Film Special Features

Is Sony’s Andrew Garfield Version of Spider-Man Really Ruined Beyond Repair?

Guardians of Peace’s hack of Sony Pictures has finally revealed top-secret information about what the studio is thinking about doing with Spider-Man going forward.  As of October 30, 2014, Sony’s top brass, Doug Belgrad and Amy Pascal, were exchanging emails discussing the possibility of co-producing a new Spider-Man trilogy with Marvel Studios, with the latter very eager to be able to include Spider-Man in Captain America: Civil War. Different emails between Pascal and Jeff Robinov implied that unless Sony decides to partner with Marvel they believe they’re running out of options, although LEGO Movies’ Phil Lord and Chris Miller are prepping some kind of animated Spider-Man project for the studio. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Marvel/Sony talks eventually broke down over who would get creative control over the new films, and that Sony was planning a big meeting in January to figure out their Spider-Man mess. Latino Review later clarified that the deal which had been discussed would have been a 60/40 co-production between Marvel and Sony, with Marvel attaining creative control of the franchise. Furthermore, Latino Review explained that a deal between the two sides is still very possible, but the first thing Marvel Studios wants to do is completely ignore any of the other Spider-Man films. That would mean telling Andrew Garfield to take a hike, bugger off back to Comic-Con where he can wear his homemade Spider-Man costume all he wants. That’ll be the only time he dresses up as Spider-Man ever again.

But, wait, I kind of liked The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Well, that’s a straight up lie. I actively hated large portions of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Why doesn’t Sony realize that no one cares about Spider-Man’s parents? However, I do actually know people who really liked the movie. In fact, the first words out of my best friend’s mouth after she saw Amazing Spider-Man 2 were, “I loved every single minute of it.” Of course, that turned out to be a pretty big exaggeration, but she’ll still argue to this day that Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not only far better than its reputation would lead you to believe but it’s also arguably the third best Spider-Man film of all time, trailing only the first Amazing Spider-Man and Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2.

spider-man-posterI’d naturally love to argue with her about that, but when was the last time you actually watched the first Sam Raimi Spider-Man? I made the mistake of doing that over the summer when ASM2 came out. It has not aged well, as covered to death in the following (overly snarky) 11-minute YouTube video:

In general, there are actually things about The Amazing Spider-Man films that are arguably superior to the Sam Raimi Trilogy, such as a Spider-Man whose quips feel natural instead of forced, with such dialogue far more believable from Andrew Garfield than it was with Tobey Maguire’s zen-nerd version of the character, a more nuanced depiction of the life of a teenager, more seemingly age-appropriate actors playing Uncle Ben and Aunt May, and, most importantly, better romance and chemistry between its two leads. In fact, the thing this franchise had going for it which made it unique not just in comparison to the earlier films but also any other current comic book film franchise was the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone.

Well, barring some crazy clone, time travel, long lost twin-sister, or very Vertigo-esque idea (What if Emma Stone died her hair red again and played Mary Jane?) the franchise is down to just Andrew Garfield after killing off Gwen Stacey in ASM2. Now, if Latino Review is to be believed the franchise may actually be completely dead. Marvel Studios is better at making comic book movies than Sony is, and the best option for a great Spider-Man movie to get made is to let Marvel Studios do all the heavy lifting. However, is going nuclear like this really the best option? Is the Amazing Spider-Man film franchise so creatively and financially stalled that tearing it all up and starting over is the only good idea they have?  Are they even going to discuss doing Miles Morales?

Amazing-Spider-Man-2-Official-High-Res-Banner-570x301Of course, we’ve been hearing rumblings for months now that Garfield’s time as Peter Parker may be over. BadAssDigest previously reported it had heard Sony was thinking about dropping Garfield and re-casting the role of Spider-Man, introducing the new guy in a small role in The Sinister Six spin-off film Drew Goddard (Cabin in the Woods) is shepherding. This would effectively turn Sinister Six into a soft reboot of the franchise. While it was unclear why exactly Garfield was on the chopping block the fact that he (probably fairly) threw the studio under the bus when discussing ASM2’s failings at this year’s Toronto Film Festival couldn’t have helped:

“For me, I read the script that Alex [Kurtzman] and Bob [Orci] wrote, and I genuinely loved it. There was this thread running through it. I think what happened was, through the pre-production, production, and post-production, when you have something that works as a whole, and then you start removing portions of it—because there was even more of it than was in the final cut, and everything was related. Once you start removing things and saying, ‘No, that doesn’t work,’ then the thread is broken, and it’s hard to go with the flow of the story. Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they’re the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people.”

This was the first time someone from the Amazing Spider-Man films had so directly addressed the long-standing fan theory that the true problem with both Amazing Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man 2 has been excessive meddling from the studio, with the signs of such interference present from the very beginning. So, for as much as director Marc Webb might deserve blame he might also deserve sympathy as it’s highly likely that he has yet to get to make the Spider-Man film he truly wanted to. Then again, you might re-think that level of leniency after you listen to his commentary on The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Blu-Ray. Well, I can’t claim to have listened to the commentary, as summarized by Forbes’ Scott Mendelson:

When you listen to the filmmakers’ commentary on the blu ray you realize that the core narrative flaw of the second Amazing Spider-Man film was the choice to kill Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy. They made that call at the beginning and then basically wrote the film backwards to justify that sequence both narratively (bringing in the Green Goblin in the name of source fidelity, offering a secondary villain in the form of Electro in order to have action sequences prior to Osbourne’s transformation) and thematically (going hilariously out of its way to absolve Peter of any responsibility in his girlfriend’s violent murder). The idea that the film was a backdoor pilot to a Sinister Six type film, or that it suffered from villain overload, was more about the marketing than the actual final product.

Yet even with all that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 still pulled in over $700 million worldwide, ranking it as the 6th biggest film of 2014, which has been a down year for box office. As Mendelson put it, “Even with brutal worldwide competition, mixed reviews, an anticipation of would-be failure, controversy over its climactic plot twist and alleged attempts to act as a prologue to an expanded universe, there was still a pretty huge audience for a Spider-Man movie.” Granted, this also made it the lowest-grossing Spider-Man film of all time (and that’s without adjusting for ticket price inflation!), continuing a downward trend since Spider-Man 3 and thus signaling obvious franchise fatigue. Plus, as Tom Shone argued in his book Blockbuster: How Hollywood Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Summer often times when you look at year-end box office figures you can imagine trying to explain to your kid why films like the 1998 Godzilla, Pearl Harbor, Wild Wild West, Waterworld, and Last Action Hero were all considered catastrophic flops that were globally reviled even though they made a ton of money. You imagine your kid in that scenario ending things by asking, ““Daddy, tell us again what it was like when you went to see movies you liked.”

Surely some of the people who contributed to ASM2’s worldwide box office actually liked what they saw. My friend can’t be the only one. Garfield and Stone are as cute together as ever. That Times Square scene with Electro is an astounding moment of comic book cinema. Sally Field’s heartbreak as Aunt May when explaining how she’d always been there for Peter is palpable. They actually have a really good cast. Is any of that enough to hope for a less extreme solution to the franchise’s woes? Or is the Andrew Garfield Spider-Man ruined beyond repair? Was Amazing Spider-Man 2 their Spider-Man 3?

What do you think? Let me know in the comments.

Update 2-10-15: Well, it happened; Sony and Marvel made a deal, and it sure looks like Garfield is being shown the door.  Read about it here.

Source: ComicBookResources


  1. I may be in the minority here, but I’ll take Tobey Maguire over Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker any day. That’s not to say I didn’t find the Amazing Spiderman movies entertaining. I did. To be fair, there’s only a handful of comic book superhero movies I don’t enjoy at least a little bit. (Daredevil, Batman and Robin, and the Eric Bana Hulk movie being among those that I will never waste time watching again) That being said, I’m ready for Spider Man to be part of the over all Marvel cinematic universe. Now if we could just get the Fantastic Four and the X-Men in there too. (Not that I have any problems with the X-Men movies, but I just want all my comic book characters to be interrelated, like they should be.) After all, Reed Richards, Wolverine, Spiderman, and the Punisher should all be involved in any Civil War adaptation.

    1. “To be fair, there’s only a handful of comic book superhero movies I don’t enjoy at least a little bit. (Daredevil, Batman and Robin, and the Eric Bana Hulk movie being among those that I will never waste time watching again)”

      That pretty much describes me too, although my personal list would also include X-Men Origins: Wolverine and both of the Fantastic Four films.

      As for X-Men/Fantastic Four, it wasn’t in any of the articles I linked to in my story, but a new series of emails indicates that Sony has heard that Fox is definitely working toward an X-Men/Fantastic Four crossover. I don’t know if that means much, though, because we’ve all pretty much heard that since the producer connected to both franchises, Simon Kinberg, has talked about it rather openly in interviews, pointing out the barriers to such a union (they occupy two very different universes).

      Overall, I am very ready for Spider-Man to join the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, the idea of introducing him in Civil War does give me pause, especially if it will be a new version of the character neither the audience nor the other characters in the film have met before. Spider-Man’s effectiveness in that storyline is largely due to the audience’s familiarity with him and his worldview. It almost seems like they’d be better off holding him back, but if it’s Marvel and Kevin Feige making the creative decisions and not Sony then I’d be a fool to question their choices. I also try to remind myself that this movie will certainly be very different than the actual Civil War comic just as Iron Man 3 is only a loose adaptation of Extremis and Captain America: Winter Solider even more loosely adapted from the Winter Soldier graphic novel or X-Men with Days of Future Past, etc.

    2. Count me into the minority.
      I am torn about the issue. I would like the see at least a Spider-man 3 by Webb and with Andrew Garfield (and withouth executive meddling), giving his arc a proper conclusion. But I also like the idea of a proper teenager Spider-man in the MCU. To be honest though: I am not sure if this has to be rushed. If Marvel would have wanted to add Andrew Garfield, it had to be done now, but with a new Spider-man, why not wait a little bit? Iron Man can’t be around forever because RDJ is not getting younger, and they need a big name hero to keep the franchise together when the current Avengers are fading out. Peter Parker is the obvious choice in my eyes.

      1. I am kind of with you on this. I want Garfield and Webb to get to finish their trilogy, and I want Webb to finally get to make the Spider-Man film he wants to without excessive studio meddling. However, I also really like the idea of Spider-Man being in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

        Ultimately, I think you are right about this. If, for whatever reason, Sony won’t make a third Webb/Garfield Spider-Man film then the best option for all involved parties, especially if you believe the Spidey character is overexposed and suffering from severe franchise fatigue, would be to simply hold off and not rush things. The way things are shaking out right now for Marvel is that they are going to need some new heroes to replace the actors whose contracts are due to expire. Waiting that long with age Garfield out of the role meaning it would be natural to start over. However, I’d ultimately prefer that they not reboot Spider-Man…again. I’d prefer that Spidey simply show up for a cameo in one of these Marvel movies over the next 2 years, and that it be the Andrew Garfield version of Spidey. Then go from there.

      2. No, I actually meant that it would still be Andrew Garfield because I think the ideal situation is for Sony and Marvel to agree that forcing audiences to accept yet another Spider-Man so soon after he had just been re-booted would be too much, especially at a time when we are already so clearly heading toward comic book movie overload. I’m more in favor of Sony exploring a Miles Morales Spider-Man than I am them going with a new actor playing Peter Parker. But if they want to do a cross-over with Peter Parker in the Marvel Cinematic Universe relatively soon I’d like for it to still be the Andrew Garfield version. If that doesn’t happen soon though, I think the comment you made later about Garfield probably aging himself out of the role, and Marvel favoring a younger actor they can control and use in sequels for years to come makes a lot of sense.

    3. Argh…I meant “count me out”…I am so used that everyone says that the original Trilogy is so much better, I am not used to be in the majority for a change….

      1. Well, that original Trilogy IS so much better….until you go back and actually re-watch it. Yeah, then you learn to appreciate The Amazing Spider-Man a lot more, although I still do love Spider-Man 2.

      2. I guess I have kind of a different perspective in that I always felt dissatiesfied with the original trilogy. TAS gave me the character driven origin story I always wanted. The original Trilogy was okay, but I always wanted more character development, which never happened.

      3. It sounds like we agree, but we took different paths to the same conclusion. I was actually initially not crazy about either the first Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2, somewhat distracted by the climate of the time they came out which was mostly, “These are masterpieces!” The fact that they weren’t made them disappointments to me, but on re-watch on DVD I grew to love them. I never had that happen with Spider-Man 3, though. Didn’t like it to begin it, still don’t know. When Amazing Spider-Man came along, I was really hard on it because the villain’s plan seemed so lackluster, the disconnect between “the untold story” promised by ads and the actual film was distracting, I’d only ever known the Tobe Maguire version of Peter Parker, and I thought they hadn’t waited long enough to reboot the character. It was really this past summer when I started reading the Ultimate Spider-Man line of comic books, and re-watched the original Raimi trilogy that my nostalgia blinders were lifted. I realized that a lot of what the new movies were doing were keyed off the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, which I loved, and that those Raimi films look like artifacts from a completely different era. Plus, as you pointed out TAS does seem to be more interested in character development. I still have fondness for Raimi’s first 2 Spider-Man films, of course, but I’m not blind to their faults anymore, particularly the first one.

      4. Well, I liked the train scene (who doesn’t). But I never was as crazy about the second movie as everybody else because I thought that the take on doc Oc was kind of strange. I used to love the animated series from way back, and my favourite villains were always Doc Oc and The Lizard. Doc Oc in Spider-man 2 felt like a weird mix out of both characters, which didn’t ring true to me. And Mary Jane was kind of the deal breaker. I really wanted to like her character because I really liked Kirstin Dunst as actress back then, but she was so badly written.
        I just really appreciate the step to step development they did in TAS and how the movie basically explains every element of Peter’s costume. It’s not just there, the spandax, the web shooter, everything has a purpose.
        I appreciaty the Raimi movies for what they are and for their place in comic book movie history – but I think TAS did at the very least the origin story way better. And is lightyears ahead when it comes to portraying a believable, well-written romance. And, boy, that’s saying something, because like you I was not keen on a movie which was created in a rush in order to mantain rights, and I was especially not keen on Gwen Stacy (After all this years I just don’t see anyone but Mary-Jane on Peter’s side (a well-written version of her, naturally), but I am so glad that I gave the movie a chance after all. TAS is my favourite Spider-man movie, and the only reason I would put TAS2 below Spider-man 2 is because it doesn’t have the iconic status.

      5. Yeah, I used to watch the Animated Spider-Man series from the 90s, the one that ran around the same time as the X-Men animated series. In fact, that was my first exposure to either Spider-Man or the X-Men, and it would be decades before I ever read any comic books featuring them. So, Mary Jane was Peter’s girlfriend there, she was his eventual (almost) fiance in the Sam Raimi trilogy, and she’s still his primary love interest in the Ultimate Spider-Man comics I’ve read. Until you mentioned it I’d kind of forgotten that one of my reservations about Amazing Spider-Man was that Gwen Stacey was going to be the love interest. Heck, when they cast Emma Stone I didn’t even know she was a natural blonde. To me, she was that feisty redhead from a couple of teen comedies. I didn’t understand why the hell they hadn’t simply cast her to play Mary Jane. Of course, I ended up really liking her version of Gwen. I actually wish there had been more of her in Amazing Spider-Man 2.

        As for Doc Oc and Lizard, I know what you’re talking about, but it never bothered me mostly because I had forgotten a lot of the cartoon by the time I saw the film. So, I didn’t realize how much of the Lizard’s origin story they had co-opted for their version of Doc Oc. As for Kirsten Dunst, you’re not wrong.

        As for the first Amazing Spider-Man, I remember I was partially hard on it because I thought it was so blatantly trying to be the Batman Begins for Spider-Man. Looking back on it, I don’t why that’s such a bad thing. That’s a dang good model to follow, and it results in things like the stuff you highlighted about how much more of a grounded explanation we get for every aspect of Spidey’s suit.

      6. TAS tries to be more grounded and realistic (as much as the concept can be realistic) instead of going for a comic book feel like the original trilogy, but I wouldn’t say that it realy tries to be like Batman Begins. Nolan’s Batman has a depressing and a little bit melodramatic element to it, which TAS certainly lacks. While TAS is somewhat gritty, it still has a message of hope in it, and it has a much higher opinion about humanity in general than Nolan does. So yes, it is kind of following the leader, but it is also going for its own variation of a less comic-like Superhero movie. In a way it is a mix out of the current DC and MCU approach, taking the best of both worlds. It still has the sense of fun the Marvel movie have, but it isn’t afraid to go really dark and depressing when it helps to develop the characters further. Sadly it then got ruined when some idiot insisted to throw the comic-book like tone from the original trilogy into the second movie.

      7. Agreed. It is following a model set by Batman Begins, but applying it in a way that makes sense for the character of Spider-Man since Batman and Spidey are two very different beasts. That’s what makes it doubly weird that Amazing Spider-Man 2 ultimately took things back to a more comic book-y level, harkening back to the Joel Schumacher Batman films and the Sam Raimi trilogy more than the actual first Amazing Spider-Man.

      8. Well, I guess fans for complaining that the tone of TAS was so different from the trilogy and someone decided to meddle.
        I kept wondering what would have happened if TAS had been more of a success, either critical of financial. It should have gotten more love imho.

  2. I prefer Garfield to Maguire. I liked Garfield, where I didn’t like Maguire. I personally want to like Spidey. When it comes to the story, I honestly didn’t love either trilogy. I know the stories weren’t great because I can’t remember them in great deal, like I do with movies that have really good stories. That said, the first trilogy is forever tainted by Emo Spidey.

    1. I actually preferred Maguire to Garfield until this summer when A.) I got a Marvel Unlimited subscription and read a bunch of Spider-Man comics for the first time, B.) I binge-watched a lot of the Ultimate Spider-Man animated series on Netflix, and C.) I re-watched the first Sam Raimi Spider-Man. I watched the old Spider-Man cartoon from the 90s when I was a kid, but outside of that my first real exposure to Spider-Man was when he was played by Tobe Maguire. So, to me, that oddly zen-nerd was the only way of doing Peter Parker. As such, I really hated Garfield in The Amazing Spider-Man, thinking he came off as a bit of a jerk with all of his quips or apparently breaking his promise to Captain Stacy at the very end of the film. Most importantly, he just wasn’t Spider-Man to me. It was only when I read some of the comics, particularly the Ultimate line, that I saw that Garfield was actually a little closer to the Spidey of the recent comics whereas Maguire seemed closer to the Spidey of the 60s. Plus, re-watching the first Spider-Man made me second guess why I gave so much credit to that Raimi trilogy, although I still love Spider-Man 2.

      However, for as much as I finally came around on Andrew Garfield’s version of the character I have to agree that the story told across his two films is incredibly forgettable. If this is to be the end of his time in the role it seems his obituary will read that he was a good Spider-Man whose two films were unworthy of him.

  3. I continue to be amazed when people talk like this about Amazing Spider-Man 2. I didn’t like it as much as the first one, but I still loved it. (Except for Gwen Stacey’s death, which killed half of why it was so great.) Offline, I don’t know anybody who didn’t enjoy it. I really want Spider-Man in the “real” Marvel movies, but if it’s not Andrew Garfield, I’m not sure I want it after all…

    1. I think you’re making my point for me. That $700 million worldwide gross for ASM2 can’t all be down to people buying into a marketing campaign. Some people actually had to have liked the movie, or at the very least really liked Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Replacing Andrew Garfield is fixing a problem they didn’t actually have. That being said, I totally get why Marvel wants to start over. They have no loyalty to Garfield, and starting from scratch can make the franchise their own. But Garfield may be out regardless of whether or not Sony works a deal with Marvel. That’s the part where I think Sony is being too hasty, even if some reports now indicate relations between Garfield and Sony had seriously soured before the leak. Apparently he disrespected the head of Sony (not Sony Pictures that makes movies but Sony that owns Sony Pictures) by canceling his appearance at a meet-and-greet dinner event at the last minute, and he’s been living on borrowed time ever since. So, there are other things going on here, but I don’t particularly like it.

      1. Yeah, I agree. Understandable, but I don’t really like it either way. It also looks bad to constantly reboot Spiderman and not be able to create a lasting franchise on Sony’s part.

      2. Right on. If waiting around 5 years to re-boot Spider-Man with Andrew Garfield wasn’t quite long enough why would it then work to re-boot again with Sinister Six or Captain America 3 in 2016, just 2 years after Amazing Spider-Man 2? Batman used to be the James Bond of the 90s, with all of us simply going along with the role being cast twice across just 4 films. Sony is the studio who has James Bond. So, maybe it makes sense to them to simply go James Bond with Spider-Man and re-cast, trusting that audiences respond to the brand, not the actor. After all, Marvel got away with that with Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk in The Avengers, and now WB has a new Batman coming along less than 4 years after the last one. But if the one thing many agree about is that Andrew Garfield is a great Spider-Man then please keep him around unless you’re going to do something totally different and try out the Miles Morales version of Spidey, which seems unlikely.

      3. That’s a good point, audiences will often go along with a simple recast. I really did love Garfield though. I guess I’m less upset about losing him since we’ve already lost Emma Stone, and the two of them as a combo basically created most of the affection I’ve seen for the franchise, but at the same time, if we lose BOTH of them, I’m not sure how much I care about Spiderman at all at this point. (If we were trying something new, like Miles Morales, then I’d start caring again pretty quick…)

      4. I know, right. It’s like, “Hey, I just got over the loss of Emma Stone. Now, you’re taking Andrew Garfield away, too? WTF!!” Garfield has said he’s in favor of the franchise exploring Miles Morales, that he’d even be happy to pass the baton so to speak, but one of the producers has made it very clear that he has no interest in ever doing a non-Peter Parker Spider-Man. Of course, everything’s totally up in the air now after the Sony hack, but that was the status quo as of late this summer.

      5. Gosh, that’s kind of a small box to build yourself into. Maybe the problem all along has been lack of vision/ambition from the production team. I mean, they should be shooting for 57 high-quality Spiderman movies with a new hook every time, not “Peter Parker origin story OVER AND OVER for two movies at a time…”

        But hey, maybe the hack will have some positive change-things-up impacts.


        The producers who said no to the idea on principle are Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach, with Arad being a Marvel legend who produced the first 3 Spider-Man films and left Marvel in 2006 and has produced both Amazing Spider-Man films. He was around at Marvel during the Clones Saga era in the comics where there were a crap-ton of Spider-Mans running around, which he thinks almost killed the character.

        Here is what he said about all of this:

        ““The one thing you cannot do, when you have a phenomena that has stood the test of time, you have to be true to the real character inside – who is Peter Parker? What are the biggest effects on his life? Then you can draw in time, and you can consider today’s world in many ways. But to have multiple ones… I don’t know if you remember, but Marvel tried it. And it was almost the end of Spider-Man.”

        Some of the leaked emails indicate that both Arad and Tolmach are slowly being pushed aside, with Captain America’s The Russo’s wanting in as producers, but as I understand it those two still have a stranglehold on the film rights. So, unless Arad changes his mind or gets bought out or something like that Miles Morales isn’t happening. After all the publicity surrounding the Spider-Man franchise with the leaked emails, though, it would seem to be that the old rules don’t apply anymore, and everything is back on the table now that everyone knows exactly what their bosses at Sony were thinking (and how close they came to giving creative control away to Marvel). I’d imagine we won’t hear much more about this for a while, though, because Sony has bigger fish to fry with The Interview and the leak of current script for the new James Bond movie and so, so many other things.

      7. I actually think that the main reason for replacing Garfield is his age. While he looks young, he is already in his 30th. Marvel will want an actor they can pin down with a long term contract and keep in the franchise for at least ten years. As young as Garfield is still looking, in ten years he wouldn’t be a convincing Spider-man.
        The insistence to have a teenaged Spider-man also plays into it, I think. Marvel never liked the idea of a middle-aged Spider-man. If Marvel starts out with a teenage version, they can use the character way longer in the MCU.

    1. They’ve been giving oddly mixed signals about that. In some interviews, Simon Kinberg, who produces both the new Fantastic Four and the X-Men movies, implies a big cross-over movie could happen. In other interviews, he states that the two franchises exist in parallel universes, and a cross-over wouldn’t make sense. They do have the legal ability to make an X-Men vs. FF movie since Fox owns the rights, but it’s hard to figure out if they actually want to exploit that. Of course, the new FF movie is here, and everyone seems to really feel “blah” about it. If that translates to poor box office then that might cancel anything else they might have done with the FF down the road, like a sequel which is scheduled for 2017.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: