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

[Something Amyss]

I'm calling it now - Miles Morales.

You and like the 9 million other people who have done it.

Damn. I liked Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker, but you start badmouthing the studio and the movie that gives you the paychecks without expecting some kind of backlash.

Despite Bob's reporting, and I use the term loosely, Garfield's comments hardly count as badmouthing.

If I was Marvel I wouldn't be agreeing to any kind of deal with Sony. I would just let them continue to run the character into the ground until they stop making movies and full control reverts back to Marvel anyway.

Assuming that was doable, it'd be poisoning the well. But the thing is, Spider-Man is such a big name that Sony will just keep making new movies, rebooting, spinning off, until they stop making money. This seems like a strategy that's bound to fail.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I was never big on Garfield so I'm pretty okay with this. What I am really glad to see though is that Sony might finally be breaking down and working with Marvel. Say what you want about Disney/Marvel but they consistently deliver the goods when it comes to their movies.

 

[Jake Martinez]

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.

Same here.
His Spidey appearance, slim, flexible and somewhat "small" made it look like I remember spidey. Very acrobatic and all that.
Then again he didn't have quite the nerd feeling to him that Parker was supposed to have :/

I think this is a pretty astute observation. Maguire, particularly in the first spiderman movie, is a dead on Peter Parker. Garfield's interpretation was like... creepy loner wannabe hipster kid, when Peter is actually an earnest nerd. He's not aloof, he's just a social outcast because of his nerdery.

Of course, that's likely the writers fault and not Garfield's per-see, but either way he was either miscast for the role, or it was written in a way that called for this acting. In any case, it was a big mistake - one of the charms of Peter as a character is his nerd cred. Taking that away from him is like robbing Batman of his parents murder, or making Superman grow up in Seattle instead of a Kansas corn field.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes this can work, such as in the Superman: Red Son series, but that character, as interesting as he was, wasn't really superman. He worked for entirely different reasons.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I want to get excited. I've hated Andrew Garfield in this film since day one. But with the last reboot being too soon, I feel like slapping another reboot on this whole situation is just doing the same thing (Marvel or not). Can we at least let Spidey rest a few years before we force more movies on him? Give us some time to miss the guy? No? Well, fuck.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I hope someone hacks FoX so Marvel can get my beloved mutants back... Even tho i know it'll take more than a hack at this point.

The problem there is that Fox is (thus far) successful with X-Men (see the latest numbers for Days of Future Past). Marvel might be able to swing Fantastic Four given how shit the new one sounds, but it probably has to come out and be terrible before we can really say anything. That said, I'm actually fine with X-Men being separated. In a lot of ways, it helps their universe function a bit better not having other heroes who aren't mutants around in terms of consistency.

 

[Something Amyss]

The problem there is that Fox is (thus far) successful with X-Men (see the latest numbers for Days of Future Past). Marvel might be able to swing Fantastic Four given how shit the new one sounds, but it probably has to come out and be terrible before we can really say anything.

It has to sell terrible for that to be a thing. It actually doesn't matter if the movie's good or bad. It could be the greatest film ever made about superheroes (though I really, really doubt it) and if it loses money, it's gone. But if it's a piece of shit and makes hundreds of millions?

They'll do like ten sequels.

The only way Marvel is likely to get a franchise back is if they can't make money with it.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Oh look, a MovieBob hate boner over The Amazing Spider-Man movies. Must be that time of day.

Edit: I still occasionally watched your stuff, but this is the last straw. You permanently lost a viewer.

 

[SilverUchiha]

The problem there is that Fox is (thus far) successful with X-Men (see the latest numbers for Days of Future Past). Marvel might be able to swing Fantastic Four given how shit the new one sounds, but it probably has to come out and be terrible before we can really say anything.

It has to sell terrible for that to be a thing. It actually doesn't matter if the movie's good or bad. It could be the greatest film ever made about superheroes (though I really, really doubt it) and if it loses money, it's gone. But if it's a piece of shit and makes hundreds of millions?

They'll do like ten sequels.

The only way Marvel is likely to get a franchise back is if they can't make money with it.

I don't recall the first two films being all that successful (hence why there's even a reboot in the first place). And given all the negative buzz for the reboot thus far (as well as the fact Fox is afraid to promote the damn thing at all) it seems like it's being set up for failure more than anything else.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Sony needs to just give up on any creative control over Spider-Man. They're clueless and they're not passionate about Spidey at all. Marvel fellas are. They can do magnificent things with that character. They can finally do him justice. Yes, this is an entirely emotional appeal, but I love Spider-Man. He's my favorite superhero and I can't stand any of the movies about him.

 

[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.)

This day and age you can have operas set to dub step, so you have to go with a unified stereotype that's still seen as marketably outcast. Hence the hipster, our modern day Lewis Skolnicks even if it's self inflicted. Actually ESPECIALLY since it's self inflicted, seeing as that makes it all the worse.

Personally? I am ok with Miles in the MCU eventually ( though I think they should start with standard Peter Parker), but I think Sony should go Spider-man 2099. That would play to both their specialties. Sony would get a big futuristic sandbox to throw down in that could have a tiny bit of MCU lore in it to keep it connected. And the MCU could use Spider-man in their stories. Like an Avengers rerelease with Spider-man cut into the film in the background.

That being said, I also hope Andrew Garfield gets recast into the MCU somewhere. He's a decent actor and could be ok as, I don't know, Machine Man, Molecule Man, Ghost, Radioactive Man, Boomerang (Really anything that gets me closer to a Thunderbolts movie'd be great), Werewolf by Night. (Though for me personally I would love to see him play the villain Madcap in a Ghost Rider movie)

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't recall the first two films being all that successful (hence why there's even a reboot in the first place).

Well, that's specious reasoning.

The 2005 FF grossed over 330 million on a 100 million USD budget, which is pretty damn good.

The second one did slightly worse, still leading the box office on opening weekend. You may not like the movies or recall them making money, but these are terrible assumptions as to why there's a reboot.

And given all the negative buzz for the reboot thus far (as well as the fact Fox is afraid to promote the damn thing at all) it seems like it's being set up for failure more than anything else.

And now this sounds more like wishful thinking.

Oh look, a MovieBob hate boner over The Amazing Spider-Man movies. Must be that time of day.

Honestly, the coverage of Spider-Man on The Escapist reminds me of wrestling "Newz" sites. I half expect to see banner ads promoting CM Punk being in the dog house and the latest nip slips.

And yet, at the same time, it's always his opinion pieces which draw the ire of the "journalistic integrity" crowd.

 

[Mave]

Meh I liked the Amazing spiderman series, but everyone seems to hate it, It's a shame I really dislike the marvel movie universe,But hey ! I'm sure Marvel bob must be super happy since he hated garfield from the start.

 

[Travis Fischer]

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.)

This. The defining characteristic of Peter Parker isn't "nerd," it's "outcast." Today nerds run the world and everybody knows it. If you want an outcast, you put him in a hoodie and make him a step away from goth/emo/hipster.


Andrew Garfield was fantastic in the role and it's a shame he has to pay for Sony's mistakes. Crucial aspects of both ASM movies were left on the cutting room floor and it was these edits that largely tanked the films.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

 

[JimB]

Oh look, a MovieBob hate boner over The Amazing Spider-Man movies. Must be that time of day.

I am very confused. How is this article a "hate boner?" Like, what did he say to make you think that?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Oh look, a MovieBob hate boner over The Amazing Spider-Man movies. Must be that time of day.

I am very confused. How is this article a "hate boner?" Like, what did he say to make you think that?

The guy loves throwing in jabs at this movie franchise any chance he gets. He posted two articles in the past week that were based on rumors from a sketchy news site. The same news site that Sony laughed at after the first rumor. The man has an agenda.

 

[RJ Dalton]

So now we can look forward to seeing some other young actor with a stupid Edward Cullen haircut. Goody.

 

[JimB]

The guy loves throwing in jabs at this movie franchise any chance he gets.

What jabs, though? What jabs are included in this article?

He posted two articles in the past week that were based on rumors from a sketchy news site.

I didn't see the other one, so I can't talk about it. This one, though, I mean, literally the first word in the article's title is "rumor." It's pretty clear it's being presented as a currently unverified story, and I don't see a single word where he acts happy or gloats. Would you like to indicate the passages where he does?

The man has an agenda.

He posts rumors about pretty much anything comic-related all the time, but, uh, if you say so, I guess.

 

[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?

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.

My knowledge of millennial archtype is a little less defined, and thus I didn't know to use it. That being said, I'll have to do research to use it, sadly. Thank you for the reference. Sweater Vest Parker hasn't been comic standard in a very long time, but it's still what a lot of the merch shows, so it stays fresh in public memory regardless to the comics being contrary. If that is what people see and remember, that is what he'll be; frozen in a time long since passed, and not relevant to anyone who isn't passing interest.

Honestly, in a world of selfies, you-tube comments, and other teen culture, making him a focused, driven individual who has no interest in what is cool seems to be the only way to portray him that would make sense as a teenager. But that isn't the best way to show him. We don't need an origin story for Peter Parker anymore. That has been set to memory by the masses. We need to cast a late twenties, early thirties Parker who has been at this a while. One that doesn't need to focus on brands and marketing and can have stories that don't require him to fight Flash over and over in the first movie.

Have your cake and eat it too. Want him to be an outcast, make him one of adult culture. Make him interested in Sci-fi a little to much, or maybe he's still into cartoons. Something that'd ostracize him just enough to make him the guy at the fringe, but not so much as to be creepy. Nobody wants to go drinking with Peter, but they still deal with him at work.