Zooey Deschanel is Betty Brandt?
Brandt is the sexy personal assistant of Daily Bugle boss J. Jonah Jameson, who has yet to be cast. As previously reported, Mad Men star John Slattery and Sam Elliott are both still being considered for the role.
While Betty Brandt only had a small role in the original trilogy, as played by Elizabeth Banks in all three Sam Raimi directed Spider-Man movies, an insider close to the production stated:
"Marc Webb has big plans for her. He wants a strong performer to carry the role and Zooey Deschanel fits the bill perfectly. The role is hers if she wants it."
Official casting announcements for Betty Brandt, J. Jonah Jameson, and Richard and Mary Parker, Peter's biological parents, are expected soon.
The Amazing Spider-Man comes to theaters July 3rd, 2012 and stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen, Denis Leary, Chris Zylka, Irrfan Khan, C. Thomas Howell. The film is directed by Marc Webb.
Comments (50)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
Jim Gause
Her sister was in Spider-Man 2
1 year agoby @Jim-GauseFlag
Lane
@Skywise: Thank you, and you're right, I do have a lot to say (when I want to say it). And the people who know me love that about me too. Unfortunately though, for some of the ones who don't know me, it seems like no matter how well I explain myself, some people just do not understand what I'm trying to say. It both amazes me and frustrates me. This is where I might coin the phrase "Agree to disagree" which is something I loathe when people say it to me but for the sake of not having to repeat myself, it is much needed here.
I realize this article is now 3 weeks old but I had only just read the responses a few hours ago. I made it a point to ignore this article as long as I did, and looking at the results, I'm glad I did so. Sometimes you just gotta know when to throw in the towel and swallow your pride.
1 year agoby @lane1Flag
Iron-Monkey
Zooey is like what 28 and her character is what 33. I don't care who plays who man just release ''Ultimate Spider-Man'' yea that's what I call this re-boot/re-make
2 years agoby @iron-monkeyFlag
Wichy
I've always enjoyed Zooey Descahnel in her films, especially "500 Days of Summer." She would be a good addition to the cast.
2 years agoby @wichitagalzlFlag
RojoDiablo
I enjoyed all three films so far but the first two were certainly better than the third (not that I hated it or anything). I think this reboot will be a solid movie, just not sure a reboot was actually needed, but imo Zooey would be a great addition to an already decent cast.
2 years agoby @rojodiabloFlag
The Narrator: The Better Man
@Lane, that was a long comment, so bear with me. I'll try to cover everything as best in my abilities.
The emo Parker may have been "funny", but that is in no way how Spidey acts during his transformation. I believe more people were laughing at the character, than with him. But whatever, it's a moot point; I'll drop it.
The MJ argument doesn't work. Raimi may have brought her in because the non-comic readers don't know of Stacy, but the name SPIDER-MAN alone would have drawn audiences, no matter who was in it. Are you telling me less people would see a film about Spider-Man simply because MJ wasn't in it? I doubt that very much. If Gwen was in it, it would have pleased hard core fan-boys (which I am not, mind you) and the general audience alike. So no, I won't forgive you for "understanding how things work".
As for being nit-picky? Pleeeaasse. I am a moderate nit-picker compared to most of the fans out there. Just because I nitpick the first and last films does not mean I didn't enjoy them. Again I really enjoyed Spidey-1, and got over its flaws, especially because it gave me Spidey-2. And yea, I am not a fan of reboots either, and I think this is too soon. However, with every bit of news on this film, I am liking it more and more. It's doing what the first Spider-Man films weren't able to do, being that it was their first outing. So overall, although soon, this is a pretty win-win situation for both the fans and general audience so far. As for fans of the latter films, well if they don't like this series they can keep the Raimi trilogy in boxset.
As for your point about why they're rebooting, and how studios are about money... who argued that point? I think everyone on this site agrees with your entire paragraph. Thats doesn't make the reboot automatically bad.
"So, my problem is not just with "popular casting", it is also with studios, with reboots and remakes, with nit-pickers and with negative fans. I understand that some people want these movies to be as close to the source material as possible, I do, but frankly, other people just want these films to be fun and entertaining. Nothing is going to be perfect... but I will settle for something that comes pretty damn close. Am I against grand epic scale film productions? Not at all. Am I against those productions trying to please everyone and moving in a new direction just for the sake of tried but not always so true formulas to make as much money as possible? Absolutely."
Well I'm sorry to say, but Raimi's trilogy was not "pretty damn close". Example: Lord of the Rings was pretty damn close. But it still cut quite a few things out. The difference was it kept the important factors of the source material, without being afraid to put a decent twist on things. I understand that a book trilogy and a comic series running several decades are two different things, but you get the point. The series was good, but it could have been better, and now we may get to see that improvement.
We can go all day arguing about the previous films' quality, authenticity, and credibility. But we'll still disagree. So thats fine if you like the old series. I enjoyed it too. My question is, just because this is a reboot, driven by critical and financial issues, it does't mean it will automatically be bad. The cast is no bigger than the original trilogies, and we seem to be getting a more authentic adaption. So why are you seemingly bent on not giving it a chance?
2 years agoby @narratorFlag
I AM FRATSON
I am a pretty big superhero fan in general and know the majority of the mythos. My brother and I were discussing this last night and we both are glad a reboot is happening. Not due to the fact the third was all over the board (should have kept the original plot of Vulture and Sandman as the villians and left Venom for 4, but thats besides the point), but due to the fact Tobey McGuire is not a good fit for Peter Parker. DOnt get me wrong, he can act, but I never felt comfortable with him in that role. He annoyed me. Same with Dunst. She was not my choice for an MJ type of actress. A reboot is what this franchise needed. Im all for it and so far, I have liked all the casting choices.
2 years agoby @iamfratsonFlag
Diaigma
@REAL - agreed - she was quite good in ELF, and very cute. First movie I saw her in :P
2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag
Diaigma
Agreed with most of you, @Lane1 - but like any business, movies want to make money and need to more than double their production budgets if they want to make any. Now, Disney, however, has shown that they want to make money AND crush their competition. With them I have beef, but not Hollywood in general, because like any business, the more money the better. But yes, make them good so I will want to spend my money in the first place :P
2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag
Dan
I've always found Zooey (and somewhat her 'Bones' sister Emily) to be cute. Zooey was especially cute in Elf.
2 years agoby @dan1Flag
Diaigma
Makes sense. She worked with Webb before. Looks good for it. "Role" with it, Zooey! :P
2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag
skywise
@Lane i always love reading what you have to say but damnit miss, you have a LOT to say.
2 years agoby @skywiseFlag
skywise
I love everything this woman does. She is a brilliant actress. I hope this is true.
2 years agoby @skywiseFlag
Cripple
I think she would make an excellent Betty Brant. I am totally up for her being in this.
2 years agoby @crippleFlag
Lane
@Narrator: "...ragging on the film for "popular casting"... that bird won't fly."
Neither will the "emo Parker" complaint from Spider-man 3. You really think that compared to what I just complained about that that's a valid complaint? You may find this hard to believe, but I found the scene in which Parker was dancing after going "emo" to be hilarious -- And so did my brother... and he was sitting right next to me at the time -- In fact, despite the movies many and unneccesarily criticized flaws, the both of us still enjoyed the movie (for what it was, NOT what it wasn't). In my honest opinion, being one of the biggest Spider-man fans out there (for the character, not for all forms of media), I thought the dancing scene and everything "emo" Parker in the film was comedic gold. I knew it, my brother knew it, and I'm pretty sure Raimi knew it too. That's why he did it. Not to please all the fans, but to get a laugh outta people. I'm sorry if yours, and others sense of humor just didn't care for it. But constantly referring to Parker in that movie as "emo" is not a valid argument either, and frankly, is just not a good reason to partially hate on the film either. Its a criticism and a negative one at that. So get off it already.
Secondly, here's something you should know about me when it comes to movies: I'm not a nit-picker. I'm a simple gal with simple pleasures. While it doesn't take a lot to please me, I know a good film when I see one. Raimi's Spider-man was far better than the original Batman. The reason I defend him so much is because just like Burton, I respect what he did for the series and genre. In my opinion, the first Spider-man movie was good too and when it came out it was the best comic book movie out there. What X-Men had lacked, Marvel made up for with Spider-man. Honestly, I didn't care that Gwen Stacy wasn't in it at the beginning and was satisfied with just seeing MJ. Why? Because I knew why Sam Raimi did it. He did it because for the fans who didn't read the comics (like me) he knew that those were the people who didn't know who Gwen Stacy was (unless they'd seen the animated series, which at the time the movie came out, I didn't even remember her from) and he knew that Mary Jane was more popular and well-known among NON comic readers. So did Raimi not include Stacy in Spidey's origins story and instead replace her with Mary Jane? Yeah. But am I going to bitch about 8 years after the fact? Hell no. And I'm not going to bitch because I simply don't care. Mary Jane was in the film and she worked for the film and the story Sam Raimi was trying to tell. It was a good addition that made it part of a good film for a character I've loved since I was a kid. THAT'S ALL I CARE ABOUT. Again, its a fairly simple concept for a fairly simple girl. Forgive me for understanding how things work.
Its nit-picky comic book fans like you and others that ruin the experience for the general movie-going audience. The fact is that films only ever get rebooted because the studio execs fail to listen to the fans of the films, instead focusing all of their attention on the negative criticism from the die-hards rather than the not always few but far between positive reviews these films recieve from the people who actually LIKE what they did with them. So the casting in this film is not the only thing I don't like about it, its everything else that goes along with it. If it weren't for all the negative criticism Spider-man 3 recieved we would be getting a Spider-man 4 six months from now instead of a reboot in a year and a half.
Fact: films are rebooted not because they don't make money, but when they're not recieved well. Studios are so greedy they're all about the money -- THAT was my point. Comic book series that have been rebooted on film cause of negative criticism that weren't neccessarily ALL bad:
Hulk = Financially successful/poorly recieved
The Punisher = Financially successful/poorly recieved
X-Men 3 = Financially successful/poorly recieved
Superman Returns = Financially successful/poorly recieved
Spider-man 3 = Financially successful/poorly recieved
Do you see a pattern here? All of these films have been rebooted but with the exception of Superman and Spider-man who's fates have yet to be seen, all of their reboots have failed. The Punisher War Zone was even more poorly recieved than the first and was not financially successful in the least. The Incredible Hulk was both mildly successful and mildly well-recieved. Both films offered new directions and new actors and both failed to reach an audience as strongly as their original counterparts. Wolverine had a disaster of a plot, X-Men 4 is still on the back-burner, while "First Class" has already generated negative criticism before any footage of it has even been released. The only comic series that has been even remotely successful both financially AND critically as a reboot so far is Batman. And now we have Superman and Spider-man, of which both their reboots are much too soon and wholly unneccesary.
So, my problem is not just with "popular casting", it is also with studios, with reboots and remakes, with nit-pickers and with negative fans. I understand that some people want these movies to be as close to the source material as possible, I do, but frankly, other people just want these films to be fun and entertaining. Nothing is going to be perfect... but I will settle for something that comes pretty damn close. Am I against grand epic scale film productions? Not at all. Am I against those productions trying to please everyone and moving in a new direction just for the sake of tried but not always so true formulas to make as much money as possible? Absolutely.
The Dark Knight was arguably the best film of 2008 while Inception has been the best film of 2010. How many great films can you name in the last several years and how many of those were remakes or reboots? I'm guessing not a whole lot if any at all. My point is that originality has gone out the window in Hollywood and now, instead of giving us something that's about both money and quality, its now about $$$ and quantity over anything of quality. With the amount of characters already in this film, it could end up being like X-Men 3 OR Spider-man 3 - Too much story, action and not enough character development - And for any movie that is bad but for a reboot that is especially BAD BAD BAD. Just like many other big projects in Hollywood this movie is already starting to feel rushed and for Spider-man, a character I dearly love, I do not want it to be so. I may not know the comics like some of you, but I do know film. And this film buff is one pissed off movie fan who just wants a great movie like the rest of you.
If that's not logical enough for you then I dunno what is.
2 years agoby @lane1Flag
The Narrator: The Better Man
@ejk, agreed. I am simply saying that using the cast's status (or lack thereof), as an excuse to rag on the film is ridiculous. No offense to Lane, or anyone else who feels similar, but its a terrible excuse, and in regards of not liking/anticipating the film, it shouldn't be brought up as a valid argument.
2 years agoby @narratorFlag
ejk1
I don't care about A-list or B-list. I care about the quality of storytelling, and the ability of the actors and actresses to execute and make it believable. I have questioned Garfield only because of the issue of his age--in no way am I questioning his abilities, which are quite considerable. As for everyone else, as long as they execute up to their abilities in a well written tale, I don't mind the cast, nor would I mind additions or subtractions.
2 years agoby @ejk1Flag
The Narrator: The Better Man
@Lane, thats the goal of all films; to make money. That doesn't prove your point about this reboot being solely for money. Truth is not many people are aware of the reboot, and therefore won't pay to see it with a brand-new/unknown cast. I'm sorry, but it's simply logical, and if we were in their positions, we would be interested in the film making money too. Otherwise what's the point.
Also, I am a huge Spidey fan. Not as big as CBF or ejk, but pretty damn into him and his mythos. And if you ask me casting is going great for the film. None of them were necessarily my first picks, but they're pretty right on. Other than Stone playing Gwen instead of MJ, I am not disappointed by a single casting decision. Also Sally Field is not an A-list actress. She's been in a few A-list movies, but she is still a B-lister. Fact - They have just as many B-listers in this film as did in the original trilogy.
I'm curious as to why you're defending the original trilogy so much. Other than Spider-Man 2, which was a great film, the trilogy could have been improved on. Not only did it totally twist things up (no Gwen, MJ and Peter growing up together, organic webbing, Venom, emo Parker, the complaints go on), but they were campy as well. So although I liked Raimis take on the films, it wasn't all what a Spidey film trilogy should be. If anything I think of Raimi's Spidey films as Burton's Batman films; with a good start, but room for improvement. Hopefully this series will skip the Schumacher films, and be the Nolan like version; improving on all the failed aspects of the originals, while being its own animal.
I think this reboot is a smart idea, both to see a different/hopefully more accurate view of the web-head, and financially. If you don't want to see it, thats fine. However, ragging on the film for "popular casting"... that bird won't fly.
2 years agoby @narratorFlag
Lane
No big names besides Martin Sheen? For the love of God, Sally Field is a "big name" too. She's not in as many movies as she used to be but only because she's had a starring role on TV for the last few years. And I didn't say the rest of the names you mentioned were, @IUH... nowhere in my comment did I say that.
And I'm sorry @Narrator, but Maguire was not an A-lister until AFTER he did Spider-man. He had plenty of critically acclaimed movies before then, but he was far from "A-list" status until then. Dunst could've counted as a "big name" just from reputation but she was/is a B-lister. Sorry, but I just don't agree they're casting who "fits" in the roles. They're going with actors who are accessible, not the underdogs, for lack of a better term like Raimi did. Remember, Franco had auditioned for the role of Spider-man, but didn't get it because they felt Tobey was better and more well-suited for the dual roles.
"...which is smart if they want to make money" - Thank you, you just said what I've been saying this reboot is about all along.
2 years agoby @lane1Flag
Dan
No disagreement there.
2 years agoby @dan1Flag
The Narrator: The Better Man
Sorry, I was just thinking of the first film; comparing the first in that trilogy to the first in this future trilogy.
Yes, Molina was a great addition in 2, but even HE was a B-lister. So it only furthers my point to @Lane.
2 years agoby @narratorFlag
Daveactor7
lol
2 years agoby @daveactor7Flag
Dan
@Narrator Fail. You still didn't mention Molina.
2 years agoby @dan1Flag
The Narrator: The Better Man
@Lane, as I already pointed out to @moviegeek1, every person in the cast so far is a B-list actor (other than Martin Sheen). On the other hand Raimi's trilogy had several A-listers (Dafoe, McGuire, and Dunst counts I think) and a strong B-list cast (Simmons, Franco, Banks, Harris, Campbell).
So my point is the two aren't so different in terms of casting. I believe they are casting the people who both fit their character, and are familiar with the audience, which is smart if they want to make money.
2 years agoby @narratorFlag
Daveactor7
@Supes lol agreed
2 years agoby @daveactor7Flag
Daveactor7
But the best villain in sam raimis spiderman was Willem Defoes Green goblin
2 years agoby @daveactor7Flag
Daveactor7
@Supes agreed
2 years agoby @daveactor7Flag
Daveactor7
@Narrator we shall see of their status after this movie >:) lol
2 years agoby @daveactor7Flag
Daveactor7
@Supes agreed
2 years agoby @daveactor7Flag
Dan
I can totally see Zooey in this role. So far I've enjoyed the casting for Spiderman. No hang ups for me about Raimi's and how that died. Oh well, moving on.
2 years agoby @dan1Flag