Sequels Andrew Garfield possibly out?

[THUNDERSTRIKE]

Two Reasons Why Andrew Garfield Could Be Out As Spiderman -- Report

By Tanya Diente | December 15, 2014 3:31 PM EST
The recent Sony Pictures hacking revealed a third sequel for "The Amazing Spider-Man" was intentionally planned to be filmed with the collaboration of Marvel and Sony. However, it's believed producers want a fresh start with the movie including having the title role given to a new actor instead of to Andrew Garfield.

Latino Review's Kellvin Chavez claimed Marvel wants a clean slate if ever "The Amazing Spider-Man 3" will push through. The Sony Pictures hack allegedly revealed the studio's plan to deviate from a pure romance story but to have it as a side-story instead. The sequel will reportedly begin with Peter Parker already living his dual life as a student and as a hero.

Marvel wants a clean slate, apparently, and they are not interested in doing any more so-called "romance" movies but would rather "focus on the difficulties of being a teenager and a superhero with a romance side-story," Chavez said.

Additionally, Marvel was supposedly very intent on letting go of Andrew Garfield to reprise his role as Peter Parker a.k.a. Spider-Man. Chavez didn't specify any details regarding the actor's casting. But according Mashable, Garfield had some previous "misdemeanours" way back in July that had allegedly displeased Sony's higher-ups.
"Garfield has been praised for his performance as Peter Parker, but his critical remarks that seemed to blame the studio for 'Amazing Spider-Man 2's' tepid box office and critical reception may have annoyed the wrong people," writer Christina Warren said.

Additionally, Garfield reportedly also failed to attend ("with less than an hour's notice") a Sony corporate dinner back in July. He was supposedly scheduled for a meeting with Sony CEO Kaz Hirai and other higher-ups. According to Warren his absence was considered as an "affront and slight by the company's Tokyo bosses." Thus, it's believed the actor's contract has officially been terminated and the recent hacking even further fuels this speculation.

Warren suspects Amy Pascal's email to "The Amazing Spider-Man" franchise producer Matthew Tolmach clearly shows Andrew Garfield will not reprise his role. Pascal emailed her plans in introducing a new Peter Parker including new characters in the sequel. She also questioned how the new Spider-Man will be featured, which would likely be in a "cameo" scene.
However, all these speculations regarding Andrew Garfield's termination from Sony remains unconfirmed. Likewise, it's still uncertain if he will reprise his role as Peter Parker in "The Amazing Spider-Man 3" since casting calls have yet to be announced.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/575971/20141215/amazing-spider-man-3-andrew-garfield.htm#.VI9lXsnHnl0

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Everything revolving around Spider-Man is a huge mess right now.


I've heard....

• Pascal is getting fired.
• Garfield is out as Spider-Man.
• TASM3 is still happening with Raimi as director/producer
• Spider-Man is going to Marvel
• Sony and Marvel would share the character only if they(Marvel) have creative control.
• Marvel wants Avi Arad out of the picture if the character is shared.
• Sony is going to reboot...again

It's a huge mess right now. Anything is possible.

 

[Miken Ayers]

From the sounds of it, Rami and/or the second reboot sound more like contingencies than the deadest plan. Sony higher ups that the studio answer to apparently want them to resume talks with Marvel.

The meeting may take place as soon as January.

Although now that Disney has their foot in the door to potentially get Spider-Man and in time for a film with Cap and Iron Man whose main competition is a Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman team up, don't be surprised if Disney/Marvel do what they can to get their way.

Supposedly Sony Studios wants to keep their creative control, but that may not matter to Sony Japan. If they're guaranteed a significant return for paying 40% on movies at this point that will almost certainly print money, then why should that matter?

 

[OzzMosiz]

Jeez can they screw up Spider-man any more than they have already?
TASM1 and TASM2 were not bad because of Garfield - he was actually pretty good in them. The writing was just not up-to par.

Stone, however, was absolutely superb in both!

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Jeez can they screw up Spider-man any more than they have already?
TASM1 and TASM2 were not bad because of Garfield - he was actually pretty good in them. The writing was just not up-to par.

Stone, however, was absolutely superb in both!

I think that is the general consensus.

Not Garfield's fault, but like Spectacular Spider-Man, something really good has just gotten caught in a case of really bad timing.

 

[TMC1982]

I think that is the general consensus.

Not Garfield's fault, but like Spectacular Spider-Man, something really good has just gotten caught in a case of really bad timing.

