Spider-Man 4: Everything we know so far about the movie
It comes after filming notification engagement letters for the production - which has the working title 'Blue Oasis' - went out to residents in Glasgow city centre earlier this week.
Here's everything we know about Spider-Man 4, which has officially been titled Spider-Man: Brand New Day.
Spider-Man 4 filming to take over Glasgow this summer
Who is starring in the film?
Spider-Man 4 will see Tom Holland reprise his role as Spider-Man.
Holland revealed that the big-budget flick will begin filming in the summer of 2025 during an appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon back in October 2024.
Shang-Chi director Destin Daniel Cretton will direct, with Stranger Things actress Sadie Sink reported to have been cast alongside Holland.
Recent reports suggest that Zendaya will have a minor role in Spider-Man 4.
What we do know about the plot?
Plot details remain under wraps, but long-time Spider-Man franchise producer Amy Pascal, while appearing on Deadline's Behind the Lens podcast in December last year, teased what we can expect from the story.
She said: 'We have to deal with the fact that he decided he was going to give up being Peter Parker [in No Way Home], and that he was going to focus on being Spider-Man because being Peter Parker was too hard.'
When will filming take place in Glasgow?
According to the filming notification letters, production crews are set to descend on Glasgow in mid-August.
Where will filming take place in Glasgow?
The filming notification letters note that production crews are "working towards" filming on Bothwell Street, St Vincent Street, Waterloo Street and Oak Street through Richmond Street.
What else do we know about the filming?
According to the letters, some of the scenes being shot will "involve vehicles in the road, with production crews anticipating that Bothwell Street will be closed to vehicles (between Pitt Street and Hope Street) for approximately one week to accommodate filming.
When is the film due for release?
The film is slated for a July 2026.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
39 minutes ago
- The National
Why your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man gives you the ‘ick' factor
That shimmering street grid, and those sandstone bases of unbuilt skyscrapers, will host the most everyday superhero of the current Marvel Universe. Everyday, in every way. It's not just Peter Parker's tentative romance with Mary Jane Watson (and her variants), or his wracked grief on the deaths of his adoptive parents, or his humdrum job as a freelance photographer. But it's also his powers; they too partake of the everyday. In his earliest incarnation, Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider, escaped from an experiment. Spider-Man first appears in the nuclear-haunted, cold-warring mid-60s, where the lingering effects of radiation on babies and animals were well known. Not to mention the beginning of plausible genetic engineering. Watching the precursor to the forthcoming Glasgow-based movie, 2021's Spider-Man: No Way Home, it's notable that all the villains assembled – Doctor Octopus, Green Goblin, Sandman, Lizard, Electro – have gained their malevolent powers through exposure to radiation, or biological/cyborg experiment. Just like Spider-Man. READ MORE: 'Ludicrous': BBC bias claims reignite as majority of panellists back Labour Doth this 'good' mutant protest too much against the 'bad' ones? The citizens are consigned to the role of spectators (or squished collateral damage) as these super-humans fight for supremacy. No amount of Peter Parker homeliness – he is your 'friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man', after all, happiest when arresting street thugs – can hide his posthuman weirdery. No Way Home might be the eighth-biggest-grossing movie of all time, but it's lame in the way it resolves this tension – where body modification turns towards good or ill. Parker and friends test-tube up some remedies for the villains, transforming them back into their humdrum, benign human selves. But then Doctor Strange – played by a somnolent Benedict Cumberbatch – has to then 'magic' them back into the parallel universes they've come from. The current Spidey-verse – with a guileless Tom Holland in the title role – is, at this late stage in the Marvel franchise, a bewildering mix of superpowers. Under the techno-influence of Tony Stark, the old struggles with the Spidey costume – stitching it together, hauling it on, repairing rips – are now an automated swoosh from suit to suit. There's also a very funny sequence where previous Spider-Men from parallel universes (Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield) explore their web-making powers. Garfield and Holland have to keep refilling their cartridges, while Maguire produces it subcutaneously from his wrist (which was creator Stan Lee's original mutation). 'Does it come out anywhere else?' asks Holland guilelessly. This is a nod to the obvious metaphor: the yearning young adult Parker suddenly suffers a condition where white sticky fluid unpredictably erupts everywhere … The actors are given enough room to riff on it. So we're laughing, these days. But I don't think any amount of irony and eyebrow-raised referencing can reduce the essential strangeness of Spider-Man – and for that matter, X-Men, Iron Man, the Fantastic Four, Captain America, Black Widow, Ant-Man, I could go on. All of them are the victims of science and technology either gone wrong, or consciously applied to the body, resulting in imposed or desired superpowers. As the box office shows, the appetite is there for stories, however fantastic, of human biomodification. You could render them as giant compensation fantasies. We're coping with our everyday sense of bodily vulnerability to the outcomes of sci-tech, through entertainments that show us gaining power from it – not being polluted and made more fragile and dependent by it. Yet it strikes me that we are much more resistant to the transformations of bioscience than we are to the transformations of AI and automation. We consume all manner of creative narratives, both desirable and cautionary, about computers becoming conscious or purposeful – and it all seems more like a lubricant to the spread of AI in our lives than an inhibitor. When it comes to us and our bags of skin, however, we're just not as embracing of the radical bio-changes that the superheroes undergo, willingly or unwillingly. The safest vector is through disability or health. The pills and therapies that suppress appetite, attack viruses, enable pregnancies, and (who knows) slow down cell decay to prolong life. Even that avatar of techno-weirdness, Elon Musk, who wants to neurologically link brains and computers, does so first in service of the paralysed, giving them some much-needed agency and purchase in the material world. Yet we appear to have an unarticulated, deeply-set norm that kicks back against too much of this. The 'ick' factor is certainly present. Take the Enhanced Games that took place in Singapore the other week. Sportspersons competed in athletics which ignored the fuzzy line between legal performance-enhancing substances and illegal ones. But the games languished under waves of aversive, sometimes even revulsed press coverage. So we revel in the superheroic cavortings of cyborgs and mutants on our screens, while objecting to already finely-calibrated athletic bodies taking a few seconds off a track record, by expanding the pharmacopoeia of their drugs. I'm not complaining! Indeed, I'm desperately grateful that there seems to be some kind of natural, intuitive limit to the kinds of transformations we moderns of the 2020s are willing to undergo. Even the blockbuster entertainments are telling us something obvious, as the Earth is (yet again) threatened with total annihilation in their narratives. Which is that it ultimately, terminally matters how we humans consciously deploy our transforming powers in the world. I will admit to enjoying these bionic characters as modern mythological gods, cartoonishly laying out important dilemmas for us. However, I sometimes crave sci-fi tales in a much subtler register. Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go is interesting to set alongside these bombastic tales. In its way, it's hardly less monstrous. The whole society in this novel is stable, settled, orderly and utterly cruel: the institutionalised children in it are clones, being grown to adulthood so that they their organs can be harvested for clients. The supportive relationships that comprise much of the novel are to support the weakening young adults, as they are weakened by the surgeries they undergo. This is body modification, but all about submission to the process, accommodating its demands. It's far from radiation, gene therapy or prosthetics enabling you to leap tall buildings with a single bound. Bio-heroes in the blockbusters conduct their sparring in the public sphere, as if they're conducting an oblique argument about the society they're in. For No Way Home, they literally battle across the surface of a scaffolded Statue of Liberty. They're also constantly pursued by an Alex-Jones-like vlogger, casting Spidey as a public enemy. In Never Let Me Go, the bio-subjects are held in a pastoral enclosure, erased from the world that depends on their sacrifice. The crowds gawp at the superheroes: faced with Ishiguro's bureaucratic horror, the crowds avert their eyes. The superheroes at least ask: What happens when your body has power and potential, when what you can do with it amplifies your agency? Ishiguro asks: what happens when the body simply becomes somebody's property? The Spider-Man producer Amy Pascal says the new film will be about 'Peter Parker going to focus on being Spider-Man, because being Peter Parker was too hard'. Cute: his pursuit of Zendaya, as his girlfriend with a now wiped memory of him, will no doubt humanise the story. But Spider-Man – and we haven't even touched on arachnophobia (or is that arachnophilia?) – is properly odd, if you scrutinise him closely enough, and line him up with all his bionic pals. There are important tensions about humanity, technology and the future, hidden behind that bug-eyed mask.
The Herald Scotland
14 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Spider-Man 4: Everything we know so far about the movie
It comes after filming notification engagement letters for the production - which has the working title 'Blue Oasis' - went out to residents in Glasgow city centre earlier this week. Here's everything we know about Spider-Man 4, which has officially been titled Spider-Man: Brand New Day. Spider-Man 4 filming to take over Glasgow this summer Who is starring in the film? Spider-Man 4 will see Tom Holland reprise his role as Spider-Man. Holland revealed that the big-budget flick will begin filming in the summer of 2025 during an appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon back in October 2024. Shang-Chi director Destin Daniel Cretton will direct, with Stranger Things actress Sadie Sink reported to have been cast alongside Holland. Recent reports suggest that Zendaya will have a minor role in Spider-Man 4. What we do know about the plot? Plot details remain under wraps, but long-time Spider-Man franchise producer Amy Pascal, while appearing on Deadline's Behind the Lens podcast in December last year, teased what we can expect from the story. She said: 'We have to deal with the fact that he decided he was going to give up being Peter Parker [in No Way Home], and that he was going to focus on being Spider-Man because being Peter Parker was too hard.' When will filming take place in Glasgow? According to the filming notification letters, production crews are set to descend on Glasgow in mid-August. Where will filming take place in Glasgow? The filming notification letters note that production crews are "working towards" filming on Bothwell Street, St Vincent Street, Waterloo Street and Oak Street through Richmond Street. What else do we know about the filming? According to the letters, some of the scenes being shot will "involve vehicles in the road, with production crews anticipating that Bothwell Street will be closed to vehicles (between Pitt Street and Hope Street) for approximately one week to accommodate filming. When is the film due for release? The film is slated for a July 2026.
Daily Mirror
15 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Lily Allen gets huge boost after David Harbour marriage split
Lily Allen recently split from her five-year-long marriage to actor David Harbour and has since received an unexpected boost in her bank account, despite releasing no new music Lily Allen has opened up about her recent surge in earnings from her music royalties, which have unexpectedly seen a boost in interest after years of no new releases. Following her split from Stranger Things actor David Harbour, the noughties pop singer, now 40 years old, has seen a soaring interest in her old hits. Known among Brits for her classic tongue-in-cheek hits like Not Fair, The Fear, and Smile, the singer has been shocked to see her songs have a resurgence online. A new generation of Gen Z fans is rediscovering her discography, and in turn, the pop star is making more money from it than expected. Her work has gone on to inspire younger artists such as Olivia Rodrigo and Charli XCX, who have both credited Allen as a musical influence. On the most recent episode of her podcast Miss Me?, hosted alongside best friend Miquita Oliver, the singer admitted: "I do find it hard listening to that music. I'm not ashamed of it because I think it was good for what it was at the time. And actually, I think it does still stand up." She added: "It's having an actual resurgence on the internet. I know because my royalty payments are going up. There are young kids that are into my music now." The hitmaker hasn't released a song since her 2018 record, Trigger Bang, and her big commercial breakthrough was almost two decades ago. Lily Allen currently boasts over 10 million monthly listeners on Spotify, and yet, the pop star has been candid about how she and other artists struggle to make money from their music. Last year, Lily made a social media post that went viral, poking fun at the industry's lack of income for artists. In response to a post on X claiming that the star had made over a million dollars from Spotify alone, she came back to say that she earns more money from making OnlyFans content. Allen created an account on the site, where she sells photos of her feet to people online, and shockingly, it's been a bit of a money grab. She wrote: "Imagine being an artist and having nearly 8 million monthly listeners on Spotify but earning more money from having 1,000 people subscribe to pictures of your feet. Don't hate the player, hate the game." The controversial account was launched last summer, not long before she and her husband reportedly split, and since then, rumors have swirled about the two's tragic ending. Admitting it all, Lily has found solace in her music, and she opened up about how writing has been an outlet for her during this difficult time. "It's almost like therapy," she described it. "I like to write and record at the same time with somebody else in the room—there's something therapeutic about it. My producer or my co-writers become almost like therapists because I'm processing the things that I'm going through in real time." She added: "I can do that in music, but I can't really do it when I'm talking to friends or my parents. It doesn't mean I'm being inauthentic... I just don't feel like I can sum things up properly. But I can do it in a three-and-a-half-minute pop song."
