There are a number of factors that have gone into the never-ending carousel of Spider-Man
actors, and Tom Holland shouldn't get too comfortable in his red spandex. To find out
why that is, take a look at the real reason we've had three actors play Spider-Man in
10 years.
Superhero movies dominate the current Hollywood landscape, but that hasn't always been the
case. Though some may point to 2000's X-Men, or even 1998's Blade as the start of modern
comic book movie mayhem, the superhero boom owes a lot to 2002's Spider-Man. Its box office
take towered over the other Marvel movies, taking in $821 million worldwide. That's a
number that would be impressive even for a film released today, nearly two decades later,
it's more than Deadpool 2 made in 2018.
In the days before The Dark Knight and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Spider-Man was
the biggest thing going in superhero movies. Directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire,
the 2000s trilogy of Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, and Spider-Man 3 kept the genre thriving
while it was still in its relative infancy, with a combined total of nearly $2.5 billion
at the box office. The movies arguably defined Maguire's career, and the second film is still
considered one of the greatest superhero movies ever made. And yet, despite the trilogy's
enormous success and undeniable impact on the film industry, the franchise was rebooted
just five years after Spider-Man 3.
If you're just looking at the numbers, Spider-Man 3 was a monumental success. It was 2007's
highest-grossing film domestically, and it made more money at the box office than either
of its predecessors. In fact, its $890 million worldwide total remained the best box office
performance of any Spider-Man movie until it was finally topped in 2019 by Spider-Man:
Far from Home. So why, after making a ton of money, did Spider-Man 3 sound the death
knell for Maguire and Raimi's iteration of the character? Well, to put it simply, the
movie had some problems.
Generally speaking, you'll have to look long and hard to find a hardcore fan of Spider-Man
3. Critics were not kind to the film, and many fans didn't like it either. The plot
was overstuffed with three villains: the Sandman, Harry Osborn's New Goblin, and Topher Grace
as Eddie Brock, who only becomes Venom in the final third of the movie. There was also
a love triangle with the addition of Gwen Stacy, a retcon of Uncle Ben's death, and
Peter Parker's own inner battle after he's infected with the venom symbiote, which manifest
as a series of infamous dance numbers. In the ensuing years since the film's release,
even the people behind Spider-Man 3 have joined fans and critics in dragging the movie, with
director Sam Raimi saying the film was "awful" in a 2015 interview.
"My son thought the world of this guy." "I have a nine year old daughter, loves Spider-Man,
who's she supposed to look up to now?"
In spite of Spider-Man 3's well-documented issues, the immediate plan from Sony was to
continue the franchise with the current team intact. After all, the movie made a boatload
of money, and in Hollywood, that's what counts. Raimi began working on Spider-Man 4 shortly
after he'd wrapped the third film, with both Maguire and Kirsten Dunst ready to return.
The director was looking to feature the Vulture as the film's villain, and had even secured
John Malkovich for the role. He also nabbed Anne Hathaway to play antiheroine Felicia
Hardy, Black Cat in the comics, but in the movie she would've become the Vulturess. The
film even had a scheduled release date of May 6, 2011. Alas, it never came to be.
The issue was that Raimi, while working with various co-writers, was unable to get the
script to a place that satisfied him. He was desperate not to repeat the mistakes he made
in Spider-Man 3. Once the director realized there was no way he would be able to meet
Sony's deadline for the film's release date, however, he told the studio that he no longer
wanted to make the film. Rather than trying to find a new director to take over what Raimi
had been working on, Sony decided to restart the franchise from scratch.
Even before Raimi quit working on Spider-Man 4, Sony already had a contingency plan in
place for a reboot. On the day in 2010 when Sony announced the cancelation of Spider-Man
4, the studio also announced that a new Spider-Man would arrive in theaters in 2012. The decision
to reboot rather than continue with a new director came from the studio's belief that
Peter Parker's story was best told through the lens of a boy becoming a man, specifically
a Spider-Man. The reboot would take Peter Parker back to high school, and for this,
the studio settled on Andrew Garfield.
"Is that a knife? Is that a real knife?"
"Yes, it's a real knife."
"My weakness, it's small knives!"
While eight years younger than Maguire, Garfield was still at least a decade older than the
character he would be portraying, and was actually two years older than Maguire was
in the first Spider-Man film. In spite of Garfield's advanced age, director Marc Webb
felt he was best for the role in The Amazing Spider-Man for a number of reasons, including
his chemistry with co-star Emma Stone, who was playing Spidey's doomed love interest
Gwen Stacy.
With the rebooted Amazing Spider-Man hitting theaters just five years after Spider-Man
3, many fans were skeptical about how well the film would be received. As it turns out,
they should've been; the film underperformed on nearly every level. One heavy criticism
was the film's decision to retell Spider-Man's full origin story, almost beat-for-beat as
it had been in Raimi's film, only a decade later. By spending much of the running time
on a story that the audience already knew, the movie wasted its chance to do something
new and exciting. Perhaps ironically, criticism was also leveled at what the film actually
did try to do differently. Rather than being an awkward nerd, Garfield's Peter Parker was
depicted as being a cool teen skateboarder who disrespects authority and has no problem
standing up to, and even bullying Flash Thompson. He just didn't feel or act like Parker to
many fans.
Changes to the story were also criticized. A new plot line was added that made the death
of Peter's parents part of some kind of vague conspiracy, and it helped drive Peter's motivations.
He still had the traditional driving tragedy of Uncle Ben's death, however, raising the
question of how many dead father figures one story really needs before it all gets too
convoluted.
The Amazing Spider-Man might have underperformed at the box office and failed to excite fans,
but it wasn't a bomb by any means. Sure, it made less than any other Spider-Film to date,
but that's still plenty of money, and work quickly began on a sequel. The Amazing Spider-Man
2 brought in Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx as new villain Electro, but the filmmakers didn't
stop there. Seemingly determined to ignore the lessons learned by the overstuffed Spider-Man
3, the film also added a new Green Goblin, along with a tattooed Paul Giamatti as the
Rhino, performing cinema history's least convincing Russian accent.
"I am The Rhino! I told you I would be back!"
Perhaps the biggest mistake made by the film was the decision to kill Gwen Stacy. While
the 1973 comic book story of her death is considered a classic, the plot point of a
woman dying to motivate a male character was considered tired, offensive, and damaging
by the time the film was released in 2014. There was also a strong sense that Gwen's
death was not earned in the film, and that it was done simply because death is what fans
associate with the character. Combine all of that with some subpar performances, and
it led to both the worst critical reception and the lowest box office take of any Spider-Man
movie up to that point.
While the Spider-Man franchise was floundering, the Marvel Cinematic Universe was flourishing.
After Iron Man kicked off the MCU in 2008, and especially following the monumental success
of 2012's The Avengers, the franchise redefined what audiences wanted out of superhero movies.
To put it bluntly, fans expected superhero movies to be good, and movie studios expected
them to make the kind of money that few other franchises ever had. With films starring B-list
heroes like Guardians of the Galaxy earning more money at the box office than Amazing
Spider-Man 2, the MCU was becoming too big for Sony to ignore.
On the other side of the coin, Marvel was also desperate to bring Spider-Man into the
fold. Their films were undeniably successful, but that success was built on the backs of
traditionally lesser-loved characters like Iron Man. Spider-Man, on the other hand, has
been the face of Marvel Comics since 1963. The belief was that Spider-Man belonged in
the MCU with the rest of his Marvel brethren, where the character could lead the next generation
of Marvel films to an even higher level of success. And when major studios are motivated
to make a deal, sometimes the impossible becomes possible.
"Cash money for a picture of Spider-Man, he doesn't want to be famous, I'll make him infamous!"
After the poor performance of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Sony decided to pursue another
reboot, and got Marvel Studios to produce the third iteration of Spider-Man in a decade.
In February 2015, Disney and Sony reached a practically unheard-of deal to effectively
share a franchise. Marvel Studios would produce new Spider-Man films alongside Sony and also
include MCU characters in Spider-Man films, but Sony would get full distribution rights
for the movies, including all of their box office earnings. In exchange, Disney got permission
to use Spider-Man in their own films, such as the Avengers movies, and all of the merchandising
rights to the character. Now, with both studios wanting what's best for Spidey, it was time
for a third Peter Parker to suit up.
With Marvel Studios on board, it was decided that Spider-Man would debut not in his own
reboot film, but rather as part of the huge ensemble in 2016's Captain America: Civil
War. That would remove the pressure of carrying a solo film from the new Spidey, and ease
him into the larger MCU without having to cover the origin story again. Marvel also
decided that the new Peter Parker would once again be a high schooler. This time, unlike
Maguire and Garfield, who were both pushing 30 when they were cast in the role, the studio
cast an actual teenager for the part: 19-year-old British actor Tom Holland.
Holland's version of the character debuted in Civil War to rave reviews. While there's
a subtle mention of a tragedy in his past, viewers met a Peter Parker who was already
fighting crime as Spider-Man. Fans and critics alike loved Holland's personality in the role,
while also finding it refreshing that he was actually, for the first time in Spidey history,
close in age to the character he was playing.
Two years after his pitch-perfect MCU intro in Civil War, Holland starred in his first
solo film for Sony, Spider-Man: Homecoming. The movie was the first Spider-Man film to
be produced by Marvel Studios, and it proved to be a massive critical and financial success.
Holland followed up that goodwill by appearing in the two largest Marvel movies to date,
2018's Avengers: Infinity War and 2019's Avengers: Endgame.
"I'm Peter by the way."
"Doctor Strange."
"Oh, you're using our made up names, I'm Spider-Man, then."
Both movies have already become cultural touchstones, and they rank as the fifth and first highest-grossing
films of all time, respectively. Furthermore, Spider-Man's contributions to each film helped
raise the character's profile not only in the MCU, but to the movie-going public as
well. When the next Spider-Man movie debuted less than ten weeks after Endgame's premiere,
it did so on a wave of MCU-driven excitement and anticipation. The movie obliterated the
previous box office record for a Spider-Man movie by becoming the first film in the franchise
to gross $1 billion at the worldwide box office.
Despite the runaway success Holland has enjoyed as Spider-Man, there have been rumors that
Sony is looking to regain full control over the franchise. After all, they have their
own budding universe made up of other Spidey characters in which Spider-Man himself is
not legally allowed to appear.
Sony had tremendous success with 2018's Venom, as the movie earned nearly as much at the
box office as Spider-Man: Homecoming. The studio has already greenlit a sequel, as well
as Morbius, based on the "Living Vampire" who first appeared in Spider-Man comics, with
Jared Leto in the starring role. Eventually, Sony's going to want Spider-Man to appear
in these films to boost their profile, and if Marvel isn't willing to let Holland do
so, then Sony may just go ahead with a fourth reboot.
Check out one of our newest videos right here! Plus, even more Looper videos about your favorite
stuff are coming soon. Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don't miss
a single one.