So in the movies, Jameson seems to be as much Peter's antagonist as Spider-man's being a rude and dismissive boss and of course in No Way Home, being the one who outs him. How did the comics (I am assuming that in 60+ years some writer or other couldn't resist outing Peter to JJJ at least once, before someone else hit the reset button) handle his discovering the identity. Also, how did he help Peter out, like in the normal course of things? What does Peter think of him?
So Jameson is absolutely rude and gruff and penny-pinching, but it’s usually a sort of “bark is worse than his bite” sort of thing, and he ends up doing more generous for his employees anonymously because he likes being seen as a hardass. (For example, he always bought Peter’s photos, even though Peter’s actually not a very good photographer, because he knew that Peter was trying to support his Aunt May and work his way through school and he remembers what it was like starting out.)
He’s found out Peter Parker’s secret identity a couple different times, and his reaction varies. One time it literally gave him a heart attack, sometimes he gets pissed because there are journalistic ethics issues with Parker having covered himself for the Bugle, sometimes they have long arguments about accountability and vigilantism but ultimately come to understand one another, sometimes he and Peter find common ground about having lost loved ones, one time he decided to pay Peter’s way through college, and one time he saved Peter’s life.
It sort of depends on how the writer feels about JJJ, really.
Oh, and another Jameson question, in Venom there was an astronaut with that name. Was that just a reference to JJJ? (which seems weird, because they seem to be implying that Eddie used to work for the Bugle before moving to San Fran and getting involved with the lawyer and his vlogging) or some other Easter Egg?
So in the comics, JJJ’s son (JJJ the III) is an astronaut. Part of the reason why Jameson originally had an issue with Spider-Man was that he felt that the media was paying too much attention to celebrities like Spider-Man (keep in mind, this is back when Peter is looking to make a fast buck doing TV appearances and hasn’t started fighting crime yet) instead of real heroes like his son.
This being Marvel, however, when JJJ III goes to the moon, he finds a mystic ruby that turns him into a werewolf warrior called the Man-Wolf (or sometimes the Star-God). He got better, but it was a thing back in the 90s.
So I was playing the Sony Spider-Man game recently, and kept thinking "Why does this cop character's name sound familiar? Something from U.S. history maybe?" A short trip to Wikipedia later and: Why on _earth_ is Miles Morales' father named after the president of the confederacy? I'm baffled both from watsonian and doylist perspectives.
This is something people have been asking for about as long as the character has existed. According to Brian Michael Bendis, the writer who co-created Miles and his supporting cast, it was an unintentional error; a family friend had been named Jefferson and he wanted to name a character after this friend and didn’t think about the historical figure of the same name. (Also, I think Bendis had started with the last name “Davis” b/c of the jazzman Miles Davis and then worked his way backwards from there.)
Now, in the comics, this issue has actually been solved pretty permanantly in a Doylist fashion by having Jeff choose to take his wife’s last name and have a conversation with Miles where he discussed his feelings of discomfort about the racist implications of his birth name, but also his previous reluctance to get rid of it because of family issues - which was also a good way of deftly addressing it from a Watsonian perspective.
Given Kings Landing's position on a natural harbor, at the mouth of a navigable river, why do you think there wasn't a city or town of some sort there before Aegon's Conquest?
WOIAF gives us the answer:
“In the days of the Hundred Kingdoms, many petty kings had claimed dominion over the river mouth, amongst them the Darklyn kings of Duskendale, the Masseys of Stonedance, and the river kings of old, be they Mudds, Fishers, Brackens, Blackwoods, or Hooks. Towers and forts had crowned the three hills at various times, only to be thrown down in one war or another. Now only broken stones and overgrown ruins remained to welcome the Targaryens. Though claimed by both Storm’s End and Harrenhal, the river mouth was undefended, and the closest castles were held by lesser lords of no great power or military prowess, and lords moreover who had little reason to love their nominal overlord, Harren the Black.”
While King’s Landing had natural advantages, it had the political disadvantage of existing in a border region between the Riverlands and the Stormlands: it’s constantly getting fought over by both the major regional powers and the smaller locals, but because it’s on the edge of everything, no one’s got the capacity to hang onto it longterm and make investments that would give rise to a town or city, so it constantly changes hands and it’s a lot easier to sack it or slight it than it is to defend it.
i know JJ of the Daily Bugle is famously anti Spider-Man (in most depictions due to a mix of anti vigilantism / specifically being a masked unaccountable vigilante) , but have they ever covered how the daily bugle under his tenure portrays mutants? It seems the daily bugle is supposed to be a major publication, and on one hand I can imagine JJ being critical of The X-Men, but I (hope) don't know if he's ever been anti-mutant
Generally speaking, J Jonah Jameson is an advocate of mutant rights and civil rights more generally…as long as it doesn’t involve Spider-Man. Back when X-Factor were pretending to be mutant hunters, JJJ hired them to see whether Spider-Man was a mutant, but when he came up as a flatscan, Jameson immediately pivoted to writing articles accusing X-Factor of stirring up anti-mutant prejudice to make a buck.
