Poll of the Day > Do you think we'll ever see another live action J Jonah Jameson?

(+) Yeah! (+)

They've been dodging it for three films now.

They could always subvert the whole issue by making JJJ a teenage latino homosexual refugee metaphorical stand in for the Trump administration in a post 9/11 America.
---

They could always subvert the whole issue by making JJJ a teenage latino homosexual refugee metaphorical stand in for the Trump administration in a post 9/11 America.


Clearly that's what they are leading up to

Cram all the SJW crap into Spider-Man since Sony is going to take it back
---

They can't find anybody better and they don't want to admit it by recasting JK.

Red_Frog posted...

They can't find anybody better and they don't want to admit it by recasting JK.

They could just focus on a different aspect of the character. Simmons' Jameson was ALL comic relief. There is more to the character than just comic relief.

KthulhuX posted...

Red_Frog posted...

They can't find anybody better and they don't want to admit it by recasting JK.

They could just focus on a different aspect of the character. Simmons' Jameson was ALL comic relief. There is more to the character than just comic relief.

They certainly could focus on a different aspect, but that just underlines that they can't find a worthy replacement. I doubt they would be avoiding it, otherwise. Unless you're actually suggesting JK wasn't only doing what he was told but was directly responsible for the way the character was written, in which case I'm not really sure how to respond.

It has nothing to do w/ JJ the character or JK the actor.

It has to do with their damned fucking obsession with keeping Spider-Man in high school, and thus not yet working for JJ. It's just yet another thing we're missing out on due to Disney's/Marvel's stubborn insistence to keep Peter in high school.

Red_Frog posted...

They can't find anybody better and they don't want to admit it by recasting JK.

KthulhuX posted...

They could just focus on a different aspect of the character. Simmons' Jameson was ALL comic relief. There is more to the character than just comic relief.

Both of these, but realistically, the fact that the MCU is dipping hard into the Ultimates continuity in general (and Homecoming was arguably more Ultimate Spider-Man than it was mainline Spider-Man) means that if Jameson shows up at all, it'll probably be more like his Ultimate version than his regular one:

http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/John_Jonah_Jameson_(Earth-1610)

That way, they can easily bypass most of the comparisons to J. K. Simmons by just pointing out that it's a different version of the character anyway (in the same way that 616 Nick Fury and Ultimate Sam Jackson Fury are different). Or mostly de-emphasize it, because Peter in the Ultimate universe really isn't as strongly tied to the Bugle or Jameson (and he's their webmaster, not a photographer).

Though with the modern mindset of most studios, I also wouldn't be shocked to see them cast someone non-white (in the same way DC cast Laurence Fishburne as Perry White) or female (the way they replaced Perry White entirely with Mariel Hemingway in Superman IV) if they decide they want a JJJ-analogue. Though if they go that route, they could always just keep existing characters and replace JJJ with Robbie Robertson (along with his ties to Tombstone) or use someone like Joy Mercado (I'd also suggest Betty Brant, but they already blew that one).



streamofthesky posted...

It has nothing to do w/ JJ the character or JK the actor.

It has to do with their damned fucking obsession with keeping Spider-Man in high school, and thus not yet working for JJ. It's just yet another thing we're missing out on due to Disney's/Marvel's stubborn insistence to keep Peter in high school.

Can't really blame Marvel for that - they've had precisely one movie to use or not use him. The other two were Sony's fault.

It's also kind of a weak assumption anyway, considering JJJ showed up in the comics in the very first issue of Amazing Spider-Man, when Peter was 15-years old and still in high school. Peter being in high school in the movies doesn't really prevent him from having the exact same relationship with JJJ that Peter originally had in the comics.

The real problem is that it's slightly less believable that Peter would be selling photos to a newspaper in 2017 than it was in 1963. A modern realistic Spider-Man would probably be more likely to just film himself and post videos on a Youtube channel or something.


---

"Yo whatsup ladies and gents this is everybody's favourite drama artist JJJBugle coming at you through the magic of youtube, here with THE most up to date information on our favourite menace Spider-"Manchild". Remember to like and subscribe if you want to see more content like this, and also check out the channel of my good friend PetPar, because without him this show wouldn't be possible."
---

Blighboy posted...

"Yo whatsup ladies and gents this is everybody's favourite drama artist JJJBugle coming at you through the magic of youtube, here with THE most up to date information on our favourite menace Spider-"Manchild". Remember to like and subscribe if you want to see more content like this, and also check out the channel of my good friend PetPar, because without him this show wouldn't be possible."

I meant more that PETER would be the one with the Youtube channel showing Spider-Man videos, but there is some dark level of my brain that would find it amusing as hell if they cast JJJ as the kind of corporate suit who basically mimics Youtube trends and tries to act "hip" to hotshot subscribe rates/view time/page views/etc and tries to force viral videos and memes in an attempt to cynically profit from the stupid youth of America/the world.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

streamofthesky posted...

It has nothing to do w/ JJ the character or JK the actor.

It has to do with their damned fucking obsession with keeping Spider-Man in high school, and thus not yet working for JJ. It's just yet another thing we're missing out on due to Disney's/Marvel's stubborn insistence to keep Peter in high school.

Can't really blame Marvel for that - they've had precisely one movie to use or not use him. The other two were Sony's fault.

It's also kind of a weak assumption anyway, considering JJJ showed up in the comics in the very first issue of Amazing Spider-Man, when Peter was 15-years old and still in high school. Peter being in high school in the movies doesn't really prevent him from having the exact same relationship with JJJ that Peter originally had in the comics.

The real problem is that it's slightly less believable that Peter would be selling photos to a newspaper in 2017 than it was in 1963. A modern realistic Spider-Man would probably be more likely to just film himself and post videos on a Youtube channel or something.

I know there's advertising on youtube, but posting Spider-Man videos alone doesn't seem like it'd be enough to earn a living. Plus, he'd have to post them as "Spider-Man", not Peter, and then you take out the whole "still a normal guy, earning a living" and replace it with "covert operative making up fictitious job duties for when people ask what he does for a living."
Just wouldn't be the same...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I meant more that PETER would be the one with the Youtube channel showing Spider-Man videos, but there is some dark level of my brain that would find it amusing as hell if they cast JJJ as the kind of corporate suit who basically mimics Youtube trends and tries to act "hip" to hotshot subscribe rates/view time/page views/etc and tries to force viral videos and memes in an attempt to cynically profit from the stupid youth of America/the world.

Oh I know what you meant, but given the degree of reimagining of old characters that's in the new Spider-Man, that's one that I'd love just because it's so out there yet completely consistent with the sort of "Kim Possible but with swearing" vibe they've got going.
---

Just recast Jk Simmons. He was as perfect as Gary Oldman was for commissioner Gordon

streamofthesky posted...

I know there's advertising on youtube, but posting Spider-Man videos alone doesn't seem like it'd be enough to earn a living.

Hard to say. It would likely depend on how many views he manages to get, and across how many videos he can maintain it.

There are plenty of channels online where the creators literally don't have any other job beyond creating Youtube content (just like there are Twitch streamers who live entirely off their streaming income). There are also companies like Rooster Teeth, which basically started out as 5-6 guys making videos for shits and giggles, who eventually managed to turn it into a company that employs hundreds of people and can actually produce feature-length films and TV-quality shows.

Realistically, I'd say he'd probably need to get at least 300k or so per video and put videos out on at least a weekly basis to really make a respectable living (though I might be off on that - most of what I know about Youtube viability comes second-hand at best). But that should actually be relatively achievable, since every video would likely have a new villain or dramatic crime in it, and some might have "cameos" from Avengers or the like.

Then there's added complications, like whether Peter could theoretically take on direct sponsorship, or do some sort of Patreon campaign, or some other means of monetizing video content.

The real problem there is that taking video is probably more dangerous to his secret identity than just taking pictures is.



streamofthesky posted...

Plus, he'd have to post them as "Spider-Man", not Peter, and then you take out the whole "still a normal guy, earning a living" and replace it with "covert operative making up fictitious job duties for when people ask what he does for a living."

Arguably he wouldn't - "Hey, I live in NYC and here's video I managed to capture of Spider-Man" would be perfectly legal to post and monetize on YouTube. Things like DMCA strikes wouldn't even apply, because even if someone came forward claiming to be Spider-Man (which would be tough, because they'd also have to legally "prove" that they ARE Spider-Man) and that they wanted the videos removed, it would fall under public jurisdiction (ie, the same reason paparazzi can take photos - ie, the same law Peter would be protected by as a photographer selling the pics to the Bugle).

The real trick would be people going "Hey, how the hell are you able to constantly get all these videos of Spider-Man when no one else can?", but that's the same problem you have with him as a photographer. And you can easily get around it by just implying that Peter knows Spider-Man, in the same sort of way Jimmy Olsen knows Superman. It wouldn't even be all that out of continuity, when you consider that in the comics, there were at least a few villains who specifically go after "Peter Parker" because he's clearly either friends with Spider-Man, or at least knows how to find him (and see also, Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2).

But that ultimately might be the worst problem with Peter doing ANYTHING involving pictures/video/etc of Spider-Man. There's always going to be the much-greater risk in the modern era of people connecting the two identities.

The MCU might actually just be better off having Tony Stark hire Peter as a consulting associate/paid intern, and eliminating the "I need to make money!" problem entirely. Especially since a younger Aunt May doesn't have the same financial desperation Aunt May in the comics does, and because then you can focus on other things. And Peter IS a science genius - which is something modern versions of the character DO explore.


---

They already do the "Peter knows Spider-Man" thing in Homecoming.
---

Blighboy posted...

Oh I know what you meant, but given the degree of reimagining of old characters that's in the new Spider-Man, that's one that I'd love just because it's so out there yet completely consistent with the sort of "Kim Possible but with swearing" vibe they've got going.

Again though, that's almost less Marvel Studios' fault and more Marvel Comics' fault.

Because Ned is pretty much just Ganke Lee with Ned Leeds' name (which has already been truncated down to Ned Lee and slapped on an Asian reboot version of the character before):

http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Ganke_Lee_(Earth-1610)
http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Ned_Lee_(Earth-26496)

In a lot of ways, the new movie basically just slotted Peter Parker into Miles Morales' supporting cast, and just used the names of Peter's old cast to gloss over the fact.

Again, the MCU really blurs the lines between 616 and Ultimate. It's why they crammed both Loki and the Chitauri into the first Avengers movie - because Loki was the first threat the original Avengers faced, while the Chitauri were the first threat the Ultimates faced.

If anything, the easiest way to predict what the next two movies are going to be about might be to just start reading both Amazing Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man at the same time, and trying to think of ways you could combine characters or concepts from both books to make something "new". Because that seems to be how Marvel is operating for most of their MCU projects.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The real trick would be people going "Hey, how the hell are you able to constantly get all these videos of Spider-Man when no one else can?", but that's the same problem you have with him as a photographer. And you can easily get around it by just implying that Peter knows Spider-Man, in the same sort of way Jimmy Olsen knows Superman. It wouldn't even be all that out of continuity, when you consider that in the comics, there were at least a few villains who specifically go after "Peter Parker" because he's clearly either friends with Spider-Man, or at least knows how to find him (and see also, Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2).

I disagree, I think justifying being able to take video footage of Spider-Man consistently is much harder to explain away than just some still pictures and that's what I was trying to say.
Besides, I don't see a benefit to posting the videos as Peter. He can just create a bogus name for a youtube account, call the account "The Real Spider-Man" or whatever, and upload the videos from public wifi hotspots (so he's not using his home IP address), and just be an unknown youtube account. Seems much safer than posting them as Peter.

Blighboy posted...

They already do the "Peter knows Spider-Man" thing in Homecoming.

Well, then that's just stupid and defeats the whole point of a secret identity. They may not think Peter's Spidey, but if they think they know each other, the villains will use Peter's family as leverage to find Spidey.
Sure, he always seemed to know where to find Spidey, but at least that was it and he usually tried to make it look like Spidey disliked him. Being pals is a whole 'nother level...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's also kind of a weak assumption anyway, considering JJJ showed up in the comics in the very first issue of Amazing Spider-Man, when Peter was 15-years old and still in high school. Peter being in high school in the movies doesn't really prevent him from having the exact same relationship with JJJ that Peter originally had in the comics.

The real problem is that it's slightly less believable that Peter would be selling photos to a newspaper in 2017 than it was in 1963. A modern realistic Spider-Man would probably be more likely to just film himself and post videos on a Youtube channel or something.

Started to post earlier, but wanted to double-check when JJJ appeared. When I got back to it, PO had already taken care of things >_>
---