|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 6, 2018 17:40:03 GMT
Spider-Man usually portrayed as a youthful character. Tom Holland's Spider-Man has been able to stand toe to toe with high calibers like RDJ's Tony Stark and Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange. That's all fine.
Acting quality and the definition of "youthful" is largly subjective. See the 70s TV show.
I find Holland unremarkable and generic in this role.
I hope he will get ample Oscars in his career, I just would prefer someone else.
You raise an interesting point. I actually enjoy Holland's performance, but Peter won't be a kid forever. The Spidey I grew up reading was a full grown man with a wife, a job, etc. If (and it's a big if with so many iterations of the character in the comics these days) they continue Spidey films into his adulthood, I'm curious as to whether they would stick with Holland or recast. They're kind of stuck with Holland at this point, aren't they? The franchise has been rebooted so many times they almost have to stick with Holland for continuity's sake. It presents an ironic twist on the issue of casting a younger character. Usually you worry about casting a kid and hoping he doesn't age out of the role; this time the actor may end up looking too young to play an adult Peter Parker. Peter isn't a lumberjack by any means but he has to be a little more rugged than Holland by the time he's 27, no?
|
|