Did Andrew Garfield act like a ‘spoiled brat’ at the Oscar rehearsals? (update)

wenn3968826

Chris Evans was not supposed to present at the Oscars on Sunday. He showed up unexpectedly to present this weird package about superhero films that seemed to come out of nowhere. Everybody was buzzing… “Why is Chris Evans here? What’s going on?” As it turns out, Chris got the call to present at the very last minute (like, just a few hours before the Oscars began on Sunday) because Andrew Garfield pulled out. Andrew was supposed to attend the show with Emma Stone, and Andrew was supposed to present that superhero film package.

So, what was going on with Garfield? Sources told Radar/Daily Mail earlier this week that Andrew pulled out at the last minute because Emma Stone had a “long standing family commitment” in Arizona, which sounds like a really bizarre excuse, right? If Emma had a “long-standing commitment,” why agree to appear at the Oscars at all? Well, Page Six has the “real story” of what happened and it’s not a pretty picture:

Not even a 5-year-old boy with cancer could persuade egotistical actor Andrew Garfield to be a presenter at the Academy Awards.

The “Spider-Man” star was supposed to take the stage Sunday with Miles Scott, who has come to be known as “Batkid” after the city of San Francisco let him play superhero there.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences had arranged with the Make-A-Wish Foundation to further make Miles’ dreams come true.

“The academy was going to make him an official superhero during the Oscar ceremony. Andrew Garfield was going to appoint him ‘Batkid.’ But, in the middle of the dress rehearsal, Garfield decided he didn’t like his lines,” said a well-placed source.

“Garfield refused to go by the script. He came up with his own lines. The producers felt that Garfield’s [rewrites] were not appropriate. Garfield had a tantrum. He stormed off. Miles and his family, who were at the rehearsal, were devastated.”

The producers decided to cut the superhero initiation, but they paid for Miles to go to Disneyland.

“Garfield was such a spoiled brat that he didn’t even want to be a presenter,” said my source. The academy had to call “Captain America” star Chris Evans to sub at the last minute.

Garfield’s agent at CAA didn’t get back to me.

[From Page Six]

While I think the “family commitment in Arizona” story sounds like BS, this Page Six story sounds questionable too. First of all, I don’t know that much about Andrew Garfield, but he’s never struck me as that kind of a—hole. I’m sure he’s capable of pulling rank and acting jerky, but throwing a hissy fit about some Oscar patter that involves a Make-a-Wish kid? That’s pretty harsh. And here’s something else that doesn’t make sense: if Andrew really did throw a hissy and walk away from his Oscar presenting duties, why not let Captain America/Chris Evans do a bit with Batkid? Something is really fishy here.

PS… CB reminded me that Emma’s mom has cancer, so maybe the “family commitment” involved Emma’s mother. Although that doesn’t explain this Page Six story at all.

Update: The Academy is taking the blame for Garfield’s absence – they say that they cut the Bat-kid segment at the last minute and Andrew was good enough to take Bat-kid to Disneyland as a consolation prize.

wenn5874415

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

144 Responses to “Did Andrew Garfield act like a ‘spoiled brat’ at the Oscar rehearsals? (update)”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. eliza says:

    I am not sure if this happened why the Batkid was still not part of the Oscars.

    That said, I am so not a fan of this actor. There is something about him I simply cannot get past. I have really not enjoyed him in anything he has been in.

  2. MrsBPitt says:

    That’s what I was thinking…why didn’t Captain America do the Batkid bit (that would have been awesome, by the way)…Something doesn’t make sense….

    • Dani2 says:

      +1 something certainly doesn’t add up. Both Thor AND Captain America were at the Oscars, this sounds like bs to me.

      • lower-case deb says:

        i think Disney (as owner of Marvel) is trying to cockblock any other characters that are not (yet) theirs.
        make the Rival-Stabled spiderman look bad, and guess who cheered up the kid? Mickey Mouse at Disneyland of course.

        although this is a wild guess of course.

        just a way to stir up more dramzzzz..

        they could as well just said: AG and ES had to pull out after some family emergency happened (no need to explain, let the public imagine the rest), CE is called in last minute to present, and after consideration the whole Batkid segment is scrubbed because of timing issues, plus 4-hours surrounded by stuckup grownups is just asking too much. and everyone agrees going to amusement parks is much more fun.

        no need for the “blow up” thing because no one’d be the wiser anyway.

        but what’s the fun and drama in that?

      • Original Tessa says:

        And BATMAN! He was nominated. He was sitting front row. So was new Batman, Ben Affleck. They were all there. It doesn’t make sense how one of them couldn’t have stepped in. Obviously it was supposed to be promo for the new Spiderman. It had nothing to do with the sick child, but well placed promo for a big movie.

      • Rachel says:

        Oh man Tessa, I hadn’t even thought of that. Batman was there! Can you imagine how momentous that would have been for Batkid!! And I bet Christian Bale would have been happy to do it. Even though he seems to be kind of a jerk with adults, I don’t think anyone can deny, he’s really good with kids.

      • SLM says:

        Spiderman is a Marvel property, therefore owned by Disney.

      • winosaurusrex says:

        @SLM close.

        Spiderman IS a Marvel property but the character has been licensed to Universal for ages. As long as they continuing using the property they retain rights (it’s one of the reasons they rebooted the franchise so fast)

        Disney and Marvel basically have to pretend he doesn’t exist because they can’t use him or any characters connected to him. Nor can they merchandise him or anything else.

      • Lauraq says:

        Original Tessa, just thought I’d point out that Batkid isn’t sick anymore. He’s in remission-yay!!!

    • Migdalia says:

      The Oscars producers as evident in the above article are super anal about rehearsals and presenters going off script. If Chris Evans was called mere hours before the show then there was no time for him to even learn a bit like that. The script is teleprompted so just having him read off of that is just easy enough.

  3. Crank says:

    Sounds fishy but I really don’t like Andrew Garfield. The guy has always seemed like a dum-dum to me…and I’m slightly biased because I loathe and despise the amazing Spider-Man stuff lol.

    But still, it sounds just not right at all.

  4. Luca26 says:

    The Bat kid part is real at least. This article has quotes from the family. I guess going to Disneyland is an OK makeup but why bring a sick kid’s hopes up like that? They could have still found a way to include him. I haven’t ever had an interest in the new Spider-man movies but this makes me think this Andrew guy is an irredeemable a-hole.

    http://defamer.gawker.com/oscars-cut-surprise-batkid-segment-at-the-last-minute-1537352215

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      That’s so sad! That poor kid.

    • Belle Epoch says:

      ^^^ Luca26 you said it better than I could!

    • Ellen says:

      But as Original Tessa points out, they had Bale and Affleck there to do a Batman bit, IF they want to make the kid’s day. No way those guys don’t step up if asked. In fact, it would be much much better than anything with Spider-man. So whatever is going on, it’s almost certainly about Garfield and movie promo crap, not doing right by the little boy.

      • nicegirl says:

        Of course I have no idea what really happened, but I can see a child that age getting PRETTY UPSET (especially if they are ill, travelling away from home, in such a new environment, and don’t forget, very young, so already likely stressed, for a little one) if something like what Page 6 is reporting DID happen, and dude got pissy or whatever – kids hear tone in grown ups’ voices, and get bad tripped, too. My children are older than this boy and disappointment and humiliation hurts them, too. If that happened to my kid, and they were ‘devastated’, as reported, maybe the little boy was feeling “Spiderman does not want me to be Batman anymore, I did something wrong”, I would take my kid and high-tail it out of there. Also, if it was the dress rehearsal, meaning earlier rehearsals had been run, wouldn’t the kid already be super excited about what was to come? And then the let down would be pretty major and probably very confusing. How can a child that age understand that it is not their fault, if that really happened? No way would I let my kid be used after being upset, especially when sick. The kid is not a child actor, right? It was supposed to be fun for him, and when it wasn’t anymore, maybe the parents (quite rightly) took their kid away from whatever was upsetting their sick child. Who knows? But it is horrid if it did happen, shame on that dude.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      More details are coming out. Andrew went to Disneyland with Batkid, and the Academy has released a statement saying they cut the segment to do time, etc. Personally, I think it was probably a DC/Marvel-ABC dramatics that made the segment get cut.

      • Green Girl says:

        This whole thing sounds so weird to me. Of all the segments to cut, THAT is the one they chose?

      • Amberica says:

        I definitely think it was studio politics. Not that precludes the possibility that Garfield threw a his say fit, but that wouldn’t necessarily derail the segment. And it would mean that the kid’s parents are unlikely to hang out with the guy at Disneyland. They are in a pretty solid war for attention, and I can see ABC deciding at the last minute to cut it. In fact, I could understand if that was the cause of the “hissy fit”.

    • Lauraq says:

      Like I’ve pointed out before, Batkid is doing better :) And honestly…I think a 5-year-old boy would much rather go to Disney with Spiderman than be at the Oscars.

  5. paola says:

    Poor Emma.. her mother has cancer just like her character in ‘The help’.
    My aunt has gone through so much this year.. i cringe every time people say the C word.

  6. Mia4S says:

    Well this is odd. Page Six is not 100% but they are above the average gossip/tabloid column. But why have Evans at all if you cut the segement? Evans’ bit with the montage was pointless and dumb anyway. True or not someone is definitely pissed at Garfield.

  7. Tapioca says:

    I find it hard to believe that you would pick Spiderman over Captain America/The Torch in the first place!

  8. Lark says:

    The whole thing sounds fishy…Page Six, while way more reliable than Radar/In Style/In Touch/etc., is still a gossip rag. At the same time, it kind of makes sense. If there really was some emergency, you think his publicist would have issued some sort of statement like “Andrew was very ill” to shut this up….because Andrew snubbing a sick kid is not the sort of gossip you want to spread…especially when it comes from Page Six and not something like the Fail or Hollywood Life which people tend to disregard off the bat (unless it’s true and the publicist is worried if they make up some lie they will be proven wrong). They may have not been sure if they could even get any actor who had done a super hero movie to present until the last minute, so I could see them paying off the family for the kid to go to Disneyland rather than take the risk that they couldn’t get Chris or someone else to present. Meh, the whole thing is beyond bizarre. Neither one seems entirely believable, and we’ll probably never know.

  9. mimi says:

    I’m not buying the rehearsal story at all. I’ve seen lots of fan pics of Andrew posing with young kids dressed in Spiderman costumes and he seemed to really connect with them. You have to be an extremely selfish and heartless human being to throw a fit over your lines for a Superheroes Oscar skit involving a little kid who is a huge Batman fan. If this is actually true, then why didn’t Chris Evans do the skit with the kid?

  10. starrywonder says:

    It doesn’t make a sense though. Why not still have Chris Evans do it? Heck I love him more than Garfield anyway.

    Garfield has never given me douchey vibes before either so I am not buying this whole he threw a hissy fit. He was up there to get publicity for Spiderman. Heck even Lainey at Lainey Gossip said Emma Stone was at rehearsals since they had her doing the red carpet with his stand in….hmmm.

  11. M.A.F. says:

    The whole entire Super Hero theme was odd to begin with. It was never fully explained nor shown through out the show. As others have pointed out, if this is true, there is no reason why still couldn’t happen. They could have both Chris’ come out with Batkid instead.

  12. Sisi says:

    Wasn’t Christian Bale in the audience? Why not give the kid a gold star from Batman instead of Spiderman?

    • insomniac says:

      Good question. I can’t imagine Christian would have said no to jumping in there.

      Something about this whole story isn’t adding up.

    • Lori says:

      True. CBale is known for good works this way. Visiting people in hospital, sending messages to people who are sick, wounded etc. And he’s a dad. He would have been the better choice.

      • Sisi says:

        they did not even have to broadcast it live at the Oscars if that really was not feasible anymore after the cancellation of Garfield, they could’ve just arranged a meeting to take some cool pics backstage and let the sick kid chill for the rest of the day. The boy would’ve thought it was still cool anyway. I’m sure he doesn’t give a hoot about the Academy Awards circus or about being on stage.

    • Candy love says:

      You have to remember Christian Bale is no longer Batman “Ben Affleck” is. As someone below said Warner Brothers mostliky would not have allowed Bale to play the part becuase they are trying to sell “Ben” as Batman.

      • Sisi says:

        If it’s about the next Zack Snyder movie and not about the kid at all, it still doesn’t make sense really that Spiderman was up there. there’s no Justice League yet in the movie world. Then they should’ve sent NeoBatman or Superman onstage.
        Lois Lane was in the audience too, they could’ve done an item about a story she wrote about the new young hero or something

      • mom2two says:

        Why not have both Christian Bale and Ben Affleck do it? I am sure they both would, especially if this story is true. And I think the studios could let it slide for a make a wish kid.

        I can’t say I have feelings either way about Andrew Garfield. But, he’s never struck me as a diva like that. I think this story is bogus and someone is butthurt that Andrew pulled out at the last minute.

      • Migdalia says:

        I don’t think Marvel, or Warner Bros. could have blocked out any of this. Whether they had Andrew, Christian or Ben do it as long as they weren’t coming out in costume or their alter ego personas then the studios have no grounds.

      • Candy love says:

        @ mom2two

        I think you giving the studio way to much credit. People don’t want Ban as Batman. So to have both Bale and Ben to it together it would show how much Ben is lacking and to be honest I really can’t see Ben doing this.

        Part of this story is 100% true other have posted that it was confirm by the parents of the little boy. That he was supposed to do a segment with Garfield at the Oscars and that the morning of the Oscars they were notified that the segment was canceled.

        @ Sisi

        I agree at the end of the day this was not about the little boy but about the Zack Snyder movie which is really sad.

      • Elle says:

        @mom2two I agree! There could have been some witty dialogue exchanged between Bale and Affleck about “passing the torch.” And I bet it would help the general public ease up on the whole backlash against Affleck. Great opportunity lost for WB and for Batkid.

        Regarding the Garfield debacle, there is a whole lot going on here and it involves more than just Garfield. Even if he really was a dick (I have my doubts), any good producer worth his/her salt would find a last-minute solution to this problem. I am in event planning, marketing, and communications; whoever was involved in planning and executing this committed a major career faux pas. I am wiling to bet there were many people involved and a major communication breakdown occurred.

  13. Marianne says:

    Even if Emma couldn’t go due to a family issue, Andrew could have still done the Oscars and then met up with her later. He didnt have to stay for any after parties or anything.

    As for Chris not doing the bit with the kid…Im guessing they just didnt have enough time to rehearse.

    • OhDear says:

      I think it may be a combination of the two (note: I’m speculating)? Emma may have gotten an emergency call re: family. Andrew may have wanted to go with her to support her, but then the Oscar people got pissed off because they felt that he could just meet up with her later.

      Again, only speculating.

    • Original Tessa says:

      I think it was probably supposed to be tied in with promoting the new Spiderman too. Without Spiderman, it was just unnecessary fluff to the producers who were on a tight schedule. It’s always business.

    • jc126 says:

      If that story is true, maybe he wanted to be with her? One’s family is infinitely more important than the Oscars.

      I’m going to stick my neck out and read the nasty replies later when I get home from work: This kid already had San Francisco do a huge wish for him. Is it really necessary for the Oscars to do this for him? There are thousands of other kids with cancer. And, fortunately, (so I have read), his cancer is in remission right now, so what’s the urgency? Some of these wishes are getting a bit much and over-the-top. I have no problem with doing them, but again, there’s SO many sick kids and adults who don’t get their wishes in life.

      • Lauraq says:

        I have to agree with you there, jc. I’m super happy he’s in remission!! And I’m sorry for him that he had to go through cancer in the first place. But his first wish was HUGE. HUGE!! And I’m glad he got it. But to act like it was a tragedy that he didn’t get to go to the Oscars is a little silly, especially since he got to go to Disney with Spiderman anyway (like I said above, I bet he preferred that to the stuffy Oscars).

  14. Jade says:

    Why not have Batman do it? Christian Bale was there, I bet he would have done it.

    • Mia4S says:

      I think Bale might have been willing, but the Oscars might have gotten some pushback from Warner Brothers. Remember, Ben Affleck is supposed to be Batman now…*gag*.

      • Jaderu says:

        This. I was wondering why someone didn’t step in myself. Christian would have done it without question, but he can’t represent Batman any longer because of Batfleck, but also ABC which aired the Oscars is Disney. That would be a Marvel/DC clash.
        Something fishy happened and someone obviously doesn’t like Andrew.

  15. Cora says:

    Batkid’s parents have spoken to the press, as well. They confirm that their little boy was supposed to do a segment with Garfield at the Oscars. They also confirm that the morning of the Oscars they were notified that the segment was canceled. They were not told why. They were shocked and the little boy was upset that he couldn’t wear his fancy little tux.

    • Peppa says:

      Last Friday morning, I heard a radio spot for the Oscars on my way to work. They mentioned Andrew Garfield would be there “to introduce the newest superhero.” I assume they were talking about him introducing Batkid. Poor little guy, he was obviously caught in the middle of something. At least he got to go to Disneyland!

    • Kristen says:

      If they were only notified the morning of the Oscars, it doesn’t make sense that it was canceled because of something that happened during rehearsals. I find it really difficult to believe that AG would refuse to do this when a little kid is involved.

