New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Kim Hollis: I do think that Andrew Garfield is more talented than Brandon Routh (though I’ll forever be amused by Routh’s portrayal of Todd Ingram in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), and I would have considered him a rising star prior to getting the role of Spider-Man. I actually think wearing the costume is likely stifling him some, though financially this is likely setting him up to do whatever sorts of projects he’d like. At least he’s getting to work with Martin Scorsese on Silence. I will say that I don’t necessarily see that much difference between Garfield and Tobey Maguire, though.

With regard to Emma Stone, she probably has lost some of the heat she was building prior to taking the role of Gwen Stacy. She’d had a lot of different types of roles that allowed her to demonstrate some range, and even though it was obviously a terrific financial decision for her, playing the damsel in distress seems like it could set her back in the long-term, particularly as we’ve seen the aforementioned Jennifer Lawrence and Shailene Woodley emerge in strong roles for females. But I’ll be hopeful since she’s in Cameron Crowe’s next movie.

David Mumpower: We seem to all agree that he is better than Routh, at least with regards to talent. I believe that Edwin is correct that winning the role of Spider-Man may have temporarily derailed Garfield's candidacy as a legitimate thespian. In that regard, he may be the inferior version of Robert Pattinson in that both were considered rising talents who received roles with which they will be linked for the rest of their careers. Pattinson became a lot more famous in the process while the Tobey Maguire comparisons are apt for what Spider-Man has done for Garfield.

If I could go off the board with an analogy, there is a Hayden Christensen element to what has transpired with Garfield. Nobody remembers it a dozen years later but Whiny Vader garnered a lot of respect for Shattered Glass and Life as a House. He threw all of that acting capital away with one theoretically career-making role. Given the icy reception to the Spider-Man reboots, I cannot help but wonder if Garfield would be better served by having Sony cut the cord on the current version of the franchise.

Kim Hollis: What is your perception of Spider-Man at this point? You can compare to the Marvel Universe, the original three Sam Raimi Spider-Man films, or whatever your barometer may be.

Brett Ballard-Beach: I would be concerned if I were a studio executive (again speaking domestically only) that this series is accelerating towards burnout in the short term. There are ASM films set for 2016 and 2018. From what I gather Marc Webb is only doing the first of those. Will there be another reboot at that point? I also gather that Spidey will not be crossing over into the interconnected cinematic Marvel Universe that has been unfolding since 2008 anytime soon. If he remains a stand-alone character, the creative powers that be need to figure out where they want to take him that can break the stagnancy. I do not think (for Spider-Man or any superhero) that piling on the villains is the answer.

Edwin Davies: I definitely feel like the character has been burned out by being rebooted so soon after the original trilogy, as well as from the first two Webb films being sub-standard, neither supplanting the Raimi films or even really doing much to wash away the memories of Spider-Man 3. I mean, all they had to do was make something better than Emo-Peter Parker strutting down the street and they didn't even manage that! It's also been overtaken by the Marvel films, and people are savvy enough to know that the Spider-Man films have nothing to do with the factory that has been making consistently entertaining superhero films since the first Iron Man came out.

Continued:       1       2       3       4