Comic Vine News

78 Comments

How Much Will Andrew Garfield Get Paid For Spider-Man?

Apparently, not very much.

People are still reacting to the official announcement that Andrew Garfield is the new Spider-Man. While there were a few different actors in the running, most of them we had heard of. Andrew Garfield is clearly not a household name. 
 
Garfield does share a resemblance to the old Steve Ditko drawings of Peter Parker and we do have to assume that Sony would make the best decision for their big money-making franchise, I couldn't help but wonder if money played part of it.
 
Deadline New York reported that Garfield is only getting paid $500,000 for playing the web-slinger. The good news (maybe) for Garfield is he'll then get paid $1 million for a second Spider-Man film and $2 million for a third. It doesn't seem like very much when you consider that Spider-Man 3 had a $258 million dollar budget and this one apparently just has a budget of $80 million. Could that be right? If so, $500,000 makes some sense. It may not be much, but being in the spider-spotlight will definitely open some doors for Garfield. 
 
Would you play the role for $500,000?
78 Comments
  • 78 results
  • 1
  • 2
Edited by Blackestnight

Nooooooooooooo more tools playing spiderman.
 
I can't stand these wimps being spider-man. Maybe they can get paid to play Peter and Spider-man will be 99% CG. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
Spiderman is a muscular, flexible, guy with a joking sarcastic attitude under stress. He's not a twig metro sexual or emo dork. Spider-man is making the same mistake Batman made for the earlier few films. The Batman movies started by casting for wayne more than Batman and they tried to get pretty boys to play Bruce. Maybe they thought it would get more women to the movie, I don't know.  But what we all know is they sucked. And it isn't because Geroge or Val are bad actors,its because they are bad super heroes. They can't fight, They're no intimidating, the wouldn't have that kind of resolve. Finally in the new Batman beins they got it right and casted for Batman. They even put a line in the movie to say he was batman and bruce was the mask. 
 
Spiderman needs to put more weight on Spider-man than on Peter. You don't have to be a short, mild, dorky wimp to be a science nerd. You can be a funny, witty, strong, social, science nerd. Peter wasn't an introvert, he just had a bully Flash pick on him but he wasn't a loner. Spider-man can't be another tool. This idea that he was a runt that went to super power fits nicely with the trite highschool movie type of cliche. And non-fans sum it up that way and assume of people like that because they want to vicariously be that way too. Sorry but that's just wrong and it doesn't fit Spiderman. People like Spider-man because he is spider-man. He's funny, quick, uphold justice to his own detriment, and is amazing. 
 
The only character I felt they got right in the previous films was JJJ. The rest needs to be re-done and they need a board of comic book readers to act like a president and veto retarded ideas.  A round table of nerds should give insane concept and character butchering the shaft. This isn't some film that was just made up, it's based on a good 700 plus books. Consult the readers not the casual fan. I'm serious a panel would prevent a lot of the horrible things we've seen in comic movies. 
 
I vote for G-man to be on it.
Edited by Rich-Man

thats a good thing! they are concentrating on the film and not making it about the actors by getting an A lister to hog all the glory! good on ya marc webb! i have faith in this movie, i really hopes it shuts all the whiney bitches up and blows everyone out their seats! 

Posted by ComicMan24

Maybe money played some part in them choosing him. I mean some of the other candidates were more famous, at least I think so, so they probably had bigger salaries.

Online
Posted by FoxxFireArt

Am I the only one who feels that this boy looks more like Harry Osborn then Peter Parker? Perhaps it's the poofy hair.
 
@Rich-Man:
Quite honestly. The more I hear about this movie at the next X-Men movie. The less I begin to care.

Posted by Okrag
@Blackestnight: 
But Batman is a pretty boy playing Batman.
Posted by Joe Venom

Heck yea I would, but I would then suffer them same fate as Donald Glover......
 
let's face it the guy is 26 and is being offered 500G's for a leading role! As long as he plays his cards right he could have a very bright future ahead of him, hopefully he can act because I have never seen him in anything before.

Posted by brendon277

Yeah i would do anything for $500,000 if you don't you're just greedy and rich

Posted by aztek_the_lost

not that much? that's more money then I'll ever see in my life...

Moderator
Posted by Decept-O

While I have my reservations about this whole thing, $500,000 is $500,000 more than he previously had, isn't it?  Still not a bad payday, no matter how you look at it.  Plus he has potential to earn more, and like you said, it could indeed open more doors for other roles if he wants.   
 
Odd, this is something I've been talking about ad nauseum.  That studios should think about cutting back the amount of scratch being paid to the actors, because it seemed like a lot of them were getting "too much" .  I imagine the actors wouldn't agree, but like I've also previously stated, it frees up money for the actual movie budget.  I think Sony may screw this up.....but if I'm wrong, I will happily retract all my gripes.
Posted by Cherry Bomb

Andrew Garfield is a good choice, maybe they should pay him more.
But since he's petty unknown, that amount of money is probably reasonable.

Posted by sora_thekey
@FoxxFireArt said:
"Am I the only one who feels that this boy looks more like Harry Osborn then Peter Parker? Perhaps it's the poofy hair."
Yeah I didn't want to say anything... but I agree he looks more like Osborn rather than Peter...
 
As for the pay... Don't actors get paid too much anyway... $500,000 is enough to live a comfortable for about  2 years... It's fine!
Moderator
Posted by iloverobots

The pay is probably calculated by a computer. They punch in the number of movies he's been in before, and the average revenue those movies made, and his pays on said movies and press a button. Then they remove 15% and make him an offer. So I'm gonna assume 500 000$ is a pretty standard deal for a relatively unknown actor starring in a possibly major movie series. 
 
I wonder how much the Harry Potter cast made on the first movie..?

Posted by ComicMan24

Well, Charlize Theron was paid with 500,000$ before the Oscar but after the Oscar she takes millions.

Online
Posted by The Impersonator

he's a bit old to play Spider-Man
Posted by Justize
@Blackestnight:  NERD OUT!!!
Posted by dtpm60

This guy is going to be a huge star from this movie, and they are cheaping out!  I love it!  So many better choices out there for Peter Parker!

Posted by Sick_j0k3

Wasn't Toby McGuire a nobody before he did Spider-man? I never liked the original Spider-man trilogy to begin with, I felt it was too childish and hope they give it a better tone this time around. Kinda like a Dark Knight kinda feel. 

Edited by damswedon
@The Impersonator:  You always get people older than the age they are going to play when making films or tv shows, most of the cast of Grease where in their mid to late twenties when they made the film, film can take up to 10 years of a persons age.
 
@Sick_j0k3: A dark brooding Spiderman is not a good idea, it would be like making Captain America a Nazi sympathiser, or Deadpool an amalgamation of multiple mutants.
Posted by Mutant X

I just hope this flick has better CG effects and all than the previous 3 have had. It looked horrible.
 
Oh, and more wisecracks.

Posted by Decept-O
@aztek the lost:
Agreed!!  
 
Posted by CaptainGenisVell

If you actually read some of the films he's been in and some of the people he has acted against, you can see he has been a seriou sactor and isn't in it for the fame or money, that he is only trying something different to challenge him.
 
Give him a chance; alot of the people commenting here haven't seen him act or even let him have a chance. He can't be as bad as Tobey was on the last one or even any of the other Spider-man films.

Posted by DannoMan

Heck yes, I'd play the role of Spider-Man for $500,000!

Posted by MikeIsrael

 Would you play the role for $500,000? yes  

Posted by Crazy Pan

You pay me half a million and I'll be whatever role you want...minus porn.

Posted by Gambit1024

More power to him, I say. I really don't have high hopes for this movie (or the X-Men First Class movie either for that matter). If they do well, good for them. I personally hope they fail. Fail so hard that Marvel can buy them back so we can actually get a good Spidey or X-Men movie. Don't get me wrong, I liked Spider-Man 1 and 2, but I'd feel better if the people behind the films knew what they were doing for a change. I know that's a long shot, but I could dream right? lol

Posted by HaloKing343

Wow, i would expect the buget for Spiderman 4 to be higher than the buget for spiderman 3. That's interesting.
Edited by IronPatriot78

He doesn't deserve to play this role. Nobody does. Except Tobey Maguire.

Edited by IronPatriot78

The people who worked very hard on the first SPIDER-MAN wen't through 20 years of development hell and now all their hard work will be thrown away. It's sad. 
 
And I can't stand another british actor!

Posted by Schabbe

people should stop calling it spiderman 4... it's a reboot, not a sequel... and yes i would play the role for that amount of money, allthough my acting skills are wort far less o.o

Posted by G'bandit

Ship, yes! i would play the role for 500,000. Spider-man is a straight ticket to the top. Who the fudge was Tobey Maguire before Spider-man? NOBODY! Hell i still have problems remembering his name even with his fame 
 
So yes! I would play it for 500,000 It will open many doors for this dude

Posted by Crackdown

I'd play it for free

Edited by Gylan Thomas
@Blackestnight: 
The new Batman movies didn't cast for Batman. They just cast well.
You mention Kilmer and Clooney. There Batmovies were just awfull full stop.
 
As for your assesment of the Spidey roll, Peter's always been at the core of Spider-man stories and in the earliest issues he was an introvert geek with few friends. 
And the wimp part? McGuire bulked up well for the roll and I'm sure Garfield will too.
Who would you choose? Some studdly action hero type? That wouldn't work on any level.
Posted by Gylan Thomas
@IronPatriot78 said:
" He doesn't deserve to play this role. Nobody does. Except Tobey Maguire. "
MaGuire over played it. He was good but Peter came off a little too sappy a lot of the time. Maybe that was a directiorial thing. I dunno. 
@Gambit1024 said:
" More power to him, I say. I really don't have high hopes for this movie (or the X-Men First Class movie either for that matter). If they do well, good for them. I personally hope they fail. Fail so hard that Marvel can buy them back so we can actually get a good Spidey or X-Men movie. Don't get me wrong, I liked Spider-Man 1 and 2, but I'd feel better if the people behind the films knew what they were doing for a change. I know that's a long shot, but I could dream right? lol "
Carefull what you wish for.
As soon as comic movies start to fail hollywood will drop 'em like a hot potatoe.
Posted by ComicCrazy

I don't really care what the budget is as long as the movie rocks. But the good thing is I think I'm actually warming to the idea of Garfield being spiderman.
Posted by DavidRose
@Crackdown said:
"I'd play it for free"

lol  
 
 This movie looks like it's gonna tank..
Posted by BrianDusel

Fudge yeah I would play the role for $500,000.  I would play the role for $50,000.  I understand that a movie like this can be half of a year in the making with preproduction and production, but even $50,000 is most than most Americans make per year.  And you could always do another movie right after that for another chunk of change.
Posted by bunnyonthemoonlol

why on earth would anyone want to see this piece of vile!?LIKE SPIDERMAN 3 WAS ANY GOOD?????they took an awesome villian like venom & turned him into eric forman from that 70's show!!!LAME!!!!
Posted by Misk14

lol only $500,000 he must wear some expensive underwear...

Posted by firewrkninja

i would play spider man for free just cause it would be awesome

Posted by Sparda

The amount of SFX that would logically be needed for a Spider-Man film makes me nervous about the budget for this one. The SFX for the last three Spider-Man movies were awesome, so either the action is going to be downed down or it just isn't going to look as good since they'll cut corners. Hmm.
 
Also, while nothing much for a huge actor, damn, $500,000 is a pretty good paycheck.

Posted by Video_Martian

no offense, but this guy sucks.

Posted by Blackestnight
@Okrag: No Batman is a badass who happens to be good looking (to some) playing Batman. They needed a fighter and someone believable.
Posted by Dro
@Blackestnight: Look, sorry break it to you, but I don't believe you've ever read the early ASM comics.
 
Here's the deal. ASM actually was a sort of high school drama. I don't like calling it that either, but it's the truth. But it's by no means any type of typical, sappy high school drama romance type thing. ASM was about the life of Peter Parker, a 16-year-old with numerous problems ranging from the harassment at school to his aunt's (his only close relative and his guardian) illness to having to fight the Green frickin Goblin and save the citizens of New York. And one of the most basic underlying themes was Parker's total isolation from the world due to his situation. He was a bookworm, so he didn't spend much time socializing with other guys at his school. He had to get a job taking pictures to earn money to support his aunt and himself. He had to deal with crime all over New York, including supervillains popping up, who could give him real trouble. And to compound it all, something always came up that would get in the way of his relationships with girls.
 
It was teenage drama. But it was at the same time a superhero story. It was unique in this aspect, as it was unique in the fact that the main character was, in fact, a puny bookworm, as opposed to some big muscular strongman.
Posted by Dro

But in my post I forgot to continue.
 
The problem with Spider-Man isn't the fact that they need to portray him as a sensitive bookworm, just as it isn't that they need to portray him as a powerful, kick-ass superhero. The problem is that they need him to be both, in the same person. They need someone who can be the smart guy who gets picked on in school and be the badass leaping all over the place, kicking the crap out of people and spouting quippy one-liners while doing it. If Sony can find someone to fill both roles with balance and equality, they'll have the perfect guy for the movies.

Edited by Blackestnight

  

 
 

@Dro:

 
The problem is a lot of people are unable to think or a nerdy guy in any other way than the the basic introverted pussy.  I'll yield to you that is some early books he did fit the shrimp as parker. but not generally. And as I said before. Parker is usually doing great with the babes and the work for the paper or for science, it's the Spiderman role that gets in his way not his nerdiness. Peter is quite popular. Spiderman doesn't enhance him its hurts him socially.
 
He wasn't weak, he was at worst average, he just studied a lot and was probably a genius as his social time was spent conversing with adult scientists on groundbreaking things. His mind was being wasted with the trappings of school, rent etc.  He wasn't dating the ladies (most aint at his age at that time when the books was written)  but Gwen and Harry, and Flash and that crowd were still his peers who he interacted with and it wasn't all negative. He was only like 15.   Peter Parker at least after the bite, is a big dude, thin but still a well cut, strong guy. He's had a bunch of origin stories told over and over. 
Movie wise and book wise. 
 You start with the bite, you know parker for maybe a day,  the other high school stuff is in flashbacks by different writers. I read the first 100 or so via torrents and digital comics and have been reading them since the 80s. The film would do just that very beginning as parker getting his bite, and the rest is spiderman.  He made a choice after his uncle died to sacrifice his own needs for others and doing what is right. He could have be the all star in school or anything he wanted, he could have made a bunch of money too. He didn't. Not because he's a dork. Because he is compassionate and upholds justice. It's a rational decision for him not some lacking in his personality. It would have been easy for him to destroy every one in sports, not risk his life, date who he wants and not pass it up to save people. He has bad things happen to him because he's moral. Which is what makes it interesting since it open up another question of wouldn't he be happier if he was not immoral but say a little less moral.
 
I know the first spiderman they attempted a transformation with the mirror scene. It still didn't change his height or make him witty. And he was s till small. He didn't have a lite sense of humor. After the bite Peter Parker is spider-man minus a costume that's it. He can't be played by a tool, unless that tool is really good at acting like he isn't a tool. These guys are just too small. 
 
I could care less about the pay or the new face. It's Spider-man you should be honored to do it even for 50k, 500k is more than enough. Actors are over paid anyway. For half a million dollar you better be damn good. None of this Emo crap, or whupped teary eyed goof junk.  Tobey was Pre-spider-man Peter, but after that he was definitely acting or trying to act like Spider-man because he certainly was nothing like him.  There should be a 5 10 and up rule, and a lift your own weight rule.  His suit was torn in Spiderman 3 and his flab hung out. The fight scenes were Terrible. The only ting good was the SONY made webslinging through NY.  His voice sucked, there wern't any jokes, the goblin had a power ranger mask, MJ was not a super model and looked like she didn't want to be there, Harry and Norman didn't even sport the trade mark red corn rows. If they think that was goofy then tough its a god damn comic book it's supposed to be.  
 
They butchered it. And each sequel just got worse and worse. I tried hard to make myself like it because it was Spider-man. But in the end I said no, demand better. Come on guys, Iknow there are Spiderman fans out there even more die hard than me. I dont need to make a check list of all that was wrong with the prior films. It would be shorter to name what was good. 
 
Band with me here. Don't let them do this to us again. I swear SM3 just about sent me to therapy. (j/k). We don't have to settle for this Bull. It's our last chance to put pressure on them. Don't let it slip away. Don't regret it later knowing you had at least some small chance at input on this
Posted by Big

No. It would be for  $1 million and royalties for all money made from , video game, music, t-shirts, comics, posters, and toys resulting from the release of the picture. Plus 10 % of all profits made from worldwide distribution. Boo-YAAA!!!
Posted by mrrpm01

I am just wondering if the will go Ultimate Spiderman route or reboot and stay along the lines of the classic Spiderman.  I would do it for 500k though knowing that it would open up alot of doors for me worldwide.

Posted by Pizawle

Seems fair. If he does well, it will give him a major boost to his career.
 
For me, it would never be about the money. I know it is easier to say that than to do it, but I am sure.

Posted by Ikkybooger

If you think about it, acting really isn't that hard of a job compared to most nine-to-fivers out there. You basically get paid to play around. So with that in context, $500,00 is a ridiculous amount of money, not to mention the 1 and 2 mill.  
 
So yeah, if I had the part I would gladly take $500,00. Besides, it's not just the cash, it's the fame that comes with it, and then more cash comes with the fame and so on and so on. . . 

Edited by Blackestnight

@Gylan Thomas:

  No, I agree they were terrible, but they did cast for Bruce and that's why they sucked even more. They also spent so much time impressing themselves with the car, that they neglected Batman for that too. The very first Batman was good with Beetle juice playing the role, and of course Jack did a great job acting crazy as he does in all his films. 
 
Peter is not central to the role. Peter's early life was told through flashbacks. You knew Parker for maybe a day before he gets his radioactive bite and then from then on for over 600 books and several animated films and crossovers he's been Spider-man. And it's not his Peter side of the life that screws him up on dates and job appointments, it's spider-man's role that gets in his way.  Peter is doing fine on his own as Peter, with the laldies and with work in science and the paper, it's being a hero that drags him down not his nerdiness. They always get it backwards!
 
It is way more important to cast for spiderman than Peter.  And yes like Clark Kent was done by Reeve, I'd much rather have the big guy acting like a dork then a dork trying to pretend to be a hero. He doesn't have to be from WWE or anything nuts like that, but at least a shoulder,  flexibilty would be good, sarcastic insults etc would be good. Nope we get a dweeb yelling woo hoo and punching like a sissy and doing the over bite. 
 
I'd rather have a stranger, I'd pick an athlete off this forum with no acting experience over the tools they have now. Because I bet for 500k they'd learn what they'd need to do.
 
 @bunnyonthemoonlol:  I feel your pain there with what they did to Venum.  Also MJ Harry, Spiderman, the story and basically everything but the NY back drop and JJJ.
  • 78 results
  • 1
  • 2