  16. TG says:

    What I don’t get is if they missed the Oscars because Emma’s mom is sick why not just say so? That would be an acceptable excuse and no one would think the worse of Andrew. Makes me think there is something to this Page Six thing.

  17. bns says:

    He can kiss his career goodbye if this is true.

  18. Jackie says:

    From what I heard, Emma had a family emergency back in Arizona and Andrew stayed with her – hoping that since her mom has/had cancer, it wasn’t a set back of some sort. Hope she’s okay. I can’t see Andrew Garfield quitting on a 5 year old like that.

    • Algernon says:

      But why not just say that, then? Why say it’s a “long-standing family commitment”? That’s different from an emergency. This is a terrible rumor to go around about him, you think he and his team would want to get ahead of it by saying it was an emergency and he felt he needed to be elsewhere than the Oscars that day. People would understand that. “Andrew Garfield made Batkid cry” is a lot less easy to understand.

  19. ernie says:

    Maybe Andrew refused to participate because they cancelled the bit with the kid in the first place. It would be more in line with what we’ve seen from him so far.

    • Cali says:

      Oh good thought – this would make sense. If he got annoyed at them for cutting the kid’s part in the superhero thing. Because if it was Andrew that backed out, they really could’ve easily gotten any number of superheroes attending to help out with it.

      If it was a time issue, I can think of a dozen things they could’ve cut or trimmed back on….

    • mia girl says:

      This makes a lot of sense. I’m sure there is some truth to the Page Six story, but how and why Garfield pulled out is still in question… there is more to this story.

      Either way, if you are Garfield you don’t want even a hint of this type of bad press. A lot of people believe the first gossip story out there and the “long standing” part of his explanation just doesn’t make sense.

      Well, I suppose this is a practice run for more “press” related issues ths couple is going to face. With Stone being the lead in Woody Allen’s upcoming movie, things are going to get prickly.

    • Migdalia says:

      Yea but they would have cited “time issues” or “technical issues” for cancelling, not blaming it on an actor. The way this has all been painted against Garfield opens a door wide open to a lawsuit for libel if the story isn’t true.

    • lunchcoma says:

      If that happened, I think he should have (and would have) made some gesture toward BatKid and his family, rather than just disappearing.

    • sapphoandgrits says:

      I said something similar downthread — I think the kid wasn’t working out in rehearsals, but the producers weren’t gonna say that, so they made Garfield look bad after he backed out to go with Emma after the bit was cut.

  20. mmm says:

    Whoops, logged in with the wrong account. Disregard!

  21. Cali says:

    I hope this is untrue. I always thought of him as a nice guy. but then again, back in the day I believed Julia Roberts was, too. hahaha.

  22. dizzylucy says:

    I agree this whole thing doesn’t add up. I wonder if some producer made the call, and now everyone is trying to blame Garfield for it? I don’t know. But if Emma’s family had a real emergency, I don’t blame him for leaving.

    I loved all the Batkid stuff that San Francisco did, and this would have been really cute, but honestly the Oscars needs to stop with the montages and themes – all it does is drag out the ceremony even longer. But if they brought this kid and his family to LA, they absolutely should have done it, with any number of the “superhero” actors present that evening.

  23. jess says:

    I belive the page 6 story. I remember watching tmz and he was coming out of lax and someone came up and asked for an autograph he said no. This was right after the social network came out.

    • Mia4S says:

      You have to be kidding? He said no to one autograph once and that means he’d brush off a kid with cancer? You’re serious? You do realize that saying no to an autograph is something every celebrity ever has done at some point? I’m indifferent to Garfield but that is just a ridiculous statement.

    • freebunny says:

      He would not be the only one to say no. That doesn’tvmake him a douche or unprofessional.

    • Seán says:

      He seems like a pretty dignified guy. I was on YouTube and I came across this video of him and Emma Stone being filmed by the paps. Garfield tried to have a conversation with the paparazzi and asked him to stop filming and of course the paparazzo was an asshole about it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3BecGqM8uc

    • Izzy says:

      Jess, a lot of the autograph-seekers hanging out at LAX are people who often have stacks of photos or other items, want them autographed so they can turn around and sell them for a profit on eBay or some other site. It’s a business to them, they’re not fans. After a while people in the entertainment industry (and professional sports, etc.) get really good at spotting those people, and refuse to autograph for someone else’s personal gain that way. It’s entirely possible that’s why Garfield said no in that instance. At one point in my career I worked for a pro sports team, and I saw this crap all the time. Some of those a-holes would literally SHOVE kids out of the way to try to get autographs. We had to start banning some of them from even being on the premises because it was becoming a safety issue for actual fans.

  24. Talie says:

    Eh… it’s totally possible because he does seem very full of himself, BUT yeah, her mom has had a battle with cancer and it’s entirely possible things aren’t great and he is supporting Emma.

  25. The Original Mia says:

    If this isn’t the situation Page 6 is reporting, then it’s truly baffling why Garfield’s reps would allow this narrative to stand. Especially with the new movie coming out soon.

    IMO, he probably was a little sh1t during rehearsals. Maybe not to be point of refusing to do the segment, but enough bad behavior that the producers weren’t going to have another Franco on their hands. I truly don’t care since I find him bland as toast and have no interest in his Spider-Man movies.

  26. Tig says:

    Weird all round, tho have a hard time believing this was a total fabrication. Can’t wait to watch Sony’s PR team go into overdrive- like other posters have observed, last thing needed is Spidey walks out on Batkid! Sony needs to give/sell Spidey rights back to Disney! Lol!

  27. lunchcoma says:

    If this is true, I’m done with him, and I suspect a lot of other people will be too. Ridiculously unkind and ridiculously unprofessional. If it’s false, he should respond immediately. Of all people, I suspect BatKid’s family would understand wanting to be with loved ones when they’re seriously ill, and a gesture from them would do a lot to patch this up. If he pulled out because the BatKid segment was removed, then I think he made a very bad choice. A better one would have been to do the show as planned and then make a point of doing something for BatKid after the Oscars, rather than leaving the family confused.

    Regardless of what happened, I give Chris Evans some credit for being able to fill in quickly. He certainly got his lines down faster than Travolta did. (Isn’t Evans supposed to have stage fright or something?)

  28. mercy says:

    My first thought when I heard about the last minute cancellation was ‘I hope Emma’s mom is ok.’ Maybe the reason was something very important that he couldn’t really talk about.

  29. sapphoandgrits says:

    Has anyone thought it could have been an issue with the child? I mean, being freaked out or scared or something with rehearsal?

    I don’t believe this, because Garfield is known to be really good with young fans, and as everyone has said, Two Batmans (would have been three if Clooney was there), Thor, and Nick Fury were there, and Captain American did the bit anyway.

    I think someone either was covering for the child or/and slagging Garfield.

    • lunchcoma says:

      I don’t find that very plausible. If that was the case, the family wouldn’t have needed to be public about it at all. They could have said nothing, and no one would have known the segment had been dropped. Also, that doesn’t explain Garfield not showing up for his presenting spot.

    • Jen says:

      Nope. The family themselves said it was canceled last minute and they were disappointed and had no idea why it happened.

    • sapphoandgrits says:

      Well, we now know Garfield spent time with the family at Disney, and that it was cancelled for “logistic reasons,” not time reasons. So, it had nothing to do with Garfield at all So, yes, it is plausible.

      Also, NO WAY would the Academy/Producer say they were cutting the skit because of the child. What bad PR!

  30. idk says:

    I just went through a lot of the comments and I never knew how hated Andrew was. So many people don’t like him and I don’t have a clue as to why. I’ve never heard a bad thing about him. I personally think he’s a great actor and I really like his vibe. The story being reported could be 100% false for all we know. The child they are talking about was granted a wish by the foundation a few months ago. They shut down part of downtown LA and had a man dressed as batman do a whole skit with him. The young boy was also dressed as badman. They had him help catch a “bad guy” (actor of course). It was really sweet. There was some controversy over the whole thing as SOME people said the child shouldn’t have been granted the wish because he was no longer sick and was in remission (his parents applied for the wish while he was sick though). It’s great this child was granted his wish and it’s even better he is in remission.

    • blue marie says:

      I have no problem with Andrew either and loved him in Never Let Me Go, I have no idea why I like that movie but I’ve seen it more times than I can count.

      • idk says:

        Yeah it’s weird how certain movies can get to you. I wasn’t really a big fan of Zac Efron, but then I saw Charlie St. Cloud. He was so good in that movie…I couldn’t stop watching the movie over and over again.

        Also, I liked Andrew after seeing him in The Social Network (lol). I don’t know why but I loved his acting in that movie and his American accent (which he does very well). His voice…I really like his voice…yeah I know I’m wierd lol.

      • singlemalt says:

        I loved him in Never Let Me Go – especially the scene near the end. A haunting performance that just stays with you. I had no idea so many people loathed him. He always seemed like a decent guy to me.

  31. Cali says:

    The Academy told Access Hollywood this morning that the segment had to be cut for logistical reasons. Andrew apparently drove to Disneyland to hang out with Batkid and his family, though…

  32. mena says:

    Dang! I don’t want to wish ill-will on anyone, but for the sake of Andrew Garfield’s career, I hope it really was a “family emergency”. Otherwise he looks really bad.

    Looking back, this year’s Oscars were a huge success. The ratings were the highest they’ve been in years. The Selfie Bit broke Twitter and the Pizza Bit was said to have generated millions in good PR for the pizza shop.

    And all it took was people playing along.

    Had Andrew Garfield played along & done the bit, who knows how much good it would’ve done for Columbia Pictures & the Spider-Man franchise. Instead, it was Disney & Captain America taking their spot and reaping the benefits.

    As for why didn’t they do the bit without Andrew Garfield, my cynical guess is Columbia Pictures had been involved in the planning with Make-A-Wish. So maybe it was a package deal like a ‘Dance With The One Who Brung Ya’ kinda thing.

  33. Penelope says:

    His head is too big for his body.

    I thought he was ok in The Social Network–don’t think I’ve ever seen him in anything else.

  34. Jenns says:

    The update is just as confusing as the original story. The Academy promoted the “mystery superhero” during their commercials leading up to the event, so why would they cut that? And why would Andrew skip for “personal reasons”? There is still more to this…

    • Jaderu says:

      I’m curious as to whether or not the parents said Garfield was with them at Disneyland. Sumpins up.

      • sapphoandgrits says:

        No, the parents didn’t. And, if Garfield was there and the parents didn’t say so to the press? Sketchy as hell. I feel like Garfield is being used as the scapegoat for several parties.

        Disclaimer: Andrew Garfield seems like a lovely young man, although I’m not a fan of his acting.

    • emmie_a says:

      The update doesn’t explain Andrew’s absence… Even if they cut the segment with the kid, Andrew could have still presented whatever he was supposed to, right? They still had to use the other guy instead of him so it’s not like they axed the entire thing. Bottom line, he was replaced. Why?

  35. Seán says:

    Regardless of whether this story about Garfield is true or not (and judging by his persona so far, I don’t believe it…he seems like a nice guy), the Academy are the real assholes in this situation. They cancel the segment and don’t even offer up an explanation to the parents? That’s a horrible thing to do. And like everyone else has said on this post, there are no shortage of superheroes to do the piece with the little kid. The Academy and Sony Columbia need to forget the PR bullshit and should have just let the little kid do it with any of the “superheroes” there (Evans, Hemsworth, Bale, Affleck). I know they’re anal about rehearsals but rehearsals still resulted in the “Adele Dazeem” screw-up so no-one would have a problem with a 5-year old and a Garfield replacement not being 100% prepared!

  36. mena says:

    Yeah, I’m not buying that it was The Academy who pulled the plug. I think they’re falling on their sword to try to smooth things over for all the parties involved & move on.

    Too many weird explanations have been leaked but I doubt we’ll ever know what really happened.

    One thing to keep an eye out for is if Andrew Garfield goes on Ellen to promote his movie. He’s been on her show before, but if something bad really did go down at The Oscars, I doubt she’d have him on now.

  37. CassieWZ says:

    There are too much conflicting information coming from different sources and there are people going insane.
    So many “official” and “VIP” people have talked about it and there is few similarities in the stories told from some of them.

    The boy’s family also enjoys too much the fame that comes with becoming interesting according to the press and general population. I bet they will suck it dry just like they did the first time. The boy is doing fine now and hopefully the cancer won’t come back but depression and angst for not appearing on national live television won’t disappear soon.

    Before anyone comes telling how much heartless the world is, I’ve to remember you that this is Celebitchy, children should not be protected otherwise why post stories involving them? Since the boy has become celebrity anything goes.

  38. TheCountess says:

    Re: Batkid, well, that show was already too dang bloated and I’m not particularly upset about Batkid being cut. Here’s what the show’s priority should be:

    1) HANDING OUT AWARDS (sorry to scream, but every time there was a cutaway to Ellen loitering in the audience, everyone at my party started yeling, “GET BACK TO THE *(#@!y&(#@)(@!^# AWARDS, WE DON’T CARE!”);

    2) Acceptance speeches;

    3) Clips of nominated films (including Foreign Films, Documentaries and Animated works);

    4) Clips of other noteworthy films from the past year;

    5) Inclusion of the honorary awards (anyone who hasn’t seen Martin Short’s hilarious tribute to Steve Martin – done at a separate, earlier ceremony – Google it now);

    6) “In Memoriam.”

    That’s it. No pizza, no selfies, no Twitter. No introducing presenters who are merely introducing something or someone else. And sorry, no Batkid.

    • CG says:

      +1000 Ellen’s monologue was fine because it was pretty short but the pizza and selfie bits went on way too long. There were too many montages too. Cut out Pink, cut out Bette Midler, cut out every package that isn’t In Memoriam. You and I would get this thing down to two hours! :)

      • TheCountess says:

        Tina and Amy have really set the standard: They kick the thing off with a bang, and then lay back and let the show hum along on its own with sporadic appearances that make you appreciate them, instead of saturating the viewer to the point where you just want to kick in the screen to get them off. The BAFTAs do the same thing with Stephen Fry – granted, the BBC has the luxury of no commercials, and the show airs staggered a few hours after the actual awards (cutting many of the technicals out of the broadcast, showing them in a montage at the end) but the Oscar producers still could use it/him as a model.

    • emmie_a says:

      Buzzkill! I actually liked the pizza, the selfies, the Twitter. I liked how Ellen interacted w/the stars. It made them seem more down-to-earth and less star-like. I loved how laid-back Ellen’s approach was.

      There are lots of aspects they can cut or shorten from the show but if you cut all the ‘entertainment’, the show would drag more than it already does.

      • Marianne says:

        I agree. You might not feel like those gags or musical numbers are essential to the award show…but honestly I doubt many people would tune in and watch if they weren’t included. People would be bored.

        I think they could have done without the movie montages. And they could have Bette sing AS the tribute was rolling. Those would have been easy ways to cut down on time, but still have the entertainment factor.

      • TheCountess says:

        I think the orchestral score is a better accompaniment to the In Memoriam montage (especially as they used the music from “Somewhere in Time” this year, and one of those included was the film’s screenwriter). Using a live singer with the montage distracts from the montage, and tacking a live singer on after is just awkward.

        If you want to see a great awards show, watch the BAFTAs: Stephen Fry, an opening musical performance and then…. awards awards awards. The only clips you see are from nominated films, for those being given special honors (Helen Mirren this year) and “In Memoriam.” Not boring and not overly long.

      • TheCountess says:

        Not a buzzkill. That Steve Martin and Angela Lansbury received their special Oscars at a separate event, while pizza and selfies were given center stage at the Oscars is a travesty, however. Tell me that you wouldn’t have found this far more entertaining and relevant on Sunday’s broadcast; I sure would have.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfIwHdOxfaY

      • Lilacflowers says:

        I actually enjoyed the pizza and the selfie over the huge and unnecessary production numbers from past years. Bette Midler’s song, while nice, was also unnecessary as there was music during the Memoriam, a second song wasn’t necessary. I do think it was better to have music without vocal during the Memoriam because in years past, the camera focused on the singer, instead of allowing the deceased their proper due.

    • lunchcoma says:

      I’m going to give a big thumbs down to clips of films from the past year that aren’t nominated for awards. Montages are the worst and most boring thing about the Oscars, and I think they should keep the clips limited to the nominees.

      I’d also like less pizza and selfies, but I think that’s in part because I disliked Ellen’s performance. I n someone else’s hand, an opening monologue and a couple (short) bits would be fine.

  39. Haolebunny says:

    He looks like Megamind in that first photo. What is up with his hair/head?

  40. Izzy says:

    Whatever the reason, I’d like to thank the Academy for putting my future husband, aka Captain America, on screen for me that night… ;)

  41. Deedee says:

    I think batkid had more fun at disnelyland, anyway.

  42. Mrs.Darcy says:

    It seems pretty clear cut, the Academy could have easily gotten someone else to fill in were it not their decision to cut the segment. It would be a shame if he was acting douchey but he has shown good faith in taking the boy to Disneyland and has history of being nice to kids who recognize him so I’m not inclined to jump on the “He’s a douche!” bandwagon. I haven’t seen his Spiderman movie yet, that whole re-boot seemed so unnecessary/soon after the last franchise to me. That’s a shame about Emma Stone’s mother, I hope she pulls through it.

  43. JoAnn says:

    I don’t buy any of this. He wouldn’t bail out on a little kid.