Dane DeHaan has been cast as Harry Osborn in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2." Director Marc Webb revealed the news via his Twitter account on Monday afternoon, bypassing tradition trade outlets such as Variety or Deadline.com
"Meet Harry Osborn," Webb wrote on his verified Twitter account with a photo of DeHaan and the actor's Twitter handle also included in the missive.
"To say I'm excited is an understatement.#HarryOsborn #ASM2," DeHaan tweeted following Webb's reveal, which also came via Twitter.
"All this love is makin' me feel all tingly inside. Thanks ya'll," added the 25-year-old actor.
DeHaan joins Jamie Foxx, who was cast as the villain Elektro, for the sequel.
Harry Osborn, played by James Franco in the first Spider-Man trilogy, is Peter Parker's friend and some of Norman Osborn who becomes the Green Goblin. The younger Osborn eventually turns away from his friend to take up his father's mantle to become a new Green Goblin.
Earlier in 2012, DeHaan starred in the surprise hit "Chronicle" and had a key supporting part in "Lawless."
DeHaan, who bears a striking resemblance to a younger Leonardo DiCaprio, also has a brief appearance in "Lincoln," playing a solider infatuated with the president.
"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" set to arrive in theaters May 2, 2014.
While the first ASM felt unnecessary dragged out, it had many positives that make me like it more than the first Spider-Man series (though i like Toby a lot, Dunst ruined the whole thing). Garfield is great as Peter/Spidey and i really liked DeHaan in Chronicle, that movie was awesome in general.
First movie was ass imo. About as cheap a trick as Sony could pull to keep their rights.
Hope the second one is better, hope they fired their writer.
Besides the fact that ASM is redundant, a remake of a film that just came out ten years prior ... and combines that with elements of Batman Begins
It is absolutely better. No corn or cheese. In the script for ASM they show, don't tell. And don't have contrived or convenient speeches "with great power, comes great responsibility Peter" in a scene where that lesson makes no sense, other than the precursor to Uncle Ben being shot dead the next time we see him.
ASM is better acted by far. No more sappy Tobey McGuire, or Kirsten Dunst. The relationship between Garfield and Stone is palpable. Real. Both with their characters and in real life.
Spider-Man is funny and witty. Using his biting humor as a weapon against his enemies.
Jamie Fox is an interesting cast. As is the dude from Chronicle (he was pretty good) ... I'm interested to see where this leads.
If it weren't for ASM being a direct remake, and only ten years after the original, only 5 years since the last Raimi Spider-Man, this one would've been held in much higher regard.
I think the fact that it wasn't as good is why it wasn't held in as high regard.
I don't mind if you liked Amazing better but everything that Money just stated is laughable.
The great power great responsibility speech that you call contrived? It's pretty much the basis for Peter Parker's entire motivation.
Speaking of, Garfield's Peter Parker? Terrible. I'm not blaming the actor, I think he's a fine actor, but this version of Parker made me want to punch him. Erasing the Uncle Ben incident erased what Peter Parker is. The result was an attempt to create a new Peter Parker that was neither the one from the comics nor Maguire's. And it sucked. It just played like some teen getting power and abusing it for revenge until he is begrudgingly forced to save the day... because... lecturing?
The Lizard was about as boring a villain as there is. He just goes from possible villain creepy guy, to full on everyone needs to be a lizard... for no raisin. Contrived? How about making Connors the ex-partner of Parker's father. In fact this whole character reeks of serious problems with writing, I wonder if there's back story there.
You cannot sit there and tell me that the scene with the cranes was not as retarded as Maguire dancing. That's the corniest, cheesiest thing in a long time. Eyes were rolled around the world.
You're right it might have been held in higher regard, because then we'd have nothing to compare it to. Unfortunately for this movie it DOES have something to compare to, and that something just so happens to be widely regarded as a series with 2 of the top 10 comic book films of all time, including Spider Man 2 with is usually in the top 3.
The shots were all trying to be grim and gritty, and it just made it even more boring. My gf and I; I a Spider Man die hard, her a constant drinker of hateraid when it comes to anything comics, both had the exact same reaction. We sat down, next thing we know looked up and the movie was in it's final act and we were cheering for it to be over. I couldn't remember most of the movie not 30 minutes after seeing it.
I suppose if you watch it like the Transformers then yeah, it is better. Shut off your brain, and just watch the movie without thinking about it.
It did have better web swinging action though I'll give it that...
The only thing that sucked about the movie was the villain or rather how they went about using him. Idk how you can not like Garfield's Parker if you read the comics. And while the Uncle Ben death came a little different, it wasn't bad at all.
You have to remember Peter became Spider-Man as a teenager in High School, so if the movie comes off like a dramatic sequence of events surrounding a teenager who obtain super-powers, that's because its suppose to.