That’s kind of the great thing about J Jonah Jameson - at his core, he’s a newspaperman and he believes in using journalism to make the world a better place, with one notable exception. Which makes him a more interesting antagonist to Spider-Man, because he’ll help out Peter Parker in the same breath that he tries to destroy the “wall-crawling menace.”
Metternich was a long-running Austrian foreign minister and latter Chancellor, and his main issue is that he absolutely hated liberal nationalism and organized an alliance of Austria, Russia, and Prussia to beat the shit out of Poles, Italians, Germans, Hungarians, Viennese, and anyone else in Europe who wanted democracy, national self-determination, and basic human and constitutional rights.
Hence why I believe that if he’d been beaten to death with a tire iron in 1814, European democracy would have happened almost a century earlier and it’s quite possible that the dominance of imperialist monarchies that chopped up Africa and big chunks of Asia and directly led to WWI would never have happened.
EHHH…
Look, I absolutely understand the hatred of Metternich, being a denizen of the former Austrian Empire, and Slovak at that. I absolutely agree that Metternich was the key player in the first half of 19th century Europe and that without him, many democratic revolutions in the first half of the 19th century would’ve succeeded.
But I have no idea why the fuck it would stop, or really in any way hamper, European imperialism.
For one, most of these revolutions concerned states that weren’t colonial empires, or at least empires that were in the “contraction” phase of their existence - Poland, Spain and the like. The true juggernauts of imperialism, like Great Britain, France, Russia or Prussia, were the ones least affected by Metternich specifically. Heck, even Belgium, future progenitor of the infamous Kongo Free State (well, Leopold II. specifically, but you know), gained independence DESPITE Metternich. There’s also the tiny little fact that liberalism and love of democracy in the 19th century Europe weren’t always exclusive with white supremacy and imperial mindset; Great Britain, the biggest European empire of this period, was also the most democratic state there for a good chunk of it. I am frankly sceptical of the claim that, say, Italy established by the carbonari wouldn’t jump at the opportunity for wealth and international legitimacy that colonialism provided. What is possible is that the Europe would be more fragmented and thus its imperial ventures less successful, but that’s also debatable.
Hell, I am not sure if the argument “more democratic Europe could prevent WW1” holds up in any way. Sure, in our timeline it was started by monarchies with only limited democratic institutions, but it’s absolutely plausible that in some other world, conflict at a similar scale would be started around the same time by France or Great Britain for their own reasons.
Well, keep in mind I said it was “quite possible” not “guaranteed.”
While it’s true that democracy wasn’t a barrier to imperialism - the French Third Republic was quite imperialist (which I think is a better example than the British as far as 19th century democracies go; even after the Reform Act of 1884, 40% of British men (and 100% of British women) couldn’t vote and that didn’t change until 1918, by which point the British Empire was pretty much in its final form) - I think we’re underselling how much the desires of European monarchs played a role in imperialism, whether it’s Kaiser Wilhem pivoting to “Weltpolitik” or Tsar Nicholas’ personal belief in the “white man’s burden” and the evils of the Japanese.
As for WWI, again I said “quite possible.” But I would argue that the total reshaping of European borders - especially the unification of Germany sans Franco-Prussian War and the elimination of the Austrian Empire - would have so radically changed international relations as to butterfly away WWI. Could there have been a different European war with entirely different alliances and casus belli? Possibly, but at this point it’s pure speculation.
Also, I forgot to add: another hard-to-quantify variable is what happens to 19th century international and domestic politics if European nationalism continues down a civic, liberal direction rather than an ethnic, conservative direction.
Metternich was a long-running Austrian foreign minister and latter Chancellor, and his main issue is that he absolutely hated liberal nationalism and organized an alliance of Austria, Russia, and Prussia to beat the shit out of Poles, Italians, Germans, Hungarians, Viennese, and anyone else in Europe who wanted democracy, national self-determination, and basic human and constitutional rights.
Hence why I believe that if he’d been beaten to death with a tire iron in 1814, European democracy would have happened almost a century earlier and it’s quite possible that the dominance of imperialist monarchies that chopped up Africa and big chunks of Asia and directly led to WWI would never have happened.
EHHH…
Look, I absolutely understand the hatred of Metternich, being a denizen of the former Austrian Empire, and Slovak at that. I absolutely agree that Metternich was the key player in the first half of 19th century Europe and that without him, many democratic revolutions in the first half of the 19th century would’ve succeeded.
But I have no idea why the fuck it would stop, or really in any way hamper, European imperialism.
For one, most of these revolutions concerned states that weren’t colonial empires, or at least empires that were in the “contraction” phase of their existence - Poland, Spain and the like. The true juggernauts of imperialism, like Great Britain, France, Russia or Prussia, were the ones least affected by Metternich specifically. Heck, even Belgium, future progenitor of the infamous Kongo Free State (well, Leopold II. specifically, but you know), gained independence DESPITE Metternich. There’s also the tiny little fact that liberalism and love of democracy in the 19th century Europe weren’t always exclusive with white supremacy and imperial mindset; Great Britain, the biggest European empire of this period, was also the most democratic state there for a good chunk of it. I am frankly sceptical of the claim that, say, Italy established by the carbonari wouldn’t jump at the opportunity for wealth and international legitimacy that colonialism provided. What is possible is that the Europe would be more fragmented and thus its imperial ventures less successful, but that’s also debatable.
Hell, I am not sure if the argument “more democratic Europe could prevent WW1” holds up in any way. Sure, in our timeline it was started by monarchies with only limited democratic institutions, but it’s absolutely plausible that in some other world, conflict at a similar scale would be started around the same time by France or Great Britain for their own reasons.
Well, keep in mind I said it was “quite possible” not “guaranteed.”
While it’s true that democracy wasn’t a barrier to imperialism - the French Third Republic was quite imperialist (which I think is a better example than the British as far as 19th century democracies go; even after the Reform Act of 1884, 40% of British men (and 100% of British women) couldn’t vote and that didn’t change until 1918, by which point the British Empire was pretty much in its final form) - I think we’re underselling how much the desires of European monarchs played a role in imperialism, whether it’s Kaiser Wilhem pivoting to “Weltpolitik” or Tsar Nicholas’ personal belief in the “white man’s burden” and the evils of the Japanese.
As for WWI, again I said “quite possible.” But I would argue that the total reshaping of European borders - especially the unification of Germany sans Franco-Prussian War and the elimination of the Austrian Empire - would have so radically changed international relations as to butterfly away WWI. Could there have been a different European war with entirely different alliances and casus belli? Possibly, but at this point it’s pure speculation.
I would love to hear you opinion on Rachel Summers. She had become one of my favorite X-characters. Do you think we would ever see an adaptation (either live or anime)? If not, why? Is it just because her past is too dark or something else? Lastly, for fun, any actresses you would want to see play the role? Thanks for answering my question.
As a huge fan of Excalibur, I am also a huge fan of Rachel Summers, who I would argue is not only a brilliant, tragic, resilient, hopeful character who seamlessly manages to exist within both sci-fi and high fantasy genres, but also the best of the Phoenix hosts. (Fight me, everyone who disagrees.)
I think we could see Rachel Summers in an adaptation…eventually. As much as I love the character, she’s not one who can be introduced right off the bat, because her backstory and core motivations are inextricably enmeshed with Days of Future Past and the (Dark) Phoenix Saga, and you need audiences to be invested in the alternate timelines and the Jean/Scott romance and the concept of the Phoenix as more than just an evil force for Rachel’s introduction to carry the weight that it’ll have to. So I’d say Rachel is a character who you’d want to introduce jumping timelines in the post-credits scene of the second movie so that she can be a main character in the third sort of thing.
In terms of actresses…I’m tempted to suggest someone from the wrestling world, because the casting sheet should call for a beautiful butch woman who’s tall, muscular but not bulky, willing to wear full-body fetish gear, can rock a mullet, and can really ham it up (Rachel tends to very extreme emotions). I’d say Rhea Ripley, but she was born to play Callisto so she’s already booked.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “as bad” - are we talking about the overall impact of the Code on American pop culture or are we talking about the actual content of the Code and what it banned and/or mandated in terms of artistic expression?
I’ve written a little bit about the Hays Code here, but my main focus was on subtextual judaism in Hollywood generally rather than what the Code was and what its impact on American cinema was.
