Casting Update: Spider-Man Reboot

Newest rumors for the rebooted web-slinger’s flick is that Mark Webb wants Zooey Deschanel to play Betty Brant, J. Jonah Jameson’s secretary, and that she will have an expanded part in the new movie. In the 60’s comics, Betty had a brief romance with Peter Parker, but it’s unclear if that is the role Betty Brant will play here. Thoughts?


26 Responses to “Casting Update: Spider-Man Reboot”

  1. November 10, 2010 at 10:32 am

    I like her a lot, and the choice is not surprising since she was in Webb’s (500) Days of Summer.

  2. November 10, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Kill this movie while we still can!!!

  3. 6 originalninja
    November 10, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    I love Zooey, but if this is an “Ultimate” re-boot and Peter is going to be 15, then it’s just to put her in so there can be a part 2. It really doesn’t have any big name celebs here, and I think she’s just to offer one. Sure, Emma Stone has started to make her name. There just casting big names as support roles. It’s totally gonna suck.

  4. 8 Dante
    November 10, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    Miscast but…but…but…but…but… it’s Zooey!

  5. November 10, 2010 at 10:11 pm

    You really know how to rile people up on here, just mention the latest Spider-Man movie news.

    I wish people would stop judging this movie before it even starts filming. At the moment, what’s not to like?

    Mark Webb, a solid director, very unique style.
    Andrew Garfield, great actor, nuff said.
    Emma Stone, funny and perky, most people enjoy her movies.
    Martin Sheen, who doesn’t like Papa Sheen?
    Sally Field, just a rumor right now. Younger than Aunt May, but okay.
    Zooey Deschanel, just a rumor – for a minor/supporting character!

    The story, Spider-Man fights the Lizard. Okay, you had me at “Spider-Man fights”. What else do we really know? Not a lot. Peter Parker will be in college. This was changed from the high school idea because of Garfield’s casting, he was too old but everyone liked him, so they adjusted the story. Stone will be Parker’s first girlfriend, Gwen Stacy. They screwed that up in the first movies by introducing Mary Jane because our generation (and younger) remembers her over Stacy – who was introduced and died in the 60s, before many of us were even born.

    All I can say is that I don’t want to judge this movie just because the word “reboot” was mentioned. Because Batman did it, and it worked, I’m open to the idea.

    • November 10, 2010 at 11:11 pm

      Yeah, but those things bother me. The fact that “oh it’s a reboot and he’s in high school” has changed to “he’s in college now and we know nothing of the plot.” And what Batman did was not tell the same story over again. From what I’ve heard from this I fear we’re going to get Spider-Man origin repeated (they originally said his being bit by a spider deal would be re-told in this… but why?). If they can do it like Batman Begins did it, sure, it will be good, but let’s just say I’m not holding my breath. I can’t say for sure it’ll be First Class bad, but at the same time I can’t get myself hopeful for it.

      • November 11, 2010 at 9:54 am

        Nothing will ever be First Class bad. That should be a stamp – FCB.

        I’m not so sure it will be a straight up reboot. Does Martin Sheen being cast as Uncle Ben mean the character is alive when the movie starts? Nope. The actor that played UB came back for Spider-Man 2 for a dream sequence. Would people online still pissed off about this project if Hollywood Insider, Variety or whoever first said the next Spider-Man movie will be a reboot had instead just announced a new cast and crew for Spider-Man 4? I doubt it. I think that calling it a reboot is the easiest way to say “we’ve got a new cast and crew, and we’re going in a different direction”. Now the stigma of a reboot is just that, whereas before Hollywood would say “reboot” and people would be intrigued.

        Bruce Wayne falling down into the bat cave was retold in most of the Batman films, why can’t they show the spider bit for Parker? They way they retell that scene could be a flashback. Or Webb could pull a Van Sant and reshoot Spider-Man 1 scene for scene with different actors, but insert a creepy peeping scene that the writer had intended to be in the original.

        I think what irks me about people online is that they are quick to judge things. “Spider-Man reboot?! Kill the project?” Why? Did they make the Spider-Man costume purple with little Spider-Man logos on the nipples? We don’t know, but I doubt it. This isn’t a Joel Schumacher movie after all.

      • November 11, 2010 at 2:32 pm

        OK, I just choked on my sandwich with “purple Spider-Man costume with little Spider-Man logos on the nipples.” I think you just rendered anything I was going to say invalid lol.

      • November 11, 2010 at 2:53 pm

        I agree with R1, I just don’t wanna hear the same story over and over and over again. Furthermore, and this is where we disagree, I didn’t think Batman NEEDED a reboot. I thought they should pull a Highlander and just act like the bad ones that followed Batman 2 didn’t happen and move on. We’d seen Penguin, we’d seen Catwoman and we’d seen Joker. There are a PLETHORA of other villains to do and stories to tell, why reboot at all!?!

        In a nutshell, I don’t wanna see ANY reboot regardless of the character or storyline. Unless it’s a reboot of a total failure, like Captain America or the first 2 Punishers, I’m good on remakes. Move the hell ON.

      • November 12, 2010 at 12:49 am

        To go with what 0rangeJulius said, after Batman & Robin, I think most people considered the franchise a total failure. By the time this new Spider-Man movie comes out, it will almost be the same amount of time between movies as B&R and Batman Begins. And fans tend to agree that Spider-Man 3 was pretty awful.

        I guess the producers felt that the audience would accept a young Peter Parker instead of 30ish Parker, even though that’s about how old he is now in the comics. If they were smart, they would have gotten the younger actor, even though Garfield was unanimous. With a younger actor they could have stretched his run a lot longer than 2-3 movies. Maybe they thought the idea of a 15 year old getting beat up by adult characters like Dr. Octopus and Lizard, etc would look bad, or that parents would get pissed off. See, then it all comes back around to the dollar, their investment. Because without the parents, the kids wouldn’t have the money to buy tickets and feed the Merch.

      • November 12, 2010 at 9:38 am

        Exactly – the truth of the matter (that pisses me off to no end) is that studios specifically make these movies for the millions of people that don’t read comics. They don’t care about us because they know the movie title alone is enough to put us in the seat with some hope. What they don’t get (most likely because they DON’T read comic books), is that a comic book story line absolutely would entertain people that don’t read comics – they just don’t know any better. Go pick up a collected edition of a comic and put it on screen – it’s all right there for you. There will be some changes to make it translate on screen, sure, but the action, romance, and drama is all right there for you. Stop trying to come up with these “other stories” with the characters that ends up ringing false and ridiculous with the fans. It’s quite possible to make everyone happy but when you’re unfamiliar with the genre you assume it’s for kids and there’s no real plot there.

        And now I’m ranting.

      • November 12, 2010 at 12:45 pm

        Rant on people rant on! Glorious points made by all!

        Just to add to what R1 said:

        Whenever they make a story that follows the book and the book is excellent, the movie is good. I have tried to think of exceptions, but off the top of my head the only thing I can think of is Watchmen as far as being bad… and I didn’t think Watchmen was bad.. it’s just wasn’t good. That, to me, can be chalked up to the 30 minutes they added to it with fluff fight scenes and Pat Buchanan cameos… but I digress.

        30 Days follows the comic, and was awesome. Sin City followed the comic and was awesome. Lord of the Rings followed the books and was awesome. Why don’t they see a pattern? Good sci-fi/comic book = good movie. It’s pretty simple

  6. November 11, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Just to poke the grizzly bear some more, here is the latest: Peter’s parents will be in the movie.


  7. November 11, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    I agree the franchise needed a re-boot after the debacle that was Spiderman 3 (the nerdy 70’s kid as Venom?!?)

    But starting back over with a young Peter Parker is not the way to do it. The first Spiderman was done as well as that story is going to be done.

    A re-boot worked for Batman because the story had a lot to explore in terms of a subplot i.e. how does a guy pissed about his parent’s death start wearing a bat costume? There’s no psychological subcontext to a kid getting bit by a radioactive spider and fighting crime. Yeah, the whole uncle Ben thing but it’s not like Pete would’ve started fighting crime unless he was bit un the 1st place.

    They should scrap this and re-boot with a whole movie about the symbiotes. It doesn’t get much more dark and adult than Carnage going on murder spree and tackling the driving motivations behind Venoms’s character.

    Does anybody even care about the Lizard?

    • November 11, 2010 at 2:31 pm

      OMG I would looooooooooove an R-rated movie with Carnage. That would be sick.

      • November 11, 2010 at 2:56 pm

        I agree that they should redo the symbiote storyline, but I just can’t bring myself to stomach and of the subsequent symbiotes. I am SOOOOOO over the symbiote storyline.

      • November 12, 2010 at 12:34 am

        I doubt they would go that route. With it being related to Spider-Man, parents would still take their kids to see it and then complain because it was too violent. I think Avi Arad (former Marvel movie head producer) said that they still plan to do a Venom movie, and he hinted that the actor would be closer to the look of the character, meaning the size of Brock. If Columbia would just branch out and let a small scale Venom movie come out, geared towards an adult audience, then they would see it would work. I know that if Dark Knight went a little bit further, and got an R rating, people would still have seen it and loved it. Punisher: War Zone was R, but the story was kinda lame at times. The action was fine though. Man-Thing was R, but was so, so bad. I mean like train wreck bad. 30 Days of Night was good, and made a profit. 300, Watchmen, Kick-Ass were all rated R and made a profit. Ghost Rider and any Punisher movie should be R. There are not a lot of DC comics for this list.

        It’s really annoying, because some comic book movies could be made on the cheap, and if the story doesn’t suck, would make it’s money back. Daredevil shouldn’t have cost $78 million to make. The dude is blind and fights people with his fists. Practical effects all the way, no CGI or motion capture Avatar crap.

        I’m just pissed now thinking about it, that Hollywood wants to invest a ton of money into a project and then play it safe by crapping up the story. “Oh, lets get bankable Ben Affleck and add some CGI for what Daredevil actually sees, and lets make Elektra nicer. Let Colin use his real accent for Bullseye, no one will notice; it’s Colin, they’ll still love him. Make sure to give him a glamorous purple sequin trench coat too.” Dude, she’s an assassin. You can’t tone that down. And I’m pretty sure Bullseye was an American and would have killed someone if they wore that stupid jacket.

        I’m sorry for ranting.

      • November 12, 2010 at 9:33 am

        Hahahahahah ranting is what we’re here for.

      • November 12, 2010 at 12:47 pm

        No no G33ky, rant on brother rant ON! Church! Amen! Woooooo!!


        In all seriousness though, you’re spot on.

  8. November 12, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    Amen! They just need to get us behind the camera with an indie budget and we can churn out some decent Marvel movies. I’d even take on a minor project like Moon Knight…

    • November 13, 2010 at 12:27 pm

      I agree with you on Moon Knight! He’s got a sorta weak following and thus would get a weaker budget but that could be a blessing considering how bad the blockbuster movies have been!

      • November 13, 2010 at 1:13 pm

        Yes, just for goodness sakes do NOT make a low budget Dazzler movie like I’ve heard. Nooooooooo thank you. The Moon Knight could be cool and I’ve heard of the Luke Cage and Dr. Strange low budget ones happening.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


Blog Stats

  • 814,723 hits

%d bloggers like this: