Rumor: Andrew Garfield Already "Fired" From Spider-Man

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous; in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

Before looking to the mote in thy neighbor's eye, attend to the beam in thy own. Your accusations of him having an agenda come off a bit suspect when you say he's presenting this as an official announcement when the very first word of the article's title is "rumor."

What? I meant he is a nerd with an ax to grind. So, maybe, don't jump to conclusions?

Edit: Me being accused of being a GG member? I know someone who doesn't frequent R&P.

If you don't want to answer, then that's fine, but I seriously would like to know what jabs you think Mr. Chipman took at the franchise in this article.

Not in this particular article. But he snipes at the franchise in his videos and slipped links to his own videos bashing the movies in the Aunt May rumor article.

 

[Something Amyss]

Peter Parker being a stereotypical nerd is like with how the public consciousness has gotten this idea that Superman never kills ever no matter what and thus so many whined incessantly when in Man of Steel he kills Zod, despite the fact that Superman refusing to kill under any circumstances hasn't been true in anything he's ever been in especially the comics for a VERY long time.

People just get so obsessed with a particular image of a character they'll rage against anything that even slightly deviates from that image despite that image's complete lack of accuracy and Spider-Man is no exception. Then people complain about the fact that long lasting characters in anything especially comics never make any notable changes or takes on any lasting character development to the point that it extends to the entire fictional universe itself and wonder why this happens.

Oh, I know. It's just sort of hilarious when you contrast the outrage at Joe Quesada with any possible excuse used to jump all over why X version of Spider-Man isn't authentic. Though I suppose it's not necessarily inconsistent, it's funny that the collective seems to draw from the same sort of era Joe wanted to reset Peter to (though I guess JQ's version of Peter was getting laid the whole time). But even then, the comments that got outrage over Quesada were based around the idea that fans couldn't relate to someone who wasn't basically a nerdy man-child living in his mom's basement Aunt's attic, and yet people are complaining he's not some sixties nerd stereotype that should, if there's any consistency in the world, have many of the people upset he's not a nerd screaming "nerd blackface" like they do with another franchise where nerds get laid practically constantly.

I also get that people let who they grew up with in a part impacts them, though I don't particularly get it. I don't like Tom Baker as The Doctor, never really felt the need to defend Connery as Bond (though I like those Bond movies), and I was never married to Christopher Reeve as Superman (though again, I enjoyed the first couple movies). Hell, my favourite adaptation of Spider-Man is the Spectacular cartoon, which totally plays fast and loose with the Spidey "I grew up with." Which is fine, because it's good. I'll take good over some inflated sense of authenticity.

But yeah, I get that this happens. I think a lot of people are saying "Not MY Spider-Man," even though they often complain about things that were present in the beloved Raimi franchise or other incarnations. But hey, if Doctor Who fans can complain that Matt Smith is bad because the Doctor would never carry a gun [http://deathstarpr.com/2011/05/the-doctor-is-the-worst-pacifist-ever/]....

Right after the guy they loved so much did this....

And even Baker fans don't get off on this one....

I know I've digressed into Doctor Who, but this is pretty much literally what I see when I see the Spider-Man threads on here.

 

[Something Amyss]

Personally, I'd like to see I've been married for a decade and work in a science lab Parker.

Hell, I'd just be thankful if they stopped casting him in high school or early college. I liked Garfield, but it takes more suspension of belief to think he's 17 than it does to think he could climb walls.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Losing Andrew Garfield vs Spiderman being back in Marvel's hands? GEE I wonder what obvious answer to this conundrum will be.

That's a good "sacrifice" in my eyes. I want Spiderman back in the Marvel Universe (in the movie one that is)..he is an Avenger after all.

 

[Kingjackl]

It would be a shame if it's true, since I really like Garfield as the wise-cracking irreverent Peter Parker. The Amazing Spider Man movies have some great casting marred by dodgy writing and a cynical attempt to ape the Avengers formula.

 

[Jake Martinez]

I actually really liked Andrew Garfield as spider-man. Sure they revamped the character's Peter Parker to be a bit off as they used more of a hipster ideal, but can you blame them?

Nerd in today's ideology isn't the same as it'd be in the 60s. Using the 60s concept of nerd looks very out of place in modern stories. Science smart people aren't seen as outcasts as much anymore, with even the most jock people I know talking about stuff like Cosmos. Once we figured out how to market science to the masses in fun, entertaining ways with impressive visual effects it became mainstream.

Mainstream is the antithesis of the nerd. So what would you have had them do? Otaku Peter Parker? Furry Peter Parker? (Goth Peter Parker didn't do Toby much good.)

I think you're fixating on the "thing", rather than the behavior. Also, I disagree with you that "Nerd" is an acceptable or mainstream type of self identification these days. It's not in any sense of the word still. Science nerds are still made fun of and there is a still a huge component of anti-intellectualism in mainstream society and culture. Anyway, that doesn't really matter in particular when contrasting the portrayals of Peter Parker between the two film series.

All that being said, the behavior is the thing that is really off. It's no so much what Peter Parker does in so much as the way that he goes about it - he's completely earnest and non-ironic. I mean, c'mon, this is a guy who earnestly believes in "With great power comes great responsibility". He's typical in the way that a lot of those early super heroes were, like Superman or Captain America - he just doesn't do cynicism well.

I.. am not sure if we are from the same type of community, but I live in a fairly large town and the nerds won. Fashion stores are selling Dr. Who stuff as well as super hero fashion, you can find nerd culture seeped into everything from Hot Topic to Forever 21. Fandoms are commonplace, and you see more iconography now for shows and franchises that wouldn't have had the same traction any time before.

Science, science fiction, fantasy and the ilk are more common in society now then they have ever been, so yes Nerd has been acceptable for as long as Starbucks has been everywhere. It's no longer counter culture. With things like you-tube delivering science a thousand different ways for a thousand different crowds it's sticking.

And you're starting to see it pop up in odd ways, like the fact that a lot more movies and stuff are doing the research over raw technobabble, I mean it's still there but you're seeing it a little less ( as angering as the show is, Big Bang Theory does actually have accurate science written into it's backgrounds regularly).

All of those things you mentioned have nothing to do with my assertion. You're talking about pop-culture stuff that has been somewhat "fringe", not about being a nerd, or in Peter's case more specifically, a science nerd. It was never part of his character that he liked unpopular culture, or science fiction, it was that he was smart and socially awkward and bullied for being small.

You're conflating "The Big Bang Theory" pop-culture garbage with what it's actually like to be in a group of students and being ostracized because you are different, not because you like different music/tv/games, whatever. While typical fringe pop-culture has been adopted by the mainstream through marketing, being the overeager kid in class who always raises his/her hand and is obviously smarter/harder working than the others, will not earn you the respect of your peers. This hasn't changed in decades and I doubt it will any time soon.

Also, Peter Parker is very cynical, he just jokes around to make up for the fact that when the chips are down his life could ruin the lives of everything around him. This is a character that realizes he's the punchline and runs with it, because otherwise he couldn't do the things he does. He's not the Flash, where his good nature allows him to bare the burden of his rogues. Peter Parker has been jealous, spiteful, angry, and depressed. He's lost and gained everything he's cared about at least once, without reboots. Sometimes his crisis of faith has lead him to toss away the mask, and sometimes he's telling "yo mamma" jokes with Deadpool because it's Tuesday and that's just what he had planned.

With great power comes great responsibility has been the backbone of his ideals, but his execution can very a lot depending on what type of Peter Parker you're looking at. Toby took a more early 90s approach ( Being Spider-man allows me to keep my city safe, but I have to keep my secret hidden at the cost of my self) where Andrew was closer to an early 2000s Peter Parker ( I'm smart and roll with the punches, I am spider-man because I can be.) neither is wrong, just different.

Personally, I'd like to see I've been married for a decade and work in a science lab Parker.

That's not what cynicism is. What you've described is self depreciating humor. Cynicism is an innate distrust in other people, their motives and their behaviors and an overall lack of faith in humanity. That doesn't sound like Peter Parker at all.

 

[killerbee256]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.

You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.

 

[Armadox]

I actually really liked Andrew Garfield as spider-man. Sure they revamped the character's Peter Parker to be a bit off as they used more of a hipster ideal, but can you blame them?

Nerd in today's ideology isn't the same as it'd be in the 60s. Using the 60s concept of nerd looks very out of place in modern stories. Science smart people aren't seen as outcasts as much anymore, with even the most jock people I know talking about stuff like Cosmos. Once we figured out how to market science to the masses in fun, entertaining ways with impressive visual effects it became mainstream.

Mainstream is the antithesis of the nerd. So what would you have had them do? Otaku Peter Parker? Furry Peter Parker? (Goth Peter Parker didn't do Toby much good.)

I think you're fixating on the "thing", rather than the behavior. Also, I disagree with you that "Nerd" is an acceptable or mainstream type of self identification these days. It's not in any sense of the word still. Science nerds are still made fun of and there is a still a huge component of anti-intellectualism in mainstream society and culture. Anyway, that doesn't really matter in particular when contrasting the portrayals of Peter Parker between the two film series.

All that being said, the behavior is the thing that is really off. It's no so much what Peter Parker does in so much as the way that he goes about it - he's completely earnest and non-ironic. I mean, c'mon, this is a guy who earnestly believes in "With great power comes great responsibility". He's typical in the way that a lot of those early super heroes were, like Superman or Captain America - he just doesn't do cynicism well.

I.. am not sure if we are from the same type of community, but I live in a fairly large town and the nerds won. Fashion stores are selling Dr. Who stuff as well as super hero fashion, you can find nerd culture seeped into everything from Hot Topic to Forever 21. Fandoms are commonplace, and you see more iconography now for shows and franchises that wouldn't have had the same traction any time before.

Science, science fiction, fantasy and the ilk are more common in society now then they have ever been, so yes Nerd has been acceptable for as long as Starbucks has been everywhere. It's no longer counter culture. With things like you-tube delivering science a thousand different ways for a thousand different crowds it's sticking.

And you're starting to see it pop up in odd ways, like the fact that a lot more movies and stuff are doing the research over raw technobabble, I mean it's still there but you're seeing it a little less ( as angering as the show is, Big Bang Theory does actually have accurate science written into it's backgrounds regularly).

All of those things you mentioned have nothing to do with my assertion. You're talking about pop-culture stuff that has been somewhat "fringe", not about being a nerd, or in Peter's case more specifically, a science nerd. It was never part of his character that he liked unpopular culture, or science fiction, it was that he was smart and socially awkward and bullied for being small.

You're conflating "The Big Bang Theory" pop-culture garbage with what it's actually like to be in a group of students and being ostracized because you are different, not because you like different music/tv/games, whatever. While typical fringe pop-culture has been adopted by the mainstream through marketing, being the overeager kid in class who always raises his/her hand and is obviously smarter/harder working than the others, will not earn you the respect of your peers. This hasn't changed in decades and I doubt it will any time soon.

The physical change of social structures versus the behavior that adapted those structures first is what this really comes down to. Nerd, fur all intents and purposes is socially awkward mannerisms and the desire for escapism. A desire for escapism that came from being socially awkward with peer social interactions.

All that fringe pop-culture garbage you're ignoring is in fact a great deal of importance, and removing it from the equation only leaves you with half the pie. The fact that escapism has become the norm, that pop-culture has become infused with what is seen as simply nerd culture stuff has greatly effected that.

Nerds have the ability to discuss escapism with the masses now, there is (or will be) a super hero show on every channel. Everyone read Harry Potter (or seen the movies). Science is something average people are grasping now, because they're seeing it in a way that those who aren't smart enough to research it can still grasp it. There are characters who actually embody the weak, the smart, and the awkward in everyday lingo that people can now equate with those who're just a bit off. Bob from sales can talk Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. with Hubert from accounting.

What did the popular opinion of nerd look like in the 80s? Revenge of the Nerds gave a pretty impressive stereotype, but today? Today we're seeing more smart people on television, more regular people can understand or identify with them now. Sure you're going to see that kid that always gets his hand up in class annoy his peers, but after class he now has the ability to actually talk to people about stuff. Pop-culture is always the start of acceptance, because that is what it is. Popular Culture, i.e. the likes and opinions of the masses and their effects on people.

We haven't seen change like this before, but we're seeing it now. We're seeing it integrate and become normal. We're seeing the fringe of people actually accepting nerd mannerisms into the flock, albeit slowly. Now, that being said for this to hold true there has to be more Cosmos and less Big Bang Theory. But baby steps, we're getting there.

edit: But as has been mentioned before Peter Parker will have a harder time being ostracized for being smart, so they have to either make him socially awkward because he's smart in a manner so extreme as to be parody ( Sweater Vest Peter Parker would feel like Steve Urkel if used today), or make him an outcast for other reasons. Shy in and of itself isn't damning, neither is clumsy (as long as, again you stay from the extremes) so that leaves us with needing something different to use as the backbone of him being an outcast. As a middle american white guy you can't use money, power, gender or race. So you have to go with social norms, and even then you can't go with to much of a fringe on-set (Goth, Furry, Otaku, Greaser, D&D playing basement dweller, etc). So new Peter Parker has to be just at the wheelhouse of socially acceptable for people to not want to be around him, but not so much as to become a stereotype that spits in the face of his character (he likes science, technology, doesn't care about sports and is into girls? So, he's like half of all male teenagers today. Right.). Counter-culture is the only open route to take; your hipster or general punk.