Is Andrew Garfield the "new" Timothy Dalton? What I mean is that both were exceptionally good in their roles, despite their own critics (e.g. Garfield played an "emo, hipster" Peter Parker and Timothy Dalton was too "dour, intense, humorless" as James Bond), but came at them at the "wrong time". What I mean is that Timothy Dalton arguably should've gotten the Bond role a few movies earlier. I think that most people are in agreement that Roger Moore stayed around at least one or two movies too long.

Plus, you can argue that Timothy Dalton's "darker" take (in sharp contrast to the Roger Moore version, who was still very fresh in our minds) on James Bond was a bit ahead of its time. Also, both came when their respective franchises were arguably suffering from "franchise fatigue" or creative staleness (in Dalton's case, the Bond producers still used John
Glen as the director from the last few Roger Moore films).

Both Garfield and Dalton in a way, also in hindsight, came across as placeholders of sorts. For Garfield, he was really just there because they had to do a reboot to keep the rights, and the studio didn't even care about quality. And as for Dalton, was there in no small part because the general public's preferred choice, Pierce Brosnan, wasn't quite ready yet to take up the Bond mantle.

Both Garfield and Dalton (assuming that it's true about Garfield) were pretty much screwed out of their roles after only two movies (the latter performing underwhelmingly at the box office) due to in no small part, corporate wrangling/politics.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

The difference is Tobey is in no way analogous to Sean Connery as Bondo-san.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Is Andrew Garfield the "new" Timothy Dalton? What I mean is that both were exceptionally good in their roles, despite their own critics (e.g. Garfield played an "emo, hipster" Peter Parker and Timothy Dalton was too "dour, intense, humorless" as James Bond), but came at them at the "wrong time". What I mean is that Timothy Dalton arguably should've gotten the Bond role a few movies earlier. I think that most people are in agreement that Roger Moore stayed around at least one or two movies too long.

Plus, you can argue that Timothy Dalton's "darker" take (in sharp contrast to the Roger Moore version, who was still very fresh in our minds) on James Bond was a bit ahead of its time. Also, both came when their respective franchises were arguably suffering from "franchise fatigue" or creative staleness (in Dalton's case, the Bond producers still used John
Glen as the director from the last few Roger Moore films).

Both Garfield and Dalton in a way, also in hindsight, came across as placeholders of sorts. For Garfield, he was really just there because they had to do a reboot to keep the rights, and the studio didn't even care about quality. And as for Dalton, was there in no small part because the general public's preferred choice, Pierce Brosnan, wasn't quite ready yet to take up the Bond mantle.

Both Garfield and Dalton (assuming that it's true about Garfield) were pretty much screwed out of their roles after only two movies (the latter performing underwhelmingly at the box office) due to in no small part, corporate wrangling/politics.

This is an excellent analogy.

 

[Miken Ayers]

Is Andrew Garfield the "new" Timothy Dalton? What I mean is that both were exceptionally good in their roles, despite their own critics (e.g. Garfield played an "emo, hipster" Peter Parker and Timothy Dalton was too "dour, intense, humorless" as James Bond), but came at them at the "wrong time". What I mean is that Timothy Dalton arguably should've gotten the Bond role a few movies earlier. I think that most people are in agreement that Roger Moore stayed around at least one or two movies too long.

Plus, you can argue that Timothy Dalton's "darker" take (in sharp contrast to the Roger Moore version, who was still very fresh in our minds) on James Bond was a bit ahead of its time. Also, both came when their respective franchises were arguably suffering from "franchise fatigue" or creative staleness (in Dalton's case, the Bond producers still used John
Glen as the director from the last few Roger Moore films).

Both Garfield and Dalton in a way, also in hindsight, came across as placeholders of sorts. For Garfield, he was really just there because they had to do a reboot to keep the rights, and the studio didn't even care about quality. And as for Dalton, was there in no small part because the general public's preferred choice, Pierce Brosnan, wasn't quite ready yet to take up the Bond mantle.

Both Garfield and Dalton (assuming that it's true about Garfield) were pretty much screwed out of their roles after only two movies (the latter performing underwhelmingly at the box office) due to in no small part, corporate wrangling/politics.

