Jimmy Olsen (Spoiler)
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Marvel/DC
GhostGlow — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 02:30 AM)
Not only did they get his character wrong but they kill him off before he even meets Superman? He's meant to be one of his closest friends. You may as well have Gordon die without ever becoming commissioner, that makes just as much sense as what they did.
Zach Snyder said that Jimmy doesn't fit into the world they had created, yet we get his female counterpart Jenny, who could have easily been Jimmy Olsen. What is that about? Did they want to include more female characters? Then how about including Kat Grant? Or was Zach Snyder worried that she might bring too much life to his robotic, lifeless vision of the DC universe? How about Lana Lang? They could have her move to Metropolis or show her in flashbacks. I don't really care how many women are in this movie, but don't replace Jimmy Olsen with a female knock off and then write Jimmy into the plot just so he's killed.
This is just one example of the baffling, idiotic decisions made in the new DC movie universe. Having Clark Kent with the exact same personality that he does while he's Superman is another ridiculous move. Clark is meant to be a character that Superman plays, his disguise is not just glasses, he's meant to be Superman's opposite (Bill from Kill Bill explains this better than I can) which means he needs to act like an awkward, bumbling nerd. Did we see any of that in Batman v Superman? No, just Superman with glasses.
I'm sorry if I sound overly pessimistic but as a DC fan I find these movies frustrating, knowing just how much better they could be if they hired people to make it who actually get what these characters are about.
I guess the way to think of these movies is like an alternate reality, an 'Elseworld' story where everything is serious and grim, even a Superman story. Just makes me wonder how the Flash will turn out, if they make that dark and edgy I'm out! -
-
GhostGlow — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 06:18 PM)
I don't think he was in Man of Steel, but like I said they changed his character so much that he may as well have not been Jimmy Olsen. They could have called him something else and it wouldn't have made a difference. This reminded me of those 90's video game movies where they think that simply naming a character after someone from the game actually counts as that being the character. Like in the Mario Bros movie, a human is playing a harmonica and a police officer says "You know the law, Toad!" I mean how the f### is that Toad? You get the point anyway.
Although Superman Returns was mediocre it at least gave us a proper portrayal of Jimmy Olsen, he's meant to be comic relief, not someone working undercover for the CIA, what the hell was that? -
deadpixel128 — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 06:24 AM)
He wasn't even in MoS. They introduced and killed him in this film in the span of 90 seconds.
Because Zack Snyder is such a fan of the comics.
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions. -
ElDiomedes — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 07:45 AM)
His death doesn't amaze me as much as the fact that..why on earth he's working for the CIA ? What was that..
How the name, "Martha" brought out the real Batman
http://i.makeagif.com/media/8-18-2016/8C46Hb.gif -
Painbow — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 12:41 PM)
Lol. That explains why I didn't notice him.
Seriously, if you're gonna kill an established character from the comics, why not introduce him in Man of Steel, make the audience care about him then when you kill him off in BvS, it might actually register people might actually give a sht.
But nope that would involve good storytelling and Snyder doesn't do that. -
OdumC — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 06:42 AM)
Zach Snyder said that Jimmy doesn't fit into the world they had created, yet we get his female counterpart Jenny, who could have easily been Jimmy Olsen.
That's the part that makes no sense and pissed me off. some generic role that has a couple lines per film could have easily been Jimmy Olson. him saying "there's no room in this franchise for Jimmy Olson" but there's room for Jenny from the intern pool and Lombard to troll the interns.
Right.
It really boils down to his excuse for killing Jimmy to begin with. he wanted to have fun with the character.
and give yet another middle finger to fans of the property.Thanks to Batmeh v Supermeh Yawn of Justice, the "S" now stands for Sidekick -
MydnightRose — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 09:31 AM)
I don't give a fyck about Jimmy Olsen and I don't care that he's dead. Jimmy had never worked in live action except on LnC.
I love these movies and I support most of what Zack has done.- BVS 2. TWS 3. Avenger
-
GhostGlow — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 10:52 PM)
Okay great, but like I said Jimmy is supposed to be one of Superman's best friends, to kill him before he even meets Superman is pretty stupid. It's like if they made a Batman movie where Dick Grayson gets killed along with his parents and dies because Batman was too busy helping someone else at the time. Would that seem like a good idea to you?
It's great that you like these new movies, but you're kidding yourself if you think they're without flaws. -
MydnightRose — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 09:27 AM)
Robin is much more important than Jimmy Olsen so there is no comparison. In every Superman movie Jimmy has served no purpose, the only place he seems.to be relevant is in comic books.
- BVS 2. TWS 3. Avenger
-
MydnightRose — 9 years ago(October 11, 2016 04:23 AM)
If he doesn't fit or add anything to the story then he shouldn't be in it. He's Clark's goofy sidekick in the comics and has added nothing to any story in the movies. I would prefer seeing Clark interact more with Perry than have Jimmy floating around being useless. Again he has only ever been used well in LnC and arguably Smallville. I won't harp on Snyder for killing of a useless character and actually making him more adult and interesting than he has ever been in previous movies.
- BVS 2. TWS 3. Avenger
-
deadpixel128 — 9 years ago(October 11, 2016 06:03 AM)
What a shortsighted, ignorant comic. Just because Jimmy Olsen hasn't been used well in the past does not mean he will never be used well in the future. He could have been an interesting and worthwhile inclusion to this universe; too bad a moron shot him in the face.
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions. -
deadpixel128 — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 06:34 AM)
So you think killing him off and preventing any future filmmakers from using the character in their movies is better than trying to include him? Or, better yet, just not putting him in the movie at all?
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions. -
TheManWithNoName256 — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 09:57 AM)
When I learned that was Jimmy Olsen from the extended cut (because they don't give you this info in the original) I was so pissed off. What is the point?
"Better to be a king for a night than a schmuck for a lifetime" -
jaystarstar — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 12:33 PM)
Some versions of Jimmy Olsen have him being the son of a CIA agent or special forces soldier, so him being in the CIA may have made sense but not if they were going to kill him off 30 seconds later.
If they were going to kill him off in 30 seconds, who cares if his name was "Jