Welcome to BigScreenBiz.com

I've been reading in the trade mags. where Toby Maguire was complaining of a bad back and was trying to decide whether or not he should do the next Spider-Man movie. This got me thinking. If he decided not to play the role, would the movie do as well. I think the part was made for him to play. Face it, if Tom Cruise did Spider-Man it wouldn't be the same. So my question I guess is, 'Do you think Spider-Man 2 will be a success, (or as much of a success) without Toby?

When Mr. Maguire was first announced for the original role of Peter Parker / Spiderman, there were snickers in the peanut gallery. But he was the perfect choice. I agree, he would be hard to replace in any sequel.

---

John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Customer Technical Services
Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

[This message has been edited by John Pytlak (edited May 01, 2003).]

Although I think highly of Jake Gyllenhaal's acting ability, and think he could do a respectable job as Spiderman, I still don't think a Spidy sequal would measure up to the original without Toby McGuire. He really did fit the role well.

Basically, I think your audience is divided into two groups: celebrity fans and story fans. Those who want to see the celebrity continue in the part probably will not support a film with a newcomer playing the part. Given enough time before the sequal I think that might change. Those who like a particular story or genre aren't as concerned about who plays the part. I find myself in each catagory at times.

Batman went through a series of actors and it didn't seem to hurt the film.

---

Bob Allen
The Old Showman

It's about the story.

and what about James Bond?

I agree with Bob that there are two camps, but today I think that the story is the most important in most cases. However years ago (many years ago) star power sold films, but I'm talking about prior to the consent decrees when the studios owned not only the theatres but the stars as well. Each studio had a stable of stars which they sold like a commodity. If you look at old photos of theatre marquees from those days in was not uncommon to see the stars name all in large letters and the title in small letters.