He may not have the nostalgic appeal of Tobey Maguire or the youthful energy of Tom Holland,
but Andrew Garfield still did a great job bringing Spider-Man to life. So why were
"The Amazing Spider-Man" movies canceled after two movies? And is the series gone for good?
When Sony made the decision to cancel Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man 4" and move forward with a reboot,
they probably had a grand plan to keep the franchise going for a while. About a year
after the release of the Andrew Garfield-starring "Amazing Spider-Man" in 2012, the studio announced
an ambitious slate of follow-ups. "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" had already been greenlit and was
well underway, but flags were also planted for two more films to be released in 2016 and 2018.
The release of "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" in 2014 didn't meet expectations, though. It was savaged
by critics and earned significantly less than its predecessor — which itself had already been
a steep decline from Raimi's "Spider-Man 3" in 2007. Unsure of how to right the ship, Sony's Amy
Pascal made the unprecedented decision to not only scrap plans for the sequels, but to team up with
Marvel Studios and firmly establish Spider-Man as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
This resulted in a complete erasure of the "Amazing Spider-Man" series,
halting a third installment and replacing Andrew Garfield with Tom Holland as Spider-Man. Though
Garfield may have already been on the outs — with rumors of his firing even
before the reboot — the series was left off on something of a cliffhanger for audiences,
who now had to wonder if they'd ever get closure. And prior to Garfield's return in "Spider-Man:
No Way Home," there unfortunately didn't seem to be a way forward for a threequel.
"Whatever, I don't know, I try not to think about it."
"How's that working out for you?"
"Perfectly."
Over the years, just about everyone involved in "The Amazing Spider-Man" and its sequel
has been asked about a third film. Even after Marvel Studios transported Andrew Garfield's
version of Peter Parker into the MCU, it's a question that's been posed to much of the cast.
Sally Field wasn't thrilled by the idea — she was apparently
uninterested in reprising her role as Aunt May. Field admitted in 2016 —
"It's really hard to find a three-dimensional character in it."
Dane DeHaan, who played Harry Osborn, seems to feel differently. When asked about rumors
of his appearance in "Spider-Man: No Way Home," the actor told Radio Times —
"I would certainly love to make some kind of movie like that again."
As for Andrew Garfield himself, he's said he'd happily don the spandex again — but only under
the right circumstances. In 2022, he told the Happy Sad Confused podcast —
"I am definitely open to that. It would have to be something very unique, very special,
and of service to the audience, of service to the character."
In 2016, the MCU introduced a newer, younger Peter Parker played by Tom Holland in "Captain America:
Civil War." An instant fan favorite, it seemed that audiences had no problem saying goodbye to
Andrew Garfield and "The Amazing Spider-Man" universe. This was further cemented by the
enormous success of "Spider-Man: Homecoming" and "Spider-Man: Far From Home," the latter of
which was the first film for the wall-crawler to pass a billion dollars at the box office.
But if Garfield thought he wasn't beloved in the role,
he must've had a shock when he was asked to make a surprise appearance in "Spider-Man:
No Way Home." Joining forces with both Tom Holland and Tobey Maguire's versions of the webslinger,
Garfield made his triumphant return, and the fan response was overwhelming. In fact,
multiple fan petitions popped up on Change.org encouraging Sony to greenlight "The Amazing
Spider-Man 3" — including one that totaled more than 30,000 signatures.
"I love you guys."
"Thank you!"
In 2022, a former Marvel lawyer spoke to Animated Times and said that — legally speaking — there
was nothing standing in the way of Sony jumping back into the "Amazing Spider-Man" franchise.
But while Sony hasn't commented officially on the prospect of returning to that series of films, it
now seems like a third "Amazing Spider-Man" could be a real possibility after years of hopelessness.
By the end of "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" Gwen Stacy is dead, leaving Peter Parker to deal
with his grief and guilt without her. A scene near the end of the film teased a host of new
villains — and with Dane DeHaan's Green Goblin now knowing Spider-Man's true identity, it seemed
they were setting up some major new storylines. Director Marc Webb told Den of Geek in 2017 —
"We were talking about the Sinister Six. Chris Cooper was going to come back and play the [Norman
Osborn] Goblin. We were going to freeze his head, and then he was going to be brought back to life."
Could all of that still happen? Anything is possible — but with more than 10 years
since the film's release, it's just as likely that something new would be dreamed up. If
it was up to Andrew Garfield, it would be very different from Webb's initial plans.
While speaking with the Happy Sad Confused podcast, Garfield seemed more excited about the
notion of facing off with Tom Hardy's anti-hero Venom. Considering the multiverse shenanigans
introduced in "No Way Home," the possibilities for a third film are practically endless.
It might be easy to assume that a third "Amazing Spider-Man" film would simply bring back the
cast of the two previous entries, but that's not quite as simple as it might sound. For starters,
Emma Stone probably wouldn't be back — Gwen Stacy died at the climax of the previous movie,
after all. Plus, with more than a decade having already passed since "The Amazing
Spider-Man 2," not everyone may be keen to reprise their roles.
With several new entries in Sony's own corner of the Spider-Man universe — including "Venom,"
"Morbius," and "Kraven the Hunter" — new opportunities could present themselves.
We've already seen the villains Lizard and Electro make a return in "No Way
Home," and they could return as either allies or enemies as a dangerous threat emerges. There
are plenty more characters to choose from: Tom Hardy's Venom, Michael Keaton's Vulture,
B.J. Novak's Alistair Smythe, or even Paul Giamatti's Rhino.
"On behalf of the fine people of New York City and real rhinos everywhere,
I ask you to put your mechanized paws in the air."
"Never!"
Another route might be for a sequel to feature an all-new supporting cast as Spider-Man faces off
against an entirely new enemy that we've yet to see on screen. This might be the smartest
way to go, in order to help the series separate itself from its previous lackluster installments.
To say that the first two "Amazing Spider-Man" films were divisive among fans and critics would
be something of an understatement. While Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and the rest
of the films' casts were largely praised for their performances, both movies were met with
criticism from reviewers for their half-baked, overly complicated plots. Some even felt that
the creators of the films didn't even understand the character of Spider-Man, with their grim,
dark takes on the source material not gelling with many long-time fans of the comics.
The overwhelming fan response to Garfield's return in "No Way Home"
proves there's a clear appetite for more stories set in that universe,
though — and a third film would be an opportunity for Sony to finally do it right. It would also be
their chance to prove that they can make a great live-action "Spider-Man" film on their
own — without Sam Raimi or Marvel Studios — the same way they did in animation with
"Into the Spider-Verse." A new story could also fix mistakes of the past,
such as the death of Gwen Stacy or the awkward new interpretation of the Green Goblin.
With the introduction of the multiverse, for example, we could meet a Gwen Stacy
from another reality — maybe even a live-action Spider-Gwen. Not only would this allow Emma Stone
to reappear against all odds, but it would also provide a tangible way for Garfield's
version of Peter Parker to come face to face with the grief and pain caused by her death.
During "Spider-Man: No Way Home," we learn that the past several years have
been pretty hard on Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker. After losing Gwen Stacy,
Peter was unable to forgive himself — and while he tried to keep on being a friendly
neighborhood hero, he actually turned into a much darker, angrier character.
"At some point, I just… I stopped pulling my punches.
I got rageful."
Thankfully, the events of "No Way Home" help Garfield's traumatized hero to heal — and
the actor believes his character will be very different the next time we see him.
In the official art book for "No Way Home," Garfield elaborates a bit on this, saying —
"He's going back knowing that he has brothers. He's going back in
re-inspired to follow his destiny, his calling — the purpose of his life. By catching MJ,
he got to make up for a terrible tragedy that he tried to avoid in his world."
Garfield also believes that Peter had his eyes opened
to the mysteries of the multiverse, explaining —
"I think he's going back with a mind blown about the cosmos and the universe and string
theory and multiple dimensionality. He's going back incredibly reinvigorated."
If we ever get to see this version of Peter back in his own world,
he probably won't be hitting the bad guys quite as hard — and he
might be trying to dig deeper into the multiverse, for better or for worse.
Considering that Marvel Studios is moving full steam ahead on more films in their own
"Spider-Man" series starring Tom Holland, one might wonder how they'd react to Sony embarking
on a separate journey with a wallcrawler from the past. Back when the deal to bring Spider-Man into
the MCU was first being struck, Marvel's Kevin Feige had no interest in continuing the series.
Sony head honcho Amy Pascal had apparently always intended for "Amazing Spider-Man 3" to follow the
deal with Marvel Studios, just with more direct input from them to ensure a success. It was Feige
who forced Sony's hand to reboot the franchise rather than bring Andrew Garfield into the fold.
Today, given Marvel's success with the multiverse — where variants of the same
character can co-exist with audiences clearly appreciating multiple stories living side by
side — Feige and Marvel may not be as opposed as you might think. At least,
not if you ask Holland, who clearly has no room for jealousy. The actor told Comicbook.com —
"I would love to see 'The Amazing Spider-Man 3.' I think what was so wonderful was how
Andrew [Garfield] was able to kind of make amends with the character and the studio,
you know, to kind of win the general public back. [...] So should Sony decide to do that,
they would have my full support, and obviously, so would Andrew."
"Who are you?"
"I'm Spider-Man."