Timothy Dalton signed on for three films, and his contract had an exit clause if it was more than X amount of years between films. The next movie was in limbo because EON was in a few legal battles to keep the Bond rights, and so he left on his own. I've heard Dalton haters claim that EON purposely held off on making the third movie to get him to quit. That in itself makes no sense because all EON makes are Bond films, there hasn't been one that wasn't a commercial success, so logically if they wanted him gone so quickly they'd churn out one more movie.

Now on to Andrew Garfield. Marvel wants him gone because they don't want the Spider-Man under their banner to be associated with the Amazing films and/or be restricted by that continuity.

Also. Sony may fire him for cancelling on a business dinner with Sony heads an hour before, and blaming Sony publicly for Amazing 2 being a bad film. Yes, Sony did interject, but the changes they forced made it a less crappy movie. Not a good one, but better than Norman Osborn's frozen head, and Richard Parker being alive.

 

[Tony Stark]

Garfield is most likely out because Marvel wants a deal for a Spidey for 4 or 5 films, and Garfield likely wouldn't sign that kind of a contract, and he'd be in his early 40's by the end of the run.

 

[THUNDERSTRIKE]

Five Actors Who Can Replace Andrew Garfield In The Next Spider-Man Film--Report

By Sonalee singh | December 17, 2014 2:45 PM EST

The buzz has it that Andrew Garfield has been booted out from the "Spider-Man" series. The recently hacked Sony emails have reportedly revealed that Marvel may take over the popular franchise and may decide to cast new actor for the titular role. There is a major speculation as to who will play Peter Parker, when the popular franchise will return to the screen. Comicbook has shortlisted five actors who can replace Garfield as Spiderman in "The Amazing Spider-Man 3." Lets take a look.

Anton Yelchin is the first choice for the role of Parker. Best known for his role in "Star Trek," the actor reportedly possesses some brilliant acting skills. He rose to fame with the Steven Spielberg miniseries "Taken." He played the popular role of Jacob Clarke in the series. According to the website's report Yelchin is just 25-year-old and his boyish charm may come handy while playing the younger version of Spidey.

Robbie Amell is known for playing Firestorm on the "The Flash." Though the chances of him playing the full-fledged superhero character on big screen are less, his gaunt look can work in his favour. He will reportedly look nice as the college going Peter Parker. Moreover, he is as charming as Toby Maguire.

Ansel Elgort has proved his acting prowess by playing a cancer patient in the popular teenage film "The Fault in our Stars." The actor is already riding high on the popularity charts and his boyish charm would be an added advantage.

Toby Maguire could very well step back into the shoes of Spiderman, reports Russ Burlingame of Comic Book. The actor is a known face, when it comes to Spiderman movies and he knows the character in and out. His return to the series will also drive casual fans interest.

Drake Bell is the solid choice for Spider-Man. Even Frederick Crew of Movie Pilot thinks that he is cut out for the role as he already voices Spiderman/ Peter Parker on the "Ultimate Spider-Man" cartoon. If reports are to be believed than Marvel wants a "clean slate," and Bell could very well be their new Spider-Man.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/5762...arfield-peter-parker-amazing.htm#.VJIPYMnHnl0

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Drake Bell is the solid choice for Spider-Man. Even Frederick Crew of Movie Pilot thinks that he is cut out for the role as he already voices Spiderman/ Peter Parker on the "Ultimate Spider-Man" cartoon. If reports are to be believed than Marvel wants a "clean slate," and Bell could very well be their new Spider-Man.

Oh please, no. Just no.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Timothy Dalton signed on for three films, and his contract had an exit clause if it was more than X amount of years between films. The next movie was in limbo because EON was in a few legal battles to keep the Bond rights, and so he left on his own. I've heard Dalton haters claim that EON purposely held off on making the third movie to get him to quit. That in itself makes no sense because all EON makes are Bond films, there hasn't been one that wasn't a commercial success, so logically if they wanted him gone so quickly they'd churn out one more movie.

Those people need to do more research on the topic as it is well established Dalton's third film didn't happen because of the legal fight. Dalton should have had a third film come out in 1991, but after numerous delays he had enough and left the role in 1994.

 

[Slushy]

Good riddance.

 

[harryoscop]

Five Actors Who Can Replace Andrew Garfield In The Next Spider-Man Film--Report

By Sonalee singh | December 17, 2014 2:45 PM EST

The buzz has it that Andrew Garfield has been booted out from the "Spider-Man" series. The recently hacked Sony emails have reportedly revealed that Marvel may take over the popular franchise and may decide to cast new actor for the titular role. There is a major speculation as to who will play Peter Parker, when the popular franchise will return to the screen. Comicbook has shortlisted five actors who can replace Garfield as Spiderman in "The Amazing Spider-Man 3." Lets take a look.

Anton Yelchin is the first choice for the role of Parker. Best known for his role in "Star Trek," the actor reportedly possesses some brilliant acting skills. He rose to fame with the Steven Spielberg miniseries "Taken." He played the popular role of Jacob Clarke in the series. According to the website's report Yelchin is just 25-year-old and his boyish charm may come handy while playing the younger version of Spidey.

Robbie Amell is known for playing Firestorm on the "The Flash." Though the chances of him playing the full-fledged superhero character on big screen are less, his gaunt look can work in his favour. He will reportedly look nice as the college going Peter Parker. Moreover, he is as charming as Toby Maguire.

Ansel Elgort has proved his acting prowess by playing a cancer patient in the popular teenage film "The Fault in our Stars." The actor is already riding high on the popularity charts and his boyish charm would be an added advantage.

Toby Maguire could very well step back into the shoes of Spiderman, reports Russ Burlingame of Comic Book. The actor is a known face, when it comes to Spiderman movies and he knows the character in and out. His return to the series will also drive casual fans interest.

Drake Bell is the solid choice for Spider-Man. Even Frederick Crew of Movie Pilot thinks that he is cut out for the role as he already voices Spiderman/ Peter Parker on the "Ultimate Spider-Man" cartoon. If reports are to be believed than Marvel wants a "clean slate," and Bell could very well be their new Spider-Man.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/5762...arfield-peter-parker-amazing.htm#.VJIPYMnHnl0

Disgusting list.

 

[Slushy]

I'd love to see Tobey Maguire get the role back from a nostalgia point as well as to see the reaction from all the haters.

 

[Miken Ayers]

Those people need to do more research on the topic as it is well established Dalton's third film didn't happen because of the legal fight. Dalton should have had a third film come out in 1991, but after numerous delays he had enough and left the role in 1994.

Lazenby and Dalton seem to get the most flack from Bond fans. Even though they both have their followers. But because some people actually hate them they had to have been fired.

I always felt Moore was the weakest of the Bonds. Not by his doing, but because his movies were just a reflection of what was popular at the time, but with James Bond thrown in. However for me to say, "he got fired after just seven films, because he sucks" would be just effing ludicrous.

 

[TMC1982]

[YT]Kw1nKk2c2Z0[/YT]

 

[Slushy]

Those people need to do more research on the topic as it is well established Dalton's third film didn't happen because of the legal fight. Dalton should have had a third film come out in 1991, but after numerous delays he had enough and left the role in 1994.

Had he stayed, Goldeneye would've been his last film. He would've 51 by then.

 

[Miken Ayers]

Had he stayed, Goldeneye would've been his last film. He would've 51 by then.

Not necessarily. Roger Moore stayed on till his was 58.

 

[Slushy]

I don't think Dalton would've overstayed his welcome though.

 

[THUNDERSTRIKE]

Andrew Garfield Out, Tobey Maguire Back As Peter Parker In 'The Amazing Spider-Man 3' -- Report

By Tanya Diente | December 17, 2014 12:15 PM EST

The recent Sony Pictures hack revealed Marvel and Sony's plans of a third sequel for "The Amazing Spider-Man." However, producers made it clear that they'd want a fresh start for the movie, where it doesn't focus on the romance as the main story but to have it as a side-story instead. Ultimately, it would also mean a change of actor to play the title role aside from Andrew Garfield.

Currently scheduled for a U.S. release in 2018, "The Amazing Spider-Man 3" could probably look into five actors befitting the role. According to Comicbook's Russ Burlingame these possible candidates include "Star Trek" actor Anton Yelchin, "The Flash" star Robbie Amell, "Divergent" actor Ansel Elgort, "Ultimate Spider-Man" mainstay Drake Bell and lastly the original Peter Parker Tobey Maguire.

When Sony's Jeff Robinov told Amy Pascal that he wants "The Amazing Spider-Man 3" to be a clean slate and to start off with an aged Peter Parker, Burlingame thought why not bring back Tobey Maguire. Burlingame assumes having the actor to portray the role again after 20 years would "drive a ton of interest from casual fans." Likewise, it would supposedly be interesting to see if Maguire can still be compelling as the Spider-Man.

