The Amazing Spider-Man J Jonah Jameson in the Reboot

[Alex The Great]

Spider-Man

Not Spiderman or SpiderMan or spiderman

 

[ModestMr.Green]

So I looked into it, because I was earnestly curious as to what JJJ's motivations were outside of the Ultimate universe, and I discovered that the core of it is that he's JEALOUS. The development fans are crying for is that he's JEALOUS OF SPIDER-MAN. This is the ridiculous waste of time that people want to see explored on film. Frankly, I'd rather they stuck to straight comic relief.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

 

[Alex The Great]

So I looked into it, because I was earnestly curious as to what JJJ's motivations were outside of the Ultimate universe, and I discovered that the core of it is that he's JEALOUS. The development fans are crying for is that he's JEALOUS OF SPIDER-MAN. This is the ridiculous waste of time that people want to see explored on film. Frankly, I'd rather they stuck to straight comic relief.

 

[El Payaso]

So I looked into it, because I was earnestly curious as to what JJJ's motivations were outside of the Ultimate universe, and I discovered that the core of it is that he's JEALOUS. The development fans are crying for is that he's JEALOUS OF SPIDER-MAN. This is the ridiculous waste of time that people want to see explored on film. Frankly, I'd rather they stuck to straight comic relief.

Well, if you're going to word it in such a simplistic way, then I don't want to see that either myself. Like I wouldn't want to see a movie about an adult who can't get over his patrents' death (Batman) or a man who should go to anger management (Hulk). And for that very reason please let's not have a deep conflicted Peter Parker and let's have him just as the cliche nerd with people mocking him in every scene.

It's not that Jameson's simply "jealous," he realizes that he's not the hero he thought he was. Spiderman has shown him that a real hero doesn't want his true name revealed next to his heroic actions like Jameson does. And he's innerly afraid of the world realizing this so he must let the world believe that this Spiderman character is a crook so he could be the hero again before the world so he can believe he is the hero himself. Now it's not like you have to invest a lot of creentime into this. But it's better than Jameson hating Spidey he's just grumpy. Stan Lee thought so and I agreee with him.

But I cannot force anyone into liking characters with more than one dimension.

 

[ModestMr.Green]

Well, if you're going to word it in such a simplistic way, then I don't want to see that either myself. Like I wouldn't want to see a movie about an adult who can't get over his patrents' death (Batman) or a man who should go to anger management (Hulk). And for that very reason please let's not have a deep conflicted Peter Parker and let's have him just as the cliche nerd with people mocking him in every scene.

It's not that Jameson's simply "jealous," he realizes that he's not the hero he thought he was. Spiderman has shown him that a real hero doesn't want his true name revealed next to his heroic actions like Jameson does. And he's innerly afraid of the world realizing this so he must let the world believe that this Spiderman character is a crook so he could be the hero again before the world so he can believe he is the hero himself. Now it's not like you have to invest a lot of screentime into this. But it's better than Jameson hating Spidey because he's just grumpy. Stan Lee thought so and I agree with him.

But I cannot force anyone into liking characters with more than one dimension.

Oh, I'm all for multi-dimensional characters, but I know the difference between a side-character like Alfred, who is Bruce's father figure and assistant in his crusade against crime, and a side-character like Jameson, who...gives Peter a job and shouts. Does an outrageous character who hates Spider-Man and exists purely for comic relief really need depth? As long as the actor's performance is good, I would say no.

 

[El Payaso]

Oh, I'm all for multi-dimensional characters, but I know the difference between a side-character like Alfred, who is Bruce's father figure and assistant in his crusade against crime, and a side-character like Jameson, who...gives Peter a job and shouts.

He gives Peter a job and shouts, yes... in the previous movies. Like Gordon wasn't more than a friendly cop in Burton's Batman movies. Doesn't mean is everything both characters need/should be/do.

Does an outrageous character who hates Spider-Man and exists purely for comic relief really need depth?

As any other character that's more than a cameo, yes.

As long as the actor's performance is good, I would say no.

Problem is that one-dimentional characters get tired soon. That's why in the third movie Jameson was gifen cheap gags involving Daily Bugle slogans, loud intercoms and girls who sell him lousy cameras during the final confrontation. But hey, the actor was great so who cares about the material he had to work with, right?

In fact this one-dimentional thing not only hurt Jameson but the whole franchise. BTW, since this is a reboot then a different angle is needed. The worst they can do is rebooting just to keep doing the same that's done.

 

[DACrowe]

I agree. look at Iron Man.

Also, Iron Man has aged pretty well too. Unlike Spider-man.

But the side characters like Favreau and blonde reporter for Vanity Fair had no depth. They were used for comic relief. They're the closest equivalent in that film you have to a Jameson. Jameson is not a major supporting character unless you want to develop a movie around him. I personally would not.

I'd also add that both IM1 and SM1 age the same...entertaining movies with absolutely no rewatch value. They are incredibly fun the first few viewings with excellent acting and writing (for a summer blockbuster), but boy they are slow viewings after that. It is why only the fanboys still watch or talk about them years after release.

They're still good (unlike say...IM2), but they are not meant for heavy scrutiny or numerous viewings.

 

[El Payaso]

But the side characters like Favreau and blonde reporter for Vanity Fair had no depth. They were used for comic relief. They're the closest equivalent in that film you have to a Jameson. Jameson is not a major supporting character unless you want to develop a movie around him. I personally would not.

So you think Jameson is the equivalent of a nameless character that appears in one scene of only one movie of a franchise?

 

[DACrowe]

Those characters have names and were both in several scenes. The reporter was actually prominently featured in her scenes in IM1. But if I didn't read Spidey's comcis, I wouldn't know those scenes in the Raimi Trilogy as the "Jameson scenes." I'd think those were the hilarious scenes where JK Simmons stole the scene as Peter's boss.

Now you can make Jameson less cartoonish (there is precedence for both styles in the comics), but he won't have anymore screentime. I think Raimi devoted the right amount of time to the character. He just isn't that important to the overall story. Now he can be a grim, mean, realistic newspaper man who looks like he probably has the smell of alcohol on his mouth. But his motivations will still be unimportant and left out. Unless he figures prominently into the plot, it is a waste of time to develop him.

Raimi went for comic relief (as Stan Lee did) and quite frankly it worked. He made a minor character one of the most memorable in the movie. His scenes in SM2 were comic gold. But if you want "serious" sure. But more screen time devoted to "what makes Jameson tick?"

No thanks.

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. The Alfred comparison is a bad one. Aunt May is more like Alfred and she was incredibly well developed in the Raimi films. I actually liked her more than most of her appearances in the comics (come to think of it...same goes with Michael Caine's Alfred). Jameson is more comparable to Falcone in importance. Tom Wilkenson was memorable and authentic in his scenes...but they were still few and we had no idea what drove him. But we got him in his few scenes and he left an impression.

That is mroe Jameson's wavelength.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Spider-man gets cornier every year.

Corn tastes great, grilled corn tastes better than raw

 

[SuperZer0]

If he wasn't cast in X-Men: First Class, Kevin Bacon would definitely be one of my top choices for JJ Jameson.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It takes a while to picture, but I kinda see it...

 

[thebatsam]

I can kind of see Kevin Bacon....but I'm still really holding out for Bryan Cranston, but that's probably a long shot. But then again, with Martin Sheen on board, they have some big names joining.

 

[thebatsam]

I can kind of see Kevin Bacon....but I'm still really holding out for Bryan Cranston, but that's probably a long shot. But then again, with Martin Sheen on board, they have some big names joining.

 

[GoldGoblin]

Donald Sutherland.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Somebody suggested Richard Jenkins as Jameson. Him and Laurie would be acceptable.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

I would like to see Dennis Farina in the role.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

Anyone up for Kurtwood Smith for JJ?

Or an aged up RDJ?

 

[ModestMr.Green]

Downey would've been a great Jameson, but it would be weird to watch now that he's Tony Stark.

 

[SuperZer0]

James Shanklin, looks a bit like J.K. Simmons, is 6'1 and lives in Los Angeles, where the reboot will be filmed.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1255793/

 

[Alex The Great]

What about the guy that plays the always angry dad in That 70's Show? I loved that guy!

 

[Ajendo]

kurtwood smith, mate.

 

[Alex The Great]

Yeah, him.