The Amazing Spider-Man Anything you want to keep the same?

[sauronthegreat]

Because it's a reboot I say get rid of everyone. Not to mention Stephen Lang could give us a great JJJ. Not one that's just there for comic relief. I want a JJJ that's 3 dimensional. I don't think Simmons could do that.

Oh I think he could, but not under Raimi's leadership.

I totally agree with a two, or even better, three dimensional JJJ, and not that comic relief one dimensional hysterical unrealistic character.

 

[agustin09]

Aunt may, uncle ben, Killer of uncle Ben, Jonah jameson and that's all !!

 

[sauronthegreat]

Aunt may, uncle ben, Killer of uncle Ben, Jonah jameson and that's all !!

The Sandman?

 

[rcazzy]

The Sandman?

Oh snap!

Michael Papajohn was a good representation of the character, but I don't see why they can't find another person for that role. I loved Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben. He brought a good friendly view to the character in his brief moments in the films but I don't mind them changing the character as long as he is still written in a similar way.

 

[weezerspider]

Dafoe as GG
Simmons as JJ

I can seriously see JJ working, but I can seriously see not re-casting GG causing problems, but Dafoe is just too good. I'd find a way to make it work.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I would keep the organic webbing, & the web pattern of the suit.

 

[co2]

A. Peter should be somewhat of an outcast in the beginning

B. All of the main characters should be there..Uncle Ben, Aunt May, Harry, Gwen, MJ, Jameson. The personalities can be tweeked but must be the same at their core.

C. The costume can have very minor changes, but Raimi's movies pretty much nailed it. It should remain as faithful.

D. Here's one I never thought I would say before Raimi's Spidey, but the organic shooters were a great idea.

If all that ground is coverd...I'll be happy.

 

[SuperFerret]

Oh I think he could, but not under Raimi's leadership.

I totally agree with a two, or even better, three dimensional JJJ, and not that comic relief one dimensional hysterical unrealistic character.

Do we really need J. Jonah Jameson to be a fully fleshed out character in the movies?

 

[TheSlag]

Do we really need J. Jonah Jameson to be a fully fleshed out character in the movies?

Wouldn't he make a better character and opposition to Spider-Man if he was a fully fleshed out character, one who we understood his mistrust of Spider-Man?

I am not suggesting that they spend a lot of time developing that, but in flashbacks or some such, let us understand why JJ hates/mistrusts Spider-Man so much.

Without any weight to his character, his only purpose now is to act the clown/buffoon. Which some of the moments are greatness mind you (to me), I think his character has so much more potential if they choose to do it.

 

[SuperFerret]

He opposes Spider-Man because he distrusts him, he's a masked man with extreme power who goes around and takes the law into his own hands. There's really no need to put more into that because the audience can understand that easily. Let's face it, someone like that for real wouldn't be trusted.

JJ isn't an important character, and we shouldn't see him much outside of the Bugle's offices.

 

[TheSlag]

He opposes Spider-Man because he distrusts him, he's a masked man with extreme power who goes around and takes the law into his own hands. There's really no need to put more into that because the audience can understand that easily. Let's face it, someone like that for real wouldn't be trusted.

JJ isn't an important character, and we shouldn't see him much outside of the Bugle's offices.

A masked man that fights crime, helps others would not be trusted? I think we need to understand JJ's motivation, especially the EXTENT that he makes it his business to not only not trust Spider-Man, but to try to bring him down.

And I think the character of JJ is VERY important in the Spider-Man mythos.

 

[MrSpyder]

JJ should stay but a reboot generally changes everything

 

[Chris Wallace]

A. Peter should be somewhat of an outcast in the beginning

Are you looking for a retelling of the origin? That's one thing I hope they don't do.

 

[DACMAN]

He opposes Spider-Man because he distrusts him, he's a masked man with extreme power who goes around and takes the law into his own hands. There's really no need to put more into that because the audience can understand that easily. Let's face it, someone like that for real wouldn't be trusted.

JJ isn't an important character, and we shouldn't see him much outside of the Bugle's offices.

So I take it you've never read a Spider-Man comic.

 

[DACMAN]

And I think the character of JJ is VERY important in the Spider-Man mythos.

Anyone who's read a Spider-Man comic would know this. People like him kind of make me hate Raimi's films. They can't think of JJ as anything more than a buffon who is there for nothing but cheap laughs. People like him probably thought Alfred couldn't and shouldn't be fleshed out in the Batman films. A character who has been in an ongoing comic book for almost 50 years can't have been fleshed out by now right?

I challenge anyone to read Ultimate Spider-Man:Requiem and tell me JJJ isn't a 3 dimensional, well developed character worth exploring on film. Not just there to have for a cheap laugh.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I read a mini-story, years ago, in which Jameson quietly mused to himself that he "created" Spider-Man; that if not for all his bashing & negativity, Spidey's vendetta on crime may have just run its course. But he may have felt the need to prove something; to overcome the image that JJJ had created for him.

 

[SuperFerret]

So I take it you've never read a Spider-Man comic.

Oh, I get it. You want them to pack all 40+ years into the movies. That's a good idea, except for the obvious problem of it making the movies overly complicated, convoluted and confusing to everyone but the most hardcore of fans.

The movies are the Cliff's Notes version of the events in the comics, with minor adjustments. I'd rather that they focus on the important characters and events rather than give every supporting character the full fleshing out that they had in the comics.

 

[david icke]

The movies are the Cliff's Notes version of the events in the comics, with minor adjustments. I'd rather that they focus on the important characters and events rather than give every supporting character the full fleshing out that they had in the comics.

They're not always 'Cliff notes' versions. Sometimes they expand and give us scenes that perhaps should have been in the books, but were not.
The big one in spider-man is showing how he got to teh stage of being able to swing on his webbing, not covered in the early spoider-man books at all, he just started doing this highly risky, extremely dangerous stunt.
In the movie they gave him a plausible reason for throwing caution to the wind after his first failed attempt, the desire to get his uncle's killer superceding any doubts or fears.

Same kind of thing with Batman Begins, we were given more insight into why he does not use a gun in his vigilante crusade, instead of 'I don't like guns because they were used on my family.'
We actually saw him go through a stage where he thought of using one, far more realistic and potent.

The movies don't always have to be cliff notes, but I know what you mean by that, and characters such as JJJ can be lfeashed out just with an extra scene or two, or even just some more dialoge and actions that is relevant than than just for laughs.

edit: and as for JK Simmon's capabilites...he is one of the best actors on the planet, no exagearation needed, the role of JJJ, even if fleshed out like the comics, is kind of beneath his capabilities, but he seems like a guy who likes to have fun with his characters, so I'm not surprised he took the role, he's not any kind of acting snob, so we should be grateful that big time talent take the time to give us our beloved characters in small cameos.