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

Toadfish1

New member
May 28, 2013
204
0
0
killerbee256 said:
Toadfish1 said:
killerbee256 said:
Toadfish1 said:
killerbee256 said:
Toadfish1 said:
killerbee256 said:
Toadfish1 said:
killerbee256 said:
Toadfish1 said:
killerbee256 said:
Toadfish1 said:
killerbee256 said:
Toadfish1 said:
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.
You don't understand corporations. They want ALL THE MONEY not 1/3 but ALL THE MONEY. If their own attempts were doing well they would have told Disney to sod off. But they didn't.. I'm done with you, your simply to dense to get the point.
So you don't understand the concept of investment, or risk, and you're accusing me of being dense.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
17,679
1,916
118
Whenever I see a damning rumor surrounding Sony and/or Spider-Man here at the News Room I instantly close my eyes and guess who has written the article.

I've never missed once.

How has this guy not lost his entire credibility with all this hateful rumor-mongering directed against all the things he doesn't like?
 

go-10

New member
Feb 3, 2010
1,557
0
0
good move Sony you got rid of the only good thing in the ASM movies
now that there is no Emma or Andrew why would I bother with this trainwreck of a movie series?
 

coheedswicked

New member
Mar 28, 2010
142
0
0
I see a lot of comments on here about the handling of Peter Parker in the reboot. I don't mind as much that he wasn't the classic nerd (although his new affect did seem very off), what bothered me the most was his relationship with Aunt May. He was soo whiny and they never had a tender moment on screen just constant bickering. They made Peter Parker a whiny douchebag which is completely off base. The relationship with Aunt May in the Sam Raimi movies was soo much better.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
Shame; I thought he did a good job with the material he was given, and that the acting and chemistry between him and Emma Stone was one of the few exceptional things about those movies.

But any movie that redoes an origin story that early is tying and anchor around it's neck; everybody fucking knows who Spiderman is, so you're either repeating yourself or making pointless changes. Just look at how hard the new movies tried to avoid Uncle Ben saying "With great power, comes great responsibility", for no other reason besides being different from the other trilogy. There are plenty of better stories that could have been told about a more seasoned Peter Parker.

That's why I approve of the direction DC is taking with Batman not having an origin movie.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Armadox said:
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?
I honestly don't get the "hipster" claims. Parker in the movies struck me as basically "boilerplate millennial."

Anyway, I'm beginning to think Joe Quesada was right. People seem to have a very specific image of Peter Parker that dates back mostly to the very earliest days of the book. It only took eight issues of Amazing Spider-Man for Peter to fight Flash, after which Flash quickly backed off bullying Peter and a lot of the "nerd" stuff people expect started to get downplayed. The book had been out for a decade when Gwen Stacy died, at which point Peter had had multiple love interests and even juggled a couple. He stops wearing glasses, stops being so much an outcast, etc.

I think I agree with this gist of your comment, though. 60s Peter wouldn't translate well into a modern character.
I think people need to understand that a lot of comic books are essentially period pieces, particularly the topical ones. One of the smartest things Marvel did with the cinematic universe was NOT displacing Captain America from his period of history. I don't see why a Spiderman movie has to take place in the modern day. In the original trilogy, for example, I can't think of a single point in which a character does or says anything to suggest a modern setting. I consider this to be a strength of the movie; it makes sort of old school aesthetic seem appropriate instead of anachronistic.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
sumanoskae said:
I think people need to understand that a lot of comic books are essentially period pieces, particularly the topical ones. One of the smartest things Marvel did with the cinematic universe was NOT displacing Captain America from his period of history. I don't see why a Spiderman movie has to take place in the modern day. In the original trilogy, for example, I can't think of a single point in which a character does or says anything to suggest a modern setting. I consider this to be a strength of the movie; it makes sort of old school aesthetic seem appropriate instead of anachronistic.
Thing is, Cap's been a fish out of water for the last 50 years, so doing up his origin in WW2 is a no-brainer. Not to mention, they brought him back into modern times when he woke up. This can work with a Captain America in any era. They could pull the same origin and have it work fairly flawlessly in the year 2550, long as you don't mind suspending a little disbelief (and we're talking about a man who gets superpowers that allow him to survive being frozen in ice for decades anyway).

They've updated pretty much everyone else. And the thing is, Marvel's made it work. Hell, DC's even sort of made it work.

It may be strictly true that they don't have to, but I imagine if Marvel gets ahold of the license, they'll do the same thing.

Although, while I don't remember Peter ever talking on a mobile, the trilogy did modernise parts of the story, including the origins of the Goblin and Doc Ock. Well, even the radioactive spider gets a modern spin, if you'll pardon the pun.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
Well, now I feel bad for Garfield. I thought he nailed Peter and Spider-Man (Oh Jaysus, that will sound wrong) and was one of the few highpoints of these latest movies. A good actor can pull a great performance out of even the brownest stinkiest turds.

On the other hand, I think he's still dating Emma Stone (just saw her on The Late Show promoting Birdman), so he's got that going for him.
 

Mike Fang

New member
Mar 20, 2008
458
0
0
So, they're considering giving the Spider-Man movie franchise to Marvel...

Well, that only seems appropriate since MARVEL IS THE ONE THAT CREATED SPIDER-MAN IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE! Seriously, why the hell did they not have the movie branch of Marvel doing the Spider-Man movies in the FIRST place?! Was there some issue with Disney? Are they really surprised Sony couldn't produce more than a somewhat-adequate Spider-Man film in five movies? If you look at their business strategy with SOE, they clearly need to stick to making Playstations and electronic hardware, 'cause they can't produce or manage the actual entertainment media for shit.

The Sony Spider-Man movies seem like a case example of why you don't take away a well-established intellecutal property from its creators and give it to someone else. Sure the movies weren't complete and utter bombs, but their good moments tended to be outweighed drastically by their lame ones. If Spider-Man goes back to Marvel, at least we'll know it's in the hands of people who can produce good superhero movies -and- who have a better idea of what Spider-Man is supposed to be like.
 

Spaceman Spiff

New member
Sep 23, 2013
604
0
0
Mike Fang said:
So, they're considering giving the Spider-Man movie franchise to Marvel...

Well, that only seems appropriate since MARVEL IS THE ONE THAT CREATED SPIDER-MAN IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE! Seriously, why the hell did they not have the movie branch of Marvel doing the Spider-Man movies in the FIRST place?!
Marvel sold the film rights for Spider-man to Sony years ago when they were in financial trouble, just like they sold the film rights for X-men and Fantastic Four to Fox. That's where the first Toby Mcguire Spider-man movie came from. That was years before Marvel was acquired by Disney and got the MCU rolling.
 

Gone Rampant

New member
Feb 12, 2012
422
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
Whenever I see a damning rumor surrounding Sony and/or Spider-Man here at the News Room I instantly close my eyes and guess who has written the article.

I've never missed once.

How has this guy not lost his entire credibility with all this hateful rumor-mongering directed against all the things he doesn't like?
Bob? Credibility?

*Cracks up laughing*

But yeah, this article could be retitled "I want the ASM movies dead and Garfield fired now!" And we better do it, or Bob will be depressed again, and we don't want THAT to happen!
 

Madnack45

New member
Feb 15, 2015
31
0
0
Vausch said:
I still prefer Tobey Maguire, but I can't deny Garfield did a good job as Spider-Man. It's his Peter Parker that bugged me.
No, there was nothing wright with his peter. Maguire was just as wooden doll as Peter. He barely acted like Peter not a person