Andrew Garfield Is Still Spider-man (For Now)

spider-man andrew garfield

Confirmed: Andrew Garfield is Still Spider-man:

Sorry Tobey Maguire fans, The Amazing Spider-man 3 will NOT feature a recasting of Sony’s latest franchise for the webhead. Andrew Garfield is here to stay. This confirmation actually comes from a casting call that released the starring roles for the film. It shows that both Andrew Garfield and Dane DeHaan will be reprising their roles as Peter Parker and Harry Osborne, respectively.

The above is a piece I wrote for Moviepilot upon hearing the news. In a nutshell, it highlights how Sony, after rumors of straying, has apparently decided to stick with Andrew Garfield, rather than going back to Maguire.

Honestly, I feel like I’m writing a gossip column about superheroes at this point.

19 thoughts on “Andrew Garfield Is Still Spider-man (For Now)

  1. It’s weird…I was kind of looking forward to seeing Tobey dawn the mask again.

    • Really? I have no problem with Andrew Garfield, especially after how naturally he fit the character in the sequel. The only problems, really, were execution and script. These movies just feel clunkier compared to the original trilogy.

    • The discussion which Spider-man is better aside, do you really want a Spider-man in his mid 40th (which would be Tobey’s age around the time they would start shooting for the project)? If they had replaced Andrew Garfield, I really, really doubt that that Tobey would have gotten the role (or even want to play it).

  2. Garfield’s Peter Parker could still be in Avengers someday, so I don’t mind.

  3. Good, it wasn’t Garfield that was the problem with Amazing Spider-Man 2, glad that they’re not being too trigger happy…

  4. Personally, I like Garfield’s Peter Parker much more than Maguire’s. That being said, his personality is really the only thing that I like about the new Spider-Man franchise.

    The whole purpose of the recasting though had to do with rebooting the Spider-Man movies in order to do a joint venture with Marvel because Disney did not wanted to introduce a new version of Spider-Man that acknowledged the events of previous Marvel Studios films.

    Either way, it is the comic fan that is losing here. While Garfield is the best casting choice for a Spider-Man movie since William Dafoe, that means that they aren’t going to scrap these horrible movies that they’re putting out.

    • Jesus, please forgive my horrendous grammar there. I’m a bit hungover from a wedding still.

    • I think the fans are winning. Because despite what you may think, there are some people (like me) who loved The Amazing Spider-man and others who loved the sequel despite it’s structural problems. For us, a proper conclusion of the current series would give us closure. After that I hope Sony and Marvel finally come to an agreement and we get the teenaged Spider-man Marvel is planing. But there is no hurry.

      • I am thrilled that you enjoy it. People obviously like it otherwise Sony wouldn’t be cranking out the series and spin-offs like Catholics having babies. However, what I meant by fans losing were the actual comic book fans. Myself, I’ve been reading Spider-Man comics since I was kid, nearly twenty years ago. Many other hardcore fans have been reading it much longer than that.

        Truth is, the first Amazing Spider-Man installment gave a lot of us True Believers hope. Sure, it wasn’t the most amazing movie that we had seen (especially with what Marvel Studios was putting out and Fox’s upswing with their X-Men franchise) but we were given a Peter that was true to the comics and a story that kept pretty true to form as well. It promised us a lot of things through easter eggs and flat-out pointing at new plots that they intend to visit.

        The second in the series really killed it for [comic] fans though. They made a mockery of Gwen’s death and Peter’s reaction. The way that they handled Harry was with complete haphazard in presentation. Norman should have been the one to kill Gwen in order to further build the complexity of Harry and Peter’s relationship as well as allowing Peter to be as brutal and vengeful as he was in the comics when Gwen died, instead of just going straight to sappy.

        I’ll give you that people are clearly fans of the franchise. They have to exist or else they wouldn’t make the movies. The ones truly missing out though are the fans of Spidey who were there before the current movie series or before Sam Raimi. I know that if a third Amazing Spider-Man movie does come out, I will not see it if only to save myself from seeing another Spider-Man 3.

        • Who knows…if Sony gets back on track they might create a proper thrid part. In any case, I hope when this version of Spider-man is properly concluded, Sony and Marvel find common ground and we get a Marvel version. I really want to see a teenaged Spider-man, too…but there is time. I think there will always be new incarnations of him, and one day there will be at least one for every fan.

          • At this point, I’d rather have an older, more seasoned version of Spider-man like what we got in Civil War.

            • Nah, I get why Marvel want a young version…it makes the most sense, because this way they would be able to keep the character around as long as possible.

        • BTW, my very own review of The Amazing Spider-man movies and especially Gwen Stacy will be up in a few hours…thought it might interest you.

            • Because I normally only write about movies in which the main character is female, and Gwen Stacy is only the co-star. But I currently write a series about female characters in comic book movies, and I intend to start with her for multiple reasons.

        • If I could go back in time, I’d try to convince Sony to butcher parts of ASM and ASM2 and just combine them into one movie. So you don’t have to kill off Gwen’s dad prematurely, deal with the forgettable Lizard story that didn’t work, and build Harry and Peter’s relationship like you said.

          It would work pretty well if they got rid of all that extra stuff the films tried to shoehorn in for the sake of making references to Ultimate Spider-man.

          • I actually kind of like the way ASM was. Sure it wasn’t amazing (no pun intended), but it introduced us to a new status quo. I’m not even upset that they killed Gwen in the second movie, more so how they did it so carelessly. If they really wanted to do the Gwen Stacy story they should have done it right with Norman Osborn (and my god, wouldn’t it have been amazing if they did the Ultimate Green Goblin rather than the Psoriasis Goblin that they did use.

            Where ASM 2 truly went wrong was making the same mistakes that Sam Raimi did in Spider-Man 3 while at the same time failing to deliver on what was promised from the first movie. They put Electro in the movie and that made as much sense as Sandman in SM3 (that being said, Electro was a highlight of ASM2 and Sandman was the only good thing from the third Spider-Man). Both movies were trying too hard to play on the Goblin story with Harry but couldn’t seem to muster enough of a story (and truly I have no idea how they couldn’t since there is literally decades of history with these characters at their disposal). Then they tried to tease us by saying Paul Giamatti is Rhino (which was a major reason I was excited for the movie)… then he’s only in it for a few minutes. Remind you of anything? coughcoughvenom.

            I digress though. Beating a dead horse will achieve nothing. I just need to focus my fanboy rage somewhere else.

  5. if they take Andrew Garfield out the movie they would probaby lose lot of money I know I wont go to see it

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: