Theory on Why Garfield Was Let Go From Spiderman

[King Ka$h]

What the fukk is going on? Didn't the director of BvS say he wanted Batman to get raped? Or was that someone else

Didn't Talia roofie him anyways

 

[ELESDEE616]

I actually think it would be an interesting idea but Garfield played with the wrong one. Stan is known to be savage. He knew he was about to cut the guy's balls off when he said that. Have you seen this video of him destroying two up and coming comic creators:

 

[Mensch Fontana]

Spiderman: shyt I just killed my girlfriend.... fukk it might as well go gay

 

[BLΔCK⁂W⊙LF]

Garfield and Marc Webb both said that Spiderman could possibility be bisexual and Garfield even said that he could see Michael B. Jordan as a future love interest aka the new MJ. When Stan Lee heard Garfield saying this, he put in a few phone calls and Garfield and Webb were both fired soon after. Sony's new contracts on Spiderman all stipulate that the character must now be white and straight. Post interviews with Garfield about it suggest that he still thinks there was a opportunity to play with Spiderman's sexuality and that it was a missed opportunity.

 

[MartyMcFly]

yea I'm surprised @MartyMcFly ain't dropped in here yet meant to tag him

Was busy all day and on my way to Vegas now but I'll just say this: Nah. Sometimes the shyt is as simple as they wanted to recast with someoen younger who looks like he's 15/16 and Andrew doesn't fit the bill. I know that's tough to swallow for an internet that believes James Bond is a code name and everything is a conspiracy, but shyt is real simple at times. And now I bid you all adieu

 

[Heretic]

Orrrrrrr marvel didn't want anything carrying over from the sony flicks that would screw up continuity and decided to start from scratch so it could fit into the MCU

 

[FLATOP]

I thought he was fired cuz he ditched on a meeting with Sony before a big conference

Probably this too

 

[parallax]

Yeah thats him, big shoulders and knee pads were his thing.
Him and Jim Lee ran the 90s.

You see the fruit of their labor today.

no lies, but thats definetely not a good thing. there are too many lazy ass artists in marvel as is. and honestly i think liefeld did a lot more harm than good in the 90s

Didn't Talia roofie him anyways

bruce and dikk both got raped at one point

 

[richaveli83]

I remember reading about Garfield talking about a gay Spider-Man but I never knew he was allegedly was serious about it. If they want a gay superhero that's their business but why the fukk do you want to make a 50+ year old straight character gay?!

 

[NobodyReally]

OMG, this is hideous and stupid looking.

Was busy all day and on my way to Vegas now but I'll just say this: Nah. Sometimes the shyt is as simple as they wanted to recast with someoen younger who looks like he's 15/16 and Andrew doesn't fit the bill. I know that's tough to swallow for an internet that believes James Bond is a code name and everything is a conspiracy, but shyt is real simple at times. And now I bid you all adieu

Orrrrrrr marvel didn't want anything carrying over from the sony flicks that would screw up continuity and decided to start from scratch so it could fit into the MCU

I don't think it's an either/or thing, it's probably a both/and situation where there was a perfect storm of factors - a big studio handover, an aging lead who talks too much about things that make people uncomfortable, including the creator of the character, and a sequel that didn't perform up to expectations.

I do think it's curious though that the Sony email leak revealed the following:

The contract went into effect in September 2011. It lists “mandatory” character traits for both Peter Parker and Spider-Man — and the agreement includes the caveat that Spider-Man is “not a homosexual (unless Marvel has portrayed that alter ego as a homosexual).”

-taken from http://variety.com/2015/film/news/sony-hack-peter-parker-spider-man-white-straight-1201524150/

They could have just said to keep the character as it was originally depicted but they went the extra mile and used explicit language to address something they definitely didn't want to see. People don't put things like that in clauses for no reason.

 

[Kidd Dibiase]

so he's been scoping out MBJ since he was a teen on The Wire

MBJ should NEVER sign on to do a movie with this dude

 

[Stelio Kontos]

MJ gotta be a redhead broad. And no, if it had a penis at any point it don't count

 

[Kenny West]

And yall had the nerve to say he was better than Toby the GOAT shyt is a negworthy statement now

 

[MartyMcFly]

OMG, this is hideous and stupid looking.






I don't think it's an either/or thing, it's probably a both/and situation where there was a perfect storm of factors - a big studio handover, an aging lead who talks too much about things that make people uncomfortable, including the creator of the character, and a sequel that didn't perform up to expectations.

I do think it's curious though that the Sony email leak revealed the following:

The contract went into effect in September 2011. It lists “mandatory” character traits for both Peter Parker and Spider-Man — and the agreement includes the caveat that Spider-Man is “not a homosexual (unless Marvel has portrayed that alter ego as a homosexual).”

-taken from Spider-Man Needs to Be White and Straight, Say Leaked Sony Emails

They could have just said to keep the character as it was originally depicted but they went the extra mile and used explicit language to address something they definitely didn't want to see. People don't put things like that in clauses for no reason.

Yeah again I think it's just looking for a complicated answer when the obvious answer is right there.

 

[The Prince of All Saiyans]

word was they were interested in bringing back tobey after this was stated

I posted the thread but can't seem to find it