Comicbook reader Anonymous 2918 and Anonymous 15909 also seemed to agree. The latter supposed Tobey Macguire as Spider-Man would be a good choice. "I think that choosing him to continue the role as an older Peter Parker would tie everything together nicely," the user said, adding that Andrew Garfield may be a good actor but he supposedly just "didn't fit" the role. Another reader named Elmis agreed on the studio's decision for a clean slate for "The Amazing Spider-Man 3." However, is against Tobey Maguire for the role of Peter Parker since the actor "may be too old" already. Meanwhile, below are some fans' reactions on the possibility of Tobey Maquire as the new Spider-Man.

A previous report from the International Business Times claimed Andrew Garfield may not reprise his role as Peter Parker a.k.a. Spider-Man since he had allegedly displeased Sony's higher ups. Back in July the actor failed to give an hour's notice that he won't be able to attend a corporate dinner with Sony CEO Kaz Hirai and other executives. It was believed to be an "affront and slight by the company's Tokyo bosses." Likewise, Garfield had supposedly made some comments regarding the box office numbers of "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" that annoyed the wrong people. Thus, it's believed to be these reasons that his contract with Sony Pictures has officially been terminated. However, this report still warrants a confirmation from the studio or from Andrew Garfield himself.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/576237/20141217/amazing-spider-man-3-peter-parker-actor.htm#.VJPORc8s

 

[spiderman2]

Andrew Garfield Out, Tobey Maguire Back As Peter Parker In 'The Amazing Spider-Man 3' -- Report

By Tanya Diente | December 17, 2014 12:15 PM EST

The recent Sony Pictures hack revealed Marvel and Sony's plans of a third sequel for "The Amazing Spider-Man." However, producers made it clear that they'd want a fresh start for the movie, where it doesn't focus on the romance as the main story but to have it as a side-story instead. Ultimately, it would also mean a change of actor to play the title role aside from Andrew Garfield.

Currently scheduled for a U.S. release in 2018, "The Amazing Spider-Man 3" could probably look into five actors befitting the role. According to Comicbook's Russ Burlingame these possible candidates include "Star Trek" actor Anton Yelchin, "The Flash" star Robbie Amell, "Divergent" actor Ansel Elgort, "Ultimate Spider-Man" mainstay Drake Bell and lastly the original Peter Parker Tobey Maguire.

When Sony's Jeff Robinov told Amy Pascal that he wants "The Amazing Spider-Man 3" to be a clean slate and to start off with an aged Peter Parker, Burlingame thought why not bring back Tobey Maguire. Burlingame assumes having the actor to portray the role again after 20 years would "drive a ton of interest from casual fans." Likewise, it would supposedly be interesting to see if Maguire can still be compelling as the Spider-Man.

Comicbook reader Anonymous 2918 and Anonymous 15909 also seemed to agree. The latter supposed Tobey Macguire as Spider-Man would be a good choice. "I think that choosing him to continue the role as an older Peter Parker would tie everything together nicely," the user said, adding that Andrew Garfield may be a good actor but he supposedly just "didn't fit" the role. Another reader named Elmis agreed on the studio's decision for a clean slate for "The Amazing Spider-Man 3." However, is against Tobey Maguire for the role of Peter Parker since the actor "may be too old" already. Meanwhile, below are some fans' reactions on the possibility of Tobey Maquire as the new Spider-Man.

A previous report from the International Business Times claimed Andrew Garfield may not reprise his role as Peter Parker a.k.a. Spider-Man since he had allegedly displeased Sony's higher ups. Back in July the actor failed to give an hour's notice that he won't be able to attend a corporate dinner with Sony CEO Kaz Hirai and other executives. It was believed to be an "affront and slight by the company's Tokyo bosses." Likewise, Garfield had supposedly made some comments regarding the box office numbers of "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" that annoyed the wrong people. Thus, it's believed to be these reasons that his contract with Sony Pictures has officially been terminated. However, this report still warrants a confirmation from the studio or from Andrew Garfield himself.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/576237/20141217/amazing-spider-man-3-peter-parker-actor.htm#.VJPORc8s

This has got to be fake. First people like Garfield a lot more then tobey so having tobey come back would just be stupid and second we already suffer enough with dark bell on the cartoon lol

 

[NewYorkSpider]

There's no way Sony would bring back Tobey for TASM3. It's wrong for so many reasons.

 

[Human Torch]

Raimi/Tobey = Spider-Man 4


Make it happen Marvel.

Make it happen,Now!