Andrew Garfield didn’t throw a hissy but he was ‘upset’ Bat-kid was cut from the Oscars


Yesterday, we discussed the sketchy Page Six story claiming that Andrew Garfield – a British-American actor who is known for having an even temperament – threw a hissy fit during Oscar rehearsals and refused to do a bit on stage with Bat-kid, the young boy who did Make-A-Wish so he could feel like a superhero for a day. The Page Six story made it sound like Garfield was being an a—hole and that he shunned a kid with cancer. We knew for sure that Andrew had been scheduled to appear at the Oscars with Emma Stone, but that both had dropped out at the last minute (citing “personal issues”) and that Chris Evans filled in on the day of the Oscars.

Within a few hours, a spokesperson for the Academy released a statement saying that Page Six was full of it, basically. The spokesperson said:

“Due to the nature of a live show, hard decisions sometimes must be made which require the Academy to cut segments due to the logistics of production. Andrew Garfield understood that his segment had to be omitted, and he drove to Disneyland on Monday to spend time with 5-year-old Miles Scott (Batkid) and his family.”

[Via E! News]

Bat-kid’s mom, Natalie Scott, also said that the segment was pulled unexpectedly and “It is kind of a disappointment, but things happen. I know that’s how TV goes and how Hollywood is. We’re just not used to that.” She didn’t say anything about going to Disneyland with Garfield, but who knows? Anyway, late in the day yesterday, Andrew’s rep finally got around to issuing a statement on Andrew’s behalf:

“Here are the facts. In full collaboration with the Academy and the show writer, Andrew prepared a segment for the Oscars to honor Miles Scott as the true hero that he is. At some point overnight on Saturday/Sunday morning, it was decided by those running the show that the segment didn’t work in the ceremony. They decided to pull it – Andrew and Miles were equally upset. The producers arranged for Miles and his family to visit Disneyland on Monday and Andrew drove down to visit them and to bring Miles a personal gift. Andrew did the right thing for Batkid and anyone saying otherwise is flat out lying.”

[Via Us Weekly]

Okay. I’ll believe that. I want to believe that, quite honestly. I want to believe that Andrew Garfield is a good guy who was upset that a kid with cancer was dumped from the Oscar telecast at the last minute, and that Andrew tried to make it up to the kid by spending some time with him, bringing him a gift and taking the family to Disneyland.

But here’s the bigger question: why does this whole back-and-forth sound like Amateur Hour? Random sources leaking damaging crap to Page Six, the Academy pulling a segment honoring a Make a Wish kid, Andrew’s rep taking so long to issue a statement – this is all so amateurish. What’s really going on here? Because it still feels like something is missing from this story.


Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

87 Responses to “Andrew Garfield didn’t throw a hissy but he was ‘upset’ Bat-kid was cut from the Oscars”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Luca26 says:

    I want to believe this but it doesn’t quite fit together. It would only take 30 seconds to introduce the kid from the audience even if they cut the full segment. Something more must have went wrong.

    • Liv says:

      But it makes more sense than the original story. I mean if Andrew stormed out, why not putting the Batkid on stage with Chris Evans? It makes more sense to me that the idiots from the Academy kicked them both out.

      Besides Lainey stated yesterday that Andrew has no publicist. That’s probably why it took him so long to issue a statement.

    • V4Real says:

      What they should have pulled from the show were all those boring technical and other awards people don’t really care about.

      • Red32 says:

        Yeah, because technical people don’t get shortchanged enough at the Oscars. I hate to inform the Politically Correct Police, but the whole point of the Oscars is to give awards to people who work on films.

      • MollyB says:

        No, the whole point of the Oscars is to make money off a televised event that people actually want to watch. If no one wants to sit through technical awards that they don’t understand and don’t recognize the winners, the show won’t continue to make money and it won’t be profitable to remain on the air.

      • Lucinda says:

        It is also to promote movie attendance, something even more important with the rise of DVD’s, home theater’s, streaming internet, etc. That’s a big factor in who wins. Notice how the winners have been getting younger and younger lately? They are trying to appeal to a younger audience. So cutting technical awards and adding bits like batkid would definitely increase audience goodwill.

      • eulalie says:

        I actually like to see the technical awards. I feel like all the big name people get enough attention year round and it’s nice to see others who are just as important to the success of a movie get a few minutes of recognition. There are a lot of awards that aren’t shown; the few technical awards that make it to the telecast are usually associated with the top movies, at least, to help with audience interest.

  2. Red32 says:

    I’ll be that b!tch who says it – the Oscars wasn’t the place for this anyway, and I think the parents leaked it for attention and that’s why there’s all this back and forth explaining. The kid got his wish to he Batman, and that’s great, but it seems now like they’re milking the attention. It was shitty of the mom to issue that self-pitying statement without mentioning Garfield went to Disneyland with him.

    • neelyo says:

      Agree completely. Whoever pulled the plug on this sgement did the right thing. The Oscars have had their share of cringe worthy moments in the past but this would have been a jump the shark kind of moment. Leave this type of thing to the People’s Choice Awards.

    • Esmom says:

      I tend to agree. Her comment “we’re just not used to it,” kinda indicates her sour grapes. She was probably more disappointed than the kid, who likely could give a rat’s ass about the Oscars. Who knows.

      • Nanea says:

        That’s it exactly. Her comment already rubbed me the wrong way yesterday. The mother comes across as if she thinks she’s entitled to this kind of attention.

        Like all of you before me in this thread I also don’t get why the kid should have been on the show honoring achievements of people in the movie industry – after they already cut all the technical awards.

      • Red32 says:

        Exactly, Nanea. It’s the entitlement. Andrew Garfield did a nice thing for her child, and he was getting thrown under the bus yesterday. She didn’t say one thing to defend him, just “woe is me, we’re from a small town”. I’m glad he got his Make-A-Wish, but now they’re acting like he’s entitled to be a star.

      • dizzylucy says:

        I agree it never should have been part of the show in the first place, the show is already too long and filled with stuff it doesn’t need. But since they told this kid he’d be doing it and brought the whole family there, I can understand them being disappointed it didn’t pan out.
        I do wish she would have said it wasn’t Andrew’s fault.

      • Peppa says:

        I would honestly rather see the honorary Oscars be handed out than all this fluff. I know that it is ultimately a television special and that the ratings are important, but the Bat Kid thing just seems like it would have been out of place. I feel bad for the little boy in the middle of all this. He is probably too young too understand all of this, and if his mom is indeed a fame ho that’s not this little guy’s fault, obviously.

      • Mrs. Darcy says:

        I really hope the parents didn’t put this out there, but at the same time, cut them some slack if they did. Maybe it was important to them for their child to have a moment of glory which maybe wouldn’t mean that much to him but would be something they would remember/have to look at in years to come. I just can’t even imagine, and I am a frigging cancer survivor, what it’s like to be a parent of a young child with this disease. Cancer brings out the worst in people sometimes, it’s scary and sad and a death sentence for some and they’re contantly being told to put on a happy face and think positive. So what if the Mom wanted a little escape or glamour from the sadness of her life for a night. In my book that doesn’t make her a famewhore or a bad person, regardless of how appropriate the whole thing was.

        I have such mixed feelings about the handling of cancer in the media, as a salve or feel good people for other people, so often I find it verging on exploitative. It’s easy to judge or assume these parents are in it for the glory but try to remember their real situation and see how easy it is to judge then. She really should have said something nice about Garfield if she was going to make a statement, and her attempts at sympathy may have been misjudged but I just think there are worse people in the world to get angry at. I feel sorry if Garfield comes away from this with any taint because I do believe his heart was in the right place and he did all he could to rectify the situation.

      • Esmom says:

        All very good points, Mrs. Darcy. Having not walked in her shoes (knock on wood), it’s easy to judge. Agreed there are way worse things/people to get worked up about. Case in point: the Bachelor post. Ugh.

    • V4Real says:

      it would have fit right in with the salute to Superheros. If they pulled the kid then they should have scrapped the entire segment. Who if not kids are the ones who make superheros popular. The kid was a Batman fan and you had two actors who played or is schedule to play Batman sitting in the audience.

      I also don’t understand why people are trying to make the mother a villian. If someone broke a promise to my little boy at the last hour I would be pissed as well. This is almost as worse as people who were saying that the little boy is no longer sick and his wish shouldn’t have been honored in the first place.

      • Red32 says:

        Because obviously it wasn’t Andrew Garfield who cut the segment. There are pictures of him with the kid and he went to Disney with them. But she did not say one word to defend Garfield when the internet was ready to crucify him yesterday. Just wah wah wah. The kid got his wish, he got a very big wish, and there are a lot of sick kids out there still waiting for their ONE wish whose families might at least show gratitude rather than trying to turn it into 15+ minutes of fame.

      • V4Real says:

        Again how is it her fault that the internet blamed Garfield? You should be disappointed at the Acdemy for not stepping up in the first place to say it was them, not Garfield. It’s not the mother’s place. Also how do you know that Garfield wanted the mother to say he was with them at Disneyland. Maybe he went out of the kindness of his heart and didn’t need to brag about it.

        Why do you sound upset with a kid who was granted a wish. Your argument is that there are other kids who are still waiting, really? That falls in line with blame the victim, not the offender which was The Academy.

      • Red32 says:

        Of course I’m not upset with the kid, he’s a kid. I’m annoyed by people acting like Andrew Garfield/”the Academy” put this kid in a burlap sack and beat him. He probably liked Disney better anyway. My point is he got his wish to be Batman in SF, so everyone needs to stop acting like he is owed all this media attention.

      • Yeller says:

        Red32, take a deep breath and then reread what you just wrote. I disagree with the people who feel Batkid would have been out of place but they are atleast making their point in respectful terms. You just sound mean spirited and nasty.

      • Marty says:

        @Red32- You’re missing V4Rreal’s point. This is ALL on the academy, and the mother does have the right to be upset. If some promised your kid something this huge and backed out at the last minute, sick or not, we’d all be upset and dissapointed. You have to remember they even went as far as doing a full dress rehersal with the kid and Andrew, so it is a s**ty thing to do to a kid. I’m not really seeing how being sad for your kid equals a “woe is me attiude”.

      • sapphoandgrits says:

        Because, since the very beginning of the “Batkid” stuff, she has come across as a fame whore, and she lied by omission yesterday and threw Garfield under the bus, a young man who did something he didn’t have to do (go to Disney with the boy), but did do, because he’s a nice young man.

        There was really zero reason for the Batkid segment at the Academy Awards. The Mom just wanted to go.

        It was probably cut because the little boy wasn’t ready.

        I would rather have seen the speeches Jolie, Martin, and Lansbury gave instead of the superheros thing, to be honest.

      • Red32 says:

        I guess I am mean-spirited because if someone did something nice for my child and the media was reporting that the nice person broke my kid’s heart, I’d set the record straight.

      • Marty says:

        @Red32- I don’t think you’re being mean spirited, I’m just having a hard time seeing where you are coming from.

        While it would have been nice to get some clarification on Andrew, she didn’t imply that he had a negative hand in what happened. She specifcally called out the Academy. I just don’t see this “lying by omission” angle, especially since she might not have even been asked about Andrew.

      • V4Real says:

        But here’s the thing no matter what Page 6 reported people were already jumping to the defense of Garfield. I didn’t read anywhere where the mother said it was Garfield’s fault. She gave her opinion about how she felt about the situation as any mother has the right to do. Once again it’s not her who threw Andy under the bus, it was The Academy but yet people are trying to twist this around on the mother. So what, she didn’t mention Andy was at Disneyland. Like I said how do you know Andy wanted her to say anything about him being there. He let his people handle it. She’s not his publicist.

        Regardless of if she wants her 15 minutes of fame or not as long as her kid is benefiting from it why do you care.

    • sapphoandgrits says:

      100a% this! I told a friend last night that I bet the parents were the original source. It’s interesting their official statement never mentioned Garfield.

      I sincerely doubt the kid cared, like the parents said, he didn’t get to wear his little tux or meet all those famous people. THE BOY IS FIVE. The PARENTS wanted that.

      Go ahead and burn me, but the whole Batkid thing kinda annoyed me anyway, because of things the parents said and did. It reminds me of the Ina Gartner non-scandal where she didn’t do anything wrong, and was made to look like an evil monster.

      • Peppa says:

        These little kids get stuck in the middle of all this adult BS and it’s ridiculous. A five year old couldn’t care less about the Academy Awards, and if he wanted to meet people like Andrew, Christian Bale, Chris Hemsworth etc., I’m sure that could have been arranged. I feel bad for the kid being caught up in all this, but I’m glad he got to go to Disneyland (which I’m sure he preferred anyway.)

    • littlestar says:

      That is how I feel about this weird story too. The Oscars is no place for a Make a Wish kid. He’s 5 years old for crying out loud. What 5 year old even knows what the Oscars are about? I think it was basically a ratings ploy by the Academy and it wasn’t working out for them the way the hoped, so they used Garfield as their scapegoat, which is pretty ignorant on the Academy’s part IMO. As for the parents, I don’t know enough about them to comment, but yeah, it does seem like they are enjoying the attention they have been getting from their child as well. “Batkid’ already had one massive wish come true, why not pass on this wish to another child? Anyway, this makes me sound like I’m heartless, so I’ll stop now.

      • Red32 says:

        Don’t worry, I think I take the heartless crown, although I don’t see where I’ve attacked anyone. The fact that people are calling this child a “victim” shows how blown out of proportion this outrage is. Spider-Man took him to Disneyland. Maybe he caught a rough break at the Oscars, but he’s certainly not a victim.

      • littlestar says:

        Agreed. The kid is not a victim and people are blowing this out of proportion. I have no doubt a 5 year old would hands down choose going to Disneyland over participating in some skit for the Oscars.

    • Malificent says:

      Five-year-olds kids — ANY little kid — isn’t going to understand a telecast “rearrangement”. Once the Academy made the decision to include this little boy in the telecast, they should have honored that decision. Pull something else with adults in it — a little kid shouldn’t be expected to put on his “big boy pants”. The only acceptable reason for canceling at the last minute would have been if the child was unwell or if he got stage-fright during rehearsals.

    • Lauraq says:

      I agree totally. His mom comes across as a bit entitled. I feel bad for their family that they had to go through this, but the kid already had San Francisco shut down for a day for him-that’s more than a lot of other kids will ever get!!
      Of course Batkid himself is blameless, and I’m sure he was way happier to go to Disney with Spiderman than he would have been to sit through an awards show.

  3. tila says:

    Who cares? The kid got taken to disneyland in the end.

  4. ray says:

    what about making a kid feel like a super hero for the night isnt fitting with a heroes theme exactly? this is so disappointing, poor kid :(

    • don't kill me i'm french says:

      especially when many actors acting superheroes (Bale,Affleck,Hathaway…) are in the room

      as i think Batkid at the Oscars was a bad idea as i LOVE the idea of a standing ovation with all these actors who act superheroes for Batkid

      and i don’t understand why Andrew Garfield and Batkid whereas Bale was there

  5. Crank says:

    I believe it…stuff like this happens in show business all the time. Me and a friend organized musical theater events, and fundraising talent events, and stuff just happens. I still think it’s wrong that they cut the kid, but if it didn’t flow with everything else then they cut it. It’s just part of it. I don’t agree with it, but this happens all the time. I don’t think anything is missing from the story.

  6. lucy2 says:

    But…they still ran a segment about superheroes, didn’t they? (I fast forwarded through it). So the time was there in the program, it wasn’t cut. Why not have Andrew and the kid introduce it? Something about this whole thing is just weird.

    • emmie_a says:

      Yes. That’s exactly why this isn’t adding up. There was still a superheroes segment and they replaced Andrew Garfield last minute w/Chirs Evans. Even if they nixed Bat-kid because it wasn’t working, why not still use Andrew??

    • sienna says:

      Maybe the kid was really awkward on stage and given the size of the telecast they could not guarantee he wouldn’t freeze up. I have kids that age and there is no way they could perform on cue with a huge live audience. They would much rather a day at disneyland.

      My hope is that the bad press for Andrew doesn’t dissuade other stars from doing nice things for sick kids because I honest believe he has been caught in the crossfire.

  7. chloe says:

    I think Andrew bowed out of the Oscars after the Academy pulled Batkid part and I don’t blame him. If this all about Andrew throwing a hussy fit they could have just had the Capt. America guy give this little guy his honorary award, I think the Academy didn’t like something with the rehearsal and decided to pull the skit.

    • starrywonder says:

      The Academy cut it. Ten bucks it was because of time. Those idiots should have nixed the whole heroes segment totally since it didn’t work without the kid which leads me to believe they (the Academy) didn’t want Batkid. They were fine with Andrew and since he’s a movie star I bet they were not happy about him pulling out. Why they scrambled for Chris Evans the morning of. Which as all should realize if it was an Andrew people than batkid would have went on. The Academy is trying to be nice and not come under fire for wanting to cut the kid.

      Andrew G was a nice guy and went and hung out with him. The parents should have clarified that he showed up to hang with their kid.

  8. Anoninga says:

    Why have Chris Evans present if there wasn’t time in the segment?

  9. MrsBPitt says:

    Well, God forbid, the Academy take one second away from ass-kissing themselves and give attention to anyone else!! You know if they had done the Batkid segment, thats what everyone would have been talking about the next day. The Academy can’t have that! If Garfield was protesting the Academy for cutting Batkid’s segment and decided to take the kid a gift to try and compensate for any disappointment…good for him!! His stock just went up in my book!

  10. Samtha says:

    Andrew Garfield didn’t have a publicist–he may have gotten one after this fiasco started–which is probably why it took him a while to put out a statement.

    It sounds to me like the Academy decided to pull the segment and then tried to use A.G. as a scapegoat.

  11. Kaylah says:

    I don’t undertsand how the whole BatKid thing ties in with the Oscars. I could see if it was the Kids Choice Awards or even the MTV Movie Awards but the Oscars? I don’t get it.

  12. Gine says:

    I hope this is how it actually happened and Andrew isn’t a jerk, but I agree that something about it still seems really off and weird. I think it’s probably likely that more than one person dropped the ball.

  13. Mia4S says:

    Something is up, particularly since the Page Six follow up is still very rough on Garfield. Someone is seriously pissed at him. Also the “personal issues” story was just…bizarre. I still think he did get into it with the producers but maybe it was due to the cut and they tried to get him to do the pointless bit Evans ended up doing? If he was…less than polite…about it then maybe that explains the bad blood? My guess is the only truly innocent party in all this is the kid.

    • springingforward says:

      I suspect that Garfield was upset that the segment was pulled only because the kid would be so disappointed and he probably let the producers know.
      A. Garfield is a good person by all accounts of those who know him or work with him.
      The academy was looking for a scapegoat.

  14. Simmie says:

    This kid probably had more fun going to Disneyland than he would have had going to the Oscars.

  15. Winnie says:

    There’s a picture going around of Andrew & Batkid in a hotel room doing their own oscars production in tuxes and all. It’s really sweet. I don’t think any of this is on Andrew.

  16. Jaderu says:

    What a mess. At least the kid got to go to Disneyland. I think there is still more to it, but the kid is happy in the end anyway so who cares.

  17. psst! says:

    Maybe Batkid had trouble learning his lines? He is 5 after all

  18. linlin says:

    I thought the story yesterday sounded unlikely, this makes more sense. Apart from the fact that I do think he’s nicer than this, I think even if he’s an asshole, he would be smarter than that. I could however imagine Garfield getting angry if he already met with the kid and they then decided to not let him perform.

  19. Karen says:

    Weird story. Frankly, the oscars were long and painful already. The segment is heart touching but out of place. Its not as if those superhero flicks are critically acclaimed and often get oscar nods. And +1 on the no publicist thing (according to Lainey).

  20. sapphoandgrits says:

    I am standing by what I said yesterday: the little boy wasn’t working out for some reason, so they cut him, and Garfield didn’t like that and said he wouldn’t do the segment without the boy. NO WAY anyone was going to blame the kid, so they leaked that terrible story. The little boy’s parents then threw Garfield under the bus, and left out the fact he visited with their son at Disney.

    I feel like everyone should be apologizing to Garfield. Ugh. What a PR mess that didn’t have to happen.

    • Samtha says:

      I don’t see how his parents did anything wrong. Unless I missed something, they didn’t put out a press release; they answered questions asked to them by a reporter who later incorporated their responses into an article. Maybe they did mention that he visited with their son at Disney and that fact wasn’t reported. They can’t control what someone else writes.

      I do think Garfield deserves an apology from Page Six and the Academy, though.

      • sapphoandgrits says:

        We’ll have to agree to disagree on this, because if it was me, I would have made sure the public knew Garfield was an ace about this. This was a HUGE PR firestorm yesterday, and the family could have very easily posted something on twitter or Facebook, or even asked Make-A-Wish to release a statement. It;s a given Page Six and the Academy suck about this.

        The Academy DEFINITELY should have, and could have, defused this early yesterday.

  21. nicegirl says:

    So glad to hear Spiderman did not diss the Batkid. What a messed up story.

  22. Mar says:

    The kid got to hang out in Disney the entire day with Spider-Man. Much better deal anyway!

  23. Lark says:

    There’s a pic of Andrew and the kid in their hotel room. The Wrap claims that Andrew didn’t have a fit but told the Academy that he thought the script was kind of exploiting bat kid, and the academy at the last minute decided to scrap the segment even though Andrew agreed to read the words they wrote….I have a feeling someone at the academy was pissed at Andrew and started this shit. Poor dude had to have his manager issue a statement about this—he really needs to hire a publicist.

  24. mena says:

    I really hope Andrew Garfield wasn’t a jerk but there is still a lot that is off about this mess.

    - The Academy says they cancelled the bit, but they didn’t cancel the bit since a different superhero presented it.

    - Garfield’s people say he went to Disneyland with the family on Monday. So where was he on Sunday, when the Oscars were happening? And where are the pics of him at Disneyland with the family? The pic of him with the kid in the hotel room could’ve been taken during rehearsals, before it all fell apart. And if he did go to Disneyland with the family, why didn’t the family mention it?

    - I have a very hard time believing Columbia Pictures would so easily give up a prime presenters gig on Oscar Night and to their main competition, no less. Chris Evans wasn’t even supposed to be at the Oscars. But thanks to whatever happened with Andrew Garfield, Captain America was front & center for the Oscars, while Spider-Man was MIA.

    - I also have a hard time believing this mess is the kid’s fault. This kid was well behaved & stayed on script for an entire day when he was filmed saving San Francisco. I’m sure he would’ve been fine walking out on stage for a minute.

    - It’s also very odd that no one from Ellen Degeneres’ team said anything. She & her team produced the show. They wrote the bit. This scandal stewed for a good couple of days and they didn’t say a peep. Like I said in the other thread, keep an eye out if Andrew goes on Ellen to promote his movie.

  25. mzizkrizten says:

    Regardless of wether a 5 year old cares about the Oscars, a child is still going to feel disappointment that something planned and prepared for has suddenly been cancelled. Thats normal. And as a mom I’d be disappointed, as well. I’m glad the boy got a consolation prize ie a Disney.

  26. mena says:

    Just read Andrew Garfield’s statement on the matter and my cynical self thinks there’s more to this story.

    First of all, Garfield’s statement was released by his lawyers, not a PR rep or an agent. His lawyers. That to me amps this up & makes it kinda hostile.

    Secondly, the Academy released a statement taking full blame for canceling the bit, citing logistics. They took the fall & cleared everyone involved of any wrongdoing. If that is truly how it went down, all Garfield had to do was mimic what the Academy said and that would be the end of it.

    Garfield didn’t do that.

    According to him, the bit was canceled because it didn’t flow. That to me is a clear swipe at the writers. His lawyers go on to say that Garfield was approached to rewrite the bit, because he had script approval. Again, seems to me like Garfield is dissing the writers by presuming to say he could do better. I also question whether an actor like him would be given script approval. He doesn’t seem big enough to get such consideration. And mentioning that he had script approval seems kinda diva-ish.

    Lastly, Garfield’s own statement seems to follow the basics of what Page Six reported – that Garfield didn’t like the bit & tried to rewrite it.

    Meh, I’m sure everyone is ready to move on from this but it still seems very off.

  27. joan says:

    This COULD have been good PR if done BEFORE the Oscars, just a media event of Batkid meeting Batman, as good advertising for the Oscars.

    They could’ve even scouted out more needy kids to meet with other superheros. BIG media event. But in the daylight, maybe on a set, a week or more before the Oscars.

    Shoehorning it into the ceremonies is stupid and contrived and overkill. Sounds like everyone involved is trying to cover their ass, even the kid’s parents.

    In fact, they could STILL do this great event — IF everybody hadn’t embarrassed themselves so much.

  28. NewWester says:

    Frankly the only winners in all of this is Batkid who got to go to Disneyland and the Walt Disney Company. Look how many times Disneyland has been mentioned on this thread alone? Plus who knows how many times on other blogs, Twitter and other media?
    The suits at Disney must be thrilled to get all this free advertising

  29. anne says:

    Never met him and have no clue but I really do like him and Emma! Think they are talented, real and seem a lot more together than their peers and celebs twice their age.