Tobey Maguire is no Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But the slight actor bulked up a bit to portray Peter Parker and his wall crawling alter-ego, Spider-Man, in three feature films. Now, the upcoming “Spider-Man” reboot looks to carry on in the “less is more” superhero movement.
Here’s your first peek at Andrew Garfield (“The Social Network”) as the famed web slinger.
Looks like they’re trying to paint ol’ Peter as a slip of a hero, one whose super powers don’t require physical bulk. We’ll likely see more snippets of the film in the weeks and months to come to spike interest in what many – including me – see as an unnecessary project.
And it’s hard not to fear the studio behind the movie thinking they can tap the “Twilight” crowd along with comic book geeks. Just look at Peter Parker brood!
But if the new “Spider-Man” delivers as intended, cynics like me will be more than glad to admit we’re wrong.
(Photo: Rising star Andrew Garfield plays Peter Parker in the upcoming “Spider-Man” reboot directed by Marc Webb. Courtesy of Columbia Pictures. Photo Credit: John Schwartzman)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
We used to have kids who said, “I wanna be Spider-Man when I grow up!” Now they’re going to say, “I wanna be Spider-Man when I’m in 6th grade!”
Yet another reason NOT to see this movie!
I was never a “comic geek” but I liked the Spidey comics, especially in the mid 1980s. Probably because, by then, he was in his 20s, dated good looking girls, lived on his own and went to college.
I think Marvel and the movie studio would do well to remember that letting Spider-Man grow up is part of the character. Part of the reason the third movie sucked so bad is because the character regressed emotionally before our very eyes. In the first film, he goes from selfish teenage wallflower to hero, ultimately responsible and man enough to shrug off the girl he loves to keep her safe. By the third movie, he’s crying in every scene and a wallowing mess.
So what does Sony do? Order up more wallowing mess. Color me cynical.
They may be playing up the Twilight angle, but that’s a mistake. That film series is a very specific kind of phenomena that isn’t easily repeated.
If they do a better job depicting Spiderman vs. Venom (my absolute FAVORITE Marvel villain) this time around, this reboot will be justified in my eyes.
But only then!
I think Spider-man has been cursed by the very company that spawned it. The leaving EIC of Marvel just destroyed that character in everyway possible. Seriously, they actually put out a book that was percieved as the worst comic ever, this after producing over two years of false promises by a writer who just didn’t get the character (in my opinion). Basically, they promised readers everything and never delivered and now the character is just a horrible human being (once again, my opinion).
It seems like it just put a curse on the book itself and any adaption. The play or the movie. They just trashed that character… probably for good this time.
Spiderman might as well have a vagina now. This emo, metrosexual crap with leading men has got to stop. I don’t want to see a holocaust surviving , panty wearing spiderman. A little effeminate nothing who has the body of a 10 year old girl. I much rather see a man with some flab on him, because atleast he would look like a real man. Not some heroin using model from purge land.
If you really wanted to try something new with spiderman. Let’s visit him when he is about 40, 45 or so. By this time he is world weary and gruff. Maybe a little over weight, maybe with some bad habits. Maybe he cusses a little. He’s not your grandfather’s spiderman. He is a mean mother ,with a no nonsense attitude. Kinda like a punisher spiderman.
You know, mix it up some.
Peter Parker has the “proportionate strength of a spider.” Spiders don’t have muscular limbs (legs), they have spindly ones. They started drawing PP that way in the comic books, too…
The Spider-Man I remember reading in the comic books and seeing in the animated cartoons before 2000 was muscular. Real spiders and insects have a different physics to their strength because their muscles are inside their exoskeletons. Humans with increased strength have bigger muscles. According to the Marvel.com profile of Spider-Man, he can lift 10 tons. I am not saying that he shoud be anywhere nearly as huge as the Hulk or the Thing, but he should be at least as muscular looking as Captain America.
LOL what a dweeb. I am surprised they didn’t make him gay or have a bull dyke play Spiderperson LOL. Man Hollyweird is done over toast. They can’t do anything now but reboot movies over and over or produce garbage. PC has killed the movie industry.
Why don’t they just go get Justin Bieber to play Spiderman if they want to pull other crowds…
I can see that a lot of the people who commented on this pic are not true readers of Spiderman before the 80’s. Pete Parker was never a muscle bound gymnist. He used to be a skinny kid that was bitten by a radioactive spider and gained great strength, agility and the ability to sense danger. No where did it ever say he bulked up with growth hormones and looked like a body builder. His strength and the ability to think on his feet while using insultes and wise cracks helped him to defeat the villians.
Get off the Sam Rami version, this is your Daddies Spiderman.
I will admit that Toby’s Spiderman was offputting, in my opinion. I could never see him as Spiderman and that made it hard for me to watch the movies or even want to watch the movies.
So maybe I understand people looking at this guy and saying, “No way.” But my reaction is the opposite. Peter Parker was a scrawny fellow, a bit brainy and socially awkward. This fellow is thin, but unlike Maguire he doesn’t look soft. In the end it will all depend on what is done with him in the film, how the action and FX work, and if the story is any good. But physically, I can see the guy doing the acrobatics and spider stuff and pulling it off.
Now, if they can get a Mary Jane that doesn’t leave me wanting to leave the room we’re golden.
Entirely true. Peter Parker was no Clark Kent, who was a big muscly guy who acted like a wimp. He was an actual wimp. However, being ‘true to the comic’ is not usually the way to a hit movie, and you can’t expect most of the audience to be familiar with the Silver Age Spider-Man. They may not be able to get past the fact that the new Spider-Man ‘doesn’t look tough enough’.
I myself will reserve judgment on this until it hits theaters. As for the view that Andrew Garfield’s Spider-man looks wimpy I would say that those with this view go back to the beginning and read Steve Ditko’s version of the character. He was supposed to be a wimpy high school kid thrown into this position by fate. The actors I have issue with are Sheen and Field as Ben and May Parker. I liked the one that played May last time as she actually resembled Ditko’s version and I just can’t stand Sheen in anything because he is a jerkwad.
+1
If the intent IS to return the character to its four-color roots, then indeed, the original, 60s-era Spider-Man was a slight, nerdish teen-ager. The point was to have him serve as a relatable character to his then-reading audience as fantasy fulfillment: bullied, social outcast gains super powers.
OTOH, similar to the standard Hollywood trope of consistently casting attractive, younger romantic leads against male stars of varying attractiveness (fantasy in another sense, but I digress…), the action hero image IS one of muscular stature. Raimi’s first Spider-Man included a scene to demonstrate how the irradiated spider venom increased Peter Parker’s muscle mass. I expect a similar transformation in this reboot (but will be v. impressed if it does not occur).
Spider-Man was never an overly muscle-bound character. He always was “stronger than he looked.” However, that image doesn’t fill me with confidence in the slightest. It really looks more like one of the Twilight guys decided to dress up as Spider-Man for Halloween. Certainly can’t judge the actor or the movie by just one image, but it doesn’t look good so far.