The Amazing Spider-Man 2 RUMOR: Andrew Garfield to return as Spider-Man up until 2020

[UltimateWebhead]

Why do people keep saying that the 2015 film is a Spidey related project?? Andrew makes other movies ya know. He's currently got one in pre-production called Silence and there's another one that's currently in post-production called 99 something, can't remember the full title. There's your 2015 release.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Haha this is such obvious BS it really makes me chuckle. The films are in no way on a trajectory of success and Sony can't afford to offer him a piece of the backend profits. This is just fanboy wet dreams we are talking about here. How exactly is he going to be doing anything in a 2015 movie with nothing in production? Don't get me wrong I like Garfield and the way he portrays Pete but this whole article is nonsense.

You can see why the links to the site that shall not be named don't work since they are iffy at best being generated by users therefore the fact checking of their articles is almost non-existent

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Haha this is such obvious BS it really makes me chuckle. The films are in no way on a trajectory of success and Sony can't afford to offer him a piece of the backend profits. This is just fanboy wet dreams we are talking about here. How exactly is he going to be doing anything in a 2015 movie with nothing in production? Don't get me wrong I like Garfield and the way he portrays Pete but this whole article is nonsense.

You can see why the links to the site that shall not be named don't work since they are iffy at best being generated by users therefore the fact checking of their articles is almost non-existent

To the emboldened...see my post above. Andrew's got two other movies in production one in pre and one in post. The article never says anything about the contracted movies being "Spider-Man" movies.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

To the emboldened...see my post above. Andrew's got two other movies in production one in pre and one in post. The article never says anything about the contracted movies being "Spider-Man" movies.

It is sure implied. Why bring it up at all? It is misleading at best and a blatant lie at worst.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

It is sure implied. Why bring it up at all? It is misleading at best and a blatant lie at worst.

Of course it's implied, doesn't mean that it's accurate. And is the Daily Star such a fantastic publication that they're above creating drama and 'clicks' on their site by messing with people? Yeah, probably not. Sounds like they used some clever wording to get people interested and stir the pot.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

So what would a movie in 2015 that is not being done with Sony have to do with the Spider-Man related article? Even if they are trying to use it as click bait it's still pretty dumb. Considering this movie is barely going to turn a profit and it shows no signs but going down for the next movie the article makes no sense. Garfield would be wise to avoid extending his contract with Sony at this point

 

[thomass]

So what would a movie in 2015 that is not being done with Sony have to do with the Spider-Man related article? Even if they are trying to use it as click bait it's still pretty dumb. Considering this movie is barely going to turn a profit and it shows no signs but going down for the next movie the article makes no sense. Garfield would be wise to avoid extending his contract with Sony at this point

Its the Daily Star. I'm in the UK and they print poorly researched rubbish on a daily basis. I wouldn't look for any logic in it.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

So what would a movie in 2015 that is not being done with Sony have to do with the Spider-Man related article? Even if they are trying to use it as click bait it's still pretty dumb. Considering this movie is barely going to turn a profit and it shows no signs but going down for the next movie the article makes no sense. Garfield would be wise to avoid extending his contract with Sony at this point

Cause it still relates to Andrew Garfield. They're just twisting the truth to stir the pot. Look at what they've caused already with that stupid article.

A no sense article from the Daily Star...yep, sounds about right.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Its the Daily Star. I'm in the UK and they print poorly researched rubbish on a daily basis. I wouldn't look for any logic in it.

They do have lots of boobies though. So there's that.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Its the Daily Star. I'm in the UK and they print poorly researched rubbish on a daily basis. I wouldn't look for any logic in it.

Exactly my point. Since we've established that The Daily Star is full of it, let's close this thread.

 

[TheSpectacular]

While I doubt the article's true, I'm sure AG would sign on for more given the opportunity. He loves doing this and even the most negative reviews praise him.(unless you're DrDoom at CBM)

 

[MistaBinks]

Maybe 2015 referred to the start date and release date.

 

[kguillou]

This is sort of unrelated but why is it this site has bad blood with CBM? Ive always been wondering about that but it seems like a forbidden secret here.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I can't imagine Garfield staying after Webb leaves...

unless they offer Andrew a ton of cash which they won't.

 

[Green Goblin]

I love Garfield, but I want someone new

 

[Erzengel]

This is sort of unrelated but why is it this site has bad blood with CBM? Ive always been wondering about that but it seems like a forbidden secret here.

I think most fans appreciate a good CBM. I'm not saying TASM2 is Elektra or Green Lantern but for a movie with an "A lister" as Spider-Man, it's not at the level that it should have been.

 

[kguillou]

I think most fans appreciate a good CBM. I'm not saying TASM2 is Elektra or Green Lantern but for a movie with an "A lister" as Spider-Man, it's not at the level that it should have been.

Haha, no, no ,brother. I meant why does superherohype have a beef with comicbook movie.com? Around here everyone calls it "the site that shall not be mentioned." and you cant post links from it or even the URL. Just wondering why. lol

 

[Erzengel]

SHH is Rated G, PG at best. If any of the content including pics, language, jokes, etc. surpasses it that's too much for this messageboard.

 

[chamber-music]

Daily Star is tabloid soft porn. Nothing they print is believable

 

[JOE]

Money talks. Garfield seems to be the only momentum TASM's franchise has going for it, why let it die?