Double edit: He's smart isn't enough anymore to be outcast, and he doesn't stay weak for it to be part of his character. He pretends to be weak, just as him being an outcast is self designed. Peter Parker uses being an outcast to push away others so they don't get to close. He does it on purpose. He makes himself unpopular, and hates that he has to do so. The second he stands up to Flash, and is no longer bullied, how is his mannerisms causing him an issue?

(We have words like Toxic Masculinity now. I think that this is becoming a greater problem to represent Peter Parker as what he was in a modern culture then I had originally thought.)

Also, Peter Parker is very cynical, he just jokes around to make up for the fact that when the chips are down his life could ruin the lives of everything around him. This is a character that realizes he's the punchline and runs with it, because otherwise he couldn't do the things he does. He's not the Flash, where his good nature allows him to bare the burden of his rogues. Peter Parker has been jealous, spiteful, angry, and depressed. He's lost and gained everything he's cared about at least once, without reboots. Sometimes his crisis of faith has lead him to toss away the mask, and sometimes he's telling "yo mamma" jokes with Deadpool because it's Tuesday and that's just what he had planned.

With great power comes great responsibility has been the backbone of his ideals, but his execution can very a lot depending on what type of Peter Parker you're looking at. Toby took a more early 90s approach ( Being Spider-man allows me to keep my city safe, but I have to keep my secret hidden at the cost of my self) where Andrew was closer to an early 2000s Peter Parker ( I'm smart and roll with the punches, I am spider-man because I can be.) neither is wrong, just different.

Personally, I'd like to see I've been married for a decade and work in a science lab Parker.

That's not what cynicism is. What you've described is self depreciating humor. Cynicism is an innate distrust in other people, their motives and their behaviors and an overall lack of faith in humanity. That doesn't sound like Peter Parker at all.

That actually is broken because comics can't flesh out every person in every way. Comic characters have to have caps on their personality to keep them relatable as good. Peter in the comic has to ignore the fact that his town is run by the mob and that everyone could be a spy for them, but he has to guard a secret to protect his family so he has to be distrusting even to other heroes usually.

He's fairly unique in that to know his secret identity is to die. So he has to hide behind the persona of self depreciating humor, because to outwardly show that he's paranoid would break the character that people know from the beginning. Peter Parker believes in people, but he can't allow that belief to blind him of their true nature.

 

[Something Amyss]

All of those things you mentioned have nothing to do with my assertion. You're talking about pop-culture stuff that has been somewhat "fringe", not about being a nerd, or in Peter's case more specifically, a science nerd.

That these things became pop culture at all is telling.

 

[Toadfish1]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.

You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.

You didn't actually follow the source, did you?

 

[killerbee256]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.

You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.

You didn't actually follow the source, did you?

I was referring to the other article about the Sony and Marvel trying negotiating and failing to come to a agreement because the one women insisted on keeping Garfield. If Sony was making money on their own with the property why would they consider giving up those potential profits?

 

[Toadfish1]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.

You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.

You didn't actually follow the source, did you?

I was referring to the other article about the Sony and Marvel trying negotiating and failing to come to a agreement because the one women insisted on keeping Garfield. If Sony was making money on their own with the property why would they consider giving up those potential profits?

So your argument that Sony have actually fired Andrew Garfield, is that Sony didn't want to fire Andrew Garfield. What.

 

[killerbee256]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.

You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.

You didn't actually follow the source, did you?

I was referring to the other article about the Sony and Marvel trying negotiating and failing to come to a agreement because the one women insisted on keeping Garfield. If Sony was making money on their own with the property why would they consider giving up those potential profits?

So your argument that Sony have actually fired Andrew Garfield, is that Sony didn't want to fire Andrew Garfield. What.

Wow and you say I don't read. No my argument is that Sony executives believe the same thing the Moviebob does, the reboot movies are a failure. I wasn't commenting on the article but your comment that moviebob is wrong for saying the reboot is a failure/money pit. I'm don't care about Garfield one way or the other.

 

[Baresark]

It will always be strange to me when an actor bad mouths a movie they were in. I don't sit at work and talk about how bad my company sucks, even if it does suck. Or I would, but only in the confines of my home and certainly not publicly. We got the same thing from Megan Fox. She shit talked the director and then she was out of the third transformers film. At which point her career took a real dive.

 

[Toadfish1]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.

You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.

You didn't actually follow the source, did you?

I was referring to the other article about the Sony and Marvel trying negotiating and failing to come to a agreement because the one women insisted on keeping Garfield. If Sony was making money on their own with the property why would they consider giving up those potential profits?

So your argument that Sony have actually fired Andrew Garfield, is that Sony didn't want to fire Andrew Garfield. What.

Wow and you say I don't read. No my argument is that Sony executives believe the same thing the Moviebob does, the reboot movies are a failure. I wasn't commenting on the article but your comment that moviebob is wrong for saying the reboot is a failure/money pit. I'm don't care about Garfield one way or the other.

So you're recursively using rumors to back up rumors. THe rumor that Sony Japan thinks TASM movies are a failure is proof of the rumor that Andrew Garfield was fired.

 

[killerbee256]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.

You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.

You didn't actually follow the source, did you?

I was referring to the other article about the Sony and Marvel trying negotiating and failing to come to a agreement because the one women insisted on keeping Garfield. If Sony was making money on their own with the property why would they consider giving up those potential profits?

So your argument that Sony have actually fired Andrew Garfield, is that Sony didn't want to fire Andrew Garfield. What.

Wow and you say I don't read. No my argument is that Sony executives believe the same thing the Moviebob does, the reboot movies are a failure. I wasn't commenting on the article but your comment that moviebob is wrong for saying the reboot is a failure/money pit. I'm don't care about Garfield one way or the other.

So you're recursively using rumors to back up rumors. THe rumor that Sony Japan thinks TASM movies are a failure is proof of the rumor that Andrew Garfield was fired.

Hey the hacked emails are more then "rumors." Why would Sony offer to give Marvel/disney 2/3 of future profits if the reboots were making them money? You've got yourself a massive case of denial.

 

[Toadfish1]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.

You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.

You didn't actually follow the source, did you?

I was referring to the other article about the Sony and Marvel trying negotiating and failing to come to a agreement because the one women insisted on keeping Garfield. If Sony was making money on their own with the property why would they consider giving up those potential profits?

So your argument that Sony have actually fired Andrew Garfield, is that Sony didn't want to fire Andrew Garfield. What.

Wow and you say I don't read. No my argument is that Sony executives believe the same thing the Moviebob does, the reboot movies are a failure. I wasn't commenting on the article but your comment that moviebob is wrong for saying the reboot is a failure/money pit. I'm don't care about Garfield one way or the other.

So you're recursively using rumors to back up rumors. THe rumor that Sony Japan thinks TASM movies are a failure is proof of the rumor that Andrew Garfield was fired.

Hey the hacked emails are more then "rumors." Why would Sony offer to give Marvel/disney 2/3 of future profits if the reboots were making them money? You've got yourself a massive case of denial.

So you can't see the difference between "this movie won't make 2 billion dollars in profit" and "this is a trainwreck, get rid of it by any means"? Do you live in the real world at all?

 

[killerbee256]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.

You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.

You didn't actually follow the source, did you?

I was referring to the other article about the Sony and Marvel trying negotiating and failing to come to a agreement because the one women insisted on keeping Garfield. If Sony was making money on their own with the property why would they consider giving up those potential profits?

So your argument that Sony have actually fired Andrew Garfield, is that Sony didn't want to fire Andrew Garfield. What.

Wow and you say I don't read. No my argument is that Sony executives believe the same thing the Moviebob does, the reboot movies are a failure. I wasn't commenting on the article but your comment that moviebob is wrong for saying the reboot is a failure/money pit. I'm don't care about Garfield one way or the other.

So you're recursively using rumors to back up rumors. THe rumor that Sony Japan thinks TASM movies are a failure is proof of the rumor that Andrew Garfield was fired.

