 10 years between Spider-Man 3 (2007) and the 2017 one, so that's technically within a decade, just barely.
This one does seem to be more meaningful than The ASM was though.
edited 23rd Jun '15 2:29:48 PM by Lyendith
Other possible villain ideas: 1) Chameleon, who if I'm not mistaken was the first villain of the actual Spider-Man comic series. Depending on what goes on with Civil War and his role there, they could do the 'Chameleon impersonates Spider-Man' story and use it to set up Spider-Man's role as a hero with bad publicity for the series going forward.
2) Mysterio, and use it as an excuse to go big on the Special Effects since that's his shtick anyhow.
edited 23rd Jun '15 7:34:01 PM by TheSpaceJawa
I can see the Chameleon working. Captain America: The Winter Soldier has established shapeshifting technology. I would also love to see Mysterio in live-action and have him playing mind-games with Spidey. But only if they keep the fishbowl helmet. You can't Mysterio without the fishbowl helmet.
edited 23rd Jun '15 8:47:13 PM by chasemaddigan
And, yet, I think Looks over Ability apply so much here. Sure, there's not much an actor can do when it comes to an awful script, but I just can't take him seriously. Oh god. "I'm angrly combing my hair in front of my face!" XD And the crying!
Garfield may not entirely look the part, but the more important thing is that I BELIEVED he was the part. I still love that moment when he finally gets the webshooter to work and he gets giddy and makes this really weird expression and gesture. He got into the role and I believed it.
I find it funny some of the agreements Sony put into their contract for Spider-Man. They outlined that 'Peter Parker is a Caucasian male who goes to..." so on and so forth and that he can't be portrayed as anything else. It basically killed off any potential for a Miles Morales adaptation. They also went on to explicitly say that 'Spider Man cannot be a homosexual unless based off of a character that has been portrayed as one'. Jackasses.
Honestly, going with a different Spider Man all together might have been a good idea. We've seen Uncle Ben get killed twice now and if it has to happen again, I'm going to be the one putting the bullet in him myself because I'm so tired of it.
A new Spidy entirely might shake things up a bit better and have a completely clean slate.
But, ha! You can work around that and say he's bisexual! God I got so excited when Garfield mentioned Peter exploring his sexuality.
They should really just give us Hobgoblin one of these days - if Phil Urich exists in this continuity (we already know his uncle does... or rather did, given that he's dead now), he's an already present candidate - but I'd really like Kingsley.
Characters like Hobgoblin, who are naturally introduced after other characters, are one of the main casualties of constant reboots, unless writers decide to screw the preludes and just drop them into the mix.
As for Chameleon, I could really see that working - especially if they do a Chameleon / Mysterio team up. For a bit of meta humor, I'd love it if they got Gary Oldman to play him.
Are you talking about Spider-Man 3 with hair? Because I don't remember that being a thing elsewhere.
As for the crying, what's wrong with that? He cried when his uncle died, so what?
About Garfield's performance, his character just creeped me out. He was an annoying self-centered asshole, and not nearly as funny as Toby was, in either identity. And he was completely socially inept, as well, making him a character with zero appealing traits.
His looks don't help either, he not only does not look the part, he just looks unattractive in general.
edited 24th Jun '15 12:54:40 AM by CassidyTheDevil
Yes, the hair thing is from Spider Man 3. The crying was generally in every single movie. Toby is... not a convincing actor, unfortunately. I wanted to laugh more than be hurt when MJ rejects him and he started tearing up.
I can see where Garfield's character can be seen as self-centered and an asshole. The second film did not do wonders with the 'I'm not going to give you my blood even though you will assuredly die without it and even though this film has spent the last hour on how great of best friends we are". Yeah... That was a dick move.
I never found Toby's Parker to be funny. Ever. Or, when he was funny, it was certainly not in a way they intended him to be funny.
While Garfield's Parker lacked social skills, I found that to be far more accurate of a high school student nerd who is not well adjusted in the slightest. Garfield's Parker reeked of small character moments (hand gestures, small mannerisms, stuttering) that made me believe in the character and actually feel like I knew him better where as Toby's was just... bland and unconvincing.
YMMV as for attractiveness. I for one find him to be really attractive. He isn't Drop Dead Sexy like Chris Hemsworth or Chris Evens are, but he's attractive in a far more 'down to earth' or 'guy next door' kind of way. I don't know how to describe it really. I'm also not the only person to think he's cute.
Okay.
Realistic certainly, but having spent some time around those kind of nerdy guys who like to think they're great but who actually are irritating dicks, that doesn't endear me to him in any way.
Good news! You can save that bullet because, as people have already pointed out, Uncle Ben will already be dead and Peter Parker will already be Spider-Man by the time we meet the MCU version of the character.
'Peter Parker is a Caucasian male who goes to..." so on and so forth and that he can't be portrayed as anything else. It basically killed off any potential for a Miles Morales adaptation.
What does Miles Morales existing or not have to do with Peter being Caucasian? They are different characters, you know. If anything it gives more hope for an eventual Miles, since they're making sure Peter isn't Afro-Latin-American as well, so there wouldn't be that much of a role overlap.
edited 24th Jun '15 6:59:05 AM by NapoleonDeCheese
@Statham: Nope, he even had an interview, a few days before the rumor started, where he said he didn't want to do any villain roles for awhile(since he just did F&F7). He and Marvel never spoke about anything. It was all a creation of clickbaity sites and others.
Edit: Stan Lee talked a bit:
Lee weighed in on the idea of making Parker gay, saying that “I think the world has a place for gay superheroes, certainly. But again, I don’t see any reason to change the sexual proclivities of a character once they’ve already been established. I have no problem with creating new, homosexual superheroes.”
Lee summed up his thoughts by saying that this "has nothing to do with being anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-Latino, or anything like that. Latino characters should stay Latino. The Black Panther should certainly not be Swiss. I just see no reason to change that which has already been established when it’s so easy to add new characters. I say create new characters the way you want to. Hell, I’ll do it myself.”
edited 24th Jun '15 7:14:56 AM by LordofLore

They meant getting 3 film series in a decade.