'Spider-Man' joins Marvel, but what will recasting the role mean?

The comic book character Spider-Man will reportedly appear in at least one Marvel movie, but reports say Andrew Garfield won't be playing the role. How will audiences react to yet another actor taking on the part?

Melissa Moseley/Columbia Pictures/AP
'The Amazing Spider-Man' stars Andrew Garfield.

Is Spider-Man in at Marvel but actor Andrew Garfield out?

As every comic book fan has now heard, Spider-Man will be joining the universe of Iron Man and Captain America for at least one film, according to Marvel. The company says that Spider-Man will appear in an unnamed Marvel movie. After another new Spider-Man movie released by Sony, the hero’s current studio, “together, [Marvel and Sony] will collaborate on a new creative direction for the web slinger,” Marvel wrote in a press release.

It’s an announcement that’s sure to have comic book fans very excited. As we previously reported, Spider-Man is at Sony because Marvel sold the company the rights to the webslinger in the ‘90s before Marvel itself became a cinematic powerhouse.

However, in comic book lore, Spider-Man is an important member of the Marvel universe – he’s often part of the Avengers, the superhero group that stormed the box office in 2012, and is part of the well-known Civil War plotline, which has superheroes fighting one another. According to IGN, the title of the upcoming third “Captain America” film is “Captain America: Civil War,” so perhaps that's the Marvel movie in which Spidey will be appearing.

But there is one part of the plan that may not please some fans. According to TheWrap, actor Andrew Garfield, who starred in the most recent “Spider-Man” movies “The Amazing Spider-Man” and “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” will not be returning as the webslinger.

Garfield was already the second actor to take on the role for the big screen. Actor Tobey Maguire starred in the successful movies “Spider-Man" and “Spider-Man 2” and the critically maligned “Spider-Man 3.” Recasting a famous role is dicey at any time, but Marvel seemed to have lucked out with Garfield when he came on board – the actor drew praise for his own performance and for the on-screen relationship between Spider-Man’s alter ego Peter Parker and Peter’s girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). “Garfield, by contrast [to Maguire], is surly and rebellious and twitchy (he reminded me a little of the young Anthony Perkins), and this contrasts smartly with his high school sweetie Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who is all smiles and wiles,” Monitor film critic Peter Rainer wrote. “Director Marc Webb… wisely keeps this duo front and center.” Many other critics agreed, even those who didn’t like the rest of the film like New York Times critic Manohla Dargis, who called Garfield “appealing… Mr. Garfield and Ms. Stone are by far the movie’s greatest assets.”

So is too much of a risk to hope that Marvel will find yet another actor that will win over audiences as Peter Parker? It may be difficult to do, but comic book fans may be so excited to see Spider-Man alongside his Marvel brethren that they won’t mind.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.