Hey the hacked emails are more then "rumors." Why would Sony offer to give Marvel/disney 2/3 of future profits if the reboots were making them money? You've got yourself a massive case of denial.

So you can't see the difference between "this movie won't make 2 billion dollars in profit" and "this is a trainwreck, get rid of it by any means"? Do you live in the real world at all?

Wow you just out right refuse to see the point don't you? If Sony felt the movies were doing well they would never agree to joint control and splitting of the profits. But they did offer those things didn't they...

 

[Toadfish1]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.

You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.

You didn't actually follow the source, did you?

I was referring to the other article about the Sony and Marvel trying negotiating and failing to come to a agreement because the one women insisted on keeping Garfield. If Sony was making money on their own with the property why would they consider giving up those potential profits?

So your argument that Sony have actually fired Andrew Garfield, is that Sony didn't want to fire Andrew Garfield. What.

Wow and you say I don't read. No my argument is that Sony executives believe the same thing the Moviebob does, the reboot movies are a failure. I wasn't commenting on the article but your comment that moviebob is wrong for saying the reboot is a failure/money pit. I'm don't care about Garfield one way or the other.

So you're recursively using rumors to back up rumors. THe rumor that Sony Japan thinks TASM movies are a failure is proof of the rumor that Andrew Garfield was fired.

Hey the hacked emails are more then "rumors." Why would Sony offer to give Marvel/disney 2/3 of future profits if the reboots were making them money? You've got yourself a massive case of denial.

So you can't see the difference between "this movie won't make 2 billion dollars in profit" and "this is a trainwreck, get rid of it by any means"? Do you live in the real world at all?

Wow you just out right refuse to see the point don't you? If Sony felt the movies were doing well they would never agree to joint control and splitting of the profits. But they did offer those things didn't they...

So you think that no-one would ever agree o a deal that didn't involve them taking on any risk in return for significant profits unless they would couldn't make any profits under any circumstances otherwise? You really don't understand this?

 

[Toadfish1]

Will someone put a goddamn moratorium on Bob talking about Spider-Man? This is getting ridiculous - in his lust for badmouthing those movies, he will jump on any rumor, no matter how spurious, and present it like it was an official announcement.

I could announce in this comments section that Sony intend to make a movie out of Spider-Ham, and not only would he make an article out of it, he would work use it as proof why Sony shouldn't have the liscence.

You can complain all you like. But the hacked emails prove the Sony management feels the same way as movie bob.

You didn't actually follow the source, did you?

I was referring to the other article about the Sony and Marvel trying negotiating and failing to come to a agreement because the one women insisted on keeping Garfield. If Sony was making money on their own with the property why would they consider giving up those potential profits?

So your argument that Sony have actually fired Andrew Garfield, is that Sony didn't want to fire Andrew Garfield. What.

Wow and you say I don't read. No my argument is that Sony executives believe the same thing the Moviebob does, the reboot movies are a failure. I wasn't commenting on the article but your comment that moviebob is wrong for saying the reboot is a failure/money pit. I'm don't care about Garfield one way or the other.

So you're recursively using rumors to back up rumors. THe rumor that Sony Japan thinks TASM movies are a failure is proof of the rumor that Andrew Garfield was fired.

Hey the hacked emails are more then "rumors." Why would Sony offer to give Marvel/disney 2/3 of future profits if the reboots were making them money? You've got yourself a massive case of denial.

So you can't see the difference between "this movie won't make 2 billion dollars in profit" and "this is a trainwreck, get rid of it by any means"? Do you live in the real world at all?

Wow you just out right refuse to see the point don't you? If Sony felt the movies were doing well they would never agree to joint control and splitting of the profits. But they did offer those things didn't they...

So you think that no-one would ever agree o a deal that didn't involve them taking on any risk in return for significant profits unless they would couldn't make any profits under any circumstances otherwise? You really don't understand this?

You're incredibly dense and obtuse, you claim the movies are doing well and moviebob is wrong. But if that were true they would never give up the control they have over the IP or 2/3 of profits. Why can't you understand this simple fact?

What part of the phrase no capital needed do you not understand? Is it the "No"? The "Capital"? Or is it the "needed"? What part of the interaction of these three words, which mean a situation where Sony could do absolutely nothing and get money for it, causes your brain to shut down?

It is objective fact that these movies are profitable. The question is whether they would get more profit by having another studio put up the capital and they take a cut of the gross, or if they could get less money easier and with no risk.