ALT
So what did the Hays Code actually include?
One of the few positive things you can say about it is that the men who devised it were quite clear and forthright about what would and wouldn’t be allowed, in comparison to the vagueness and inconsistency of the modern MPAA. So here’s the list of what couldn’t be shown:
Pointed profanity—by either title or lip—this includes the words God, Lord, Jesus, Christ (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd, and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled; (You’ll notice that the Code is very much a snapshot of the transition from silent movies to “talkies,” with the discussion of how profanity is spelled as well as produced via “lip.”)
Any licentious or suggestive nudity—in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;
I think that the Comics Code Authority was worse if we only take into account how much it affected the industry, i.e. American comics. It basically killed all other genres, left only superheroes floating, and kept the entire medium infantile for a generation. If you’re interested in comics as an art form, it’s a horrifying result.
But if we widen our view a bit, and take into account their impact on society at large, I think dumbing down the movies was much worse. Movies were indeed in the process of critiquing the establishment, and they were doing it effectively (prison films are my favourite example on this), and then the Hays Code came along and they stopped, and to a large extent public opinion followed. (In comparison, when comics critiqued the establishment before the CCA stifled them, it reached a lot less people, and didn’t have enough sway to move public opinion, I think.) That’s not only an artistic disaster, it’s a devastating result even if you don’t give a shit about art!
I also want to comment on this from the Hays Code:
Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, et cetera (having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron); (I guess the idea was that the MPPDA believed very strongly in the idea that media could affect people’s behavior through imitation, but the use of the word “moron” gives me eugenics vibes.)
So the vibe here is a pattern that predates cinema, and first appears with respectable people complaining about the theatre (back when theatre was for the masses, and not considered highbrow like now), and opining that books MAY depict crime or immoral acts, because by definition they address educated people, ergo smart people. Whereas plays should NOT, because they address the base unwashed masses, poor uneducated people who are not equipped to engage critically with the material, and might get ideas in their head! And start doing crime and immoral acts!
“In the penny theatres that abound in the poor and populous districts of London, and which are chiefly frequented by striplings of idle and dissolute habits, tales of thieves and murderers are more admired, and draw more crowded audiences, than any other species of representation. There the footpad, the burglar, and the highwayman are portrayed in unnatural colours, and give pleasant lessons in crime to their delighted listeners. There the deepest tragedy and the broadest farce are represented in the career of the murderer and the thief, and are applauded in proportion to their depth and their breadth. There, whenever a crime of unusual atrocity is committed, it is brought out afresh, with all its disgusting incidents copied from the life, for the amusement of those who will one day become its imitators.
With the mere reader the case is widely different; and most people have a partiality for knowing the adventures of noted rogues. Even in fiction they are delightful: witness the eventful story of Gil Blas de Santillane, and of that great rascal Don Guzman d'Alfarache. Here there is no fear of imitation. Poets, too, without doing mischief, may sing of such heroes when they please, wakening our sympathies for the sad fate of Gilderoy, or Macpherson the Dauntless; or celebrating in undying verse the wrongs and the revenge of the great thief of Scotland, Rob Roy.”
This exact rationale will reappear in 1915 in an American Supreme Court decision (since overturned), which decreed that Freedom of Speech does not apply to movies (or apparently “the theatre, the circus, and all other shows and spectacles”), but only to the press:
[Films] may be used for evil … the audiences they assemble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of adults only, but of children, make them the more insidious in corruption… a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to.
See, books and newspapers are read by learned men, but anyone can watch a movie, and we must protect these poor impressionable souls from evil! With such a mentality, I think it’s glaringly obvious who are the learned ones (white + well-off + men) and who are not (everyone else).
I think the Hays Code uses the word “moron” in the sense of a dated psychology term, it basically meant “of abnormally low IQ”. At the time, psychology and criminology were…. bad. Slightly less absurd than Lombroso’s heyday (which wasn’t that far back!), but still, very bad. So this is 100% eugenics, and a pseudo-scientific new take on an old unfounded prejudice.
…An unfounded prejudice that somehow STILL has hold, today, in the 21st century. What the fuck is up with that? No, engaging with fiction about bad things won’t make you do bad things, how many times must we debunk this shit, good grief.
Thanks!
I would say it’s sort of a depth vs. width thing; the Hays Code affected more people (certainly in terms of consumers of cinema, many more people went to the movies than read comic books), whereas the CCA had a more profound impact on the people it did affect (and lasted longer: the Hays Code ended in 1968, whereas the CCA was in operation in 2011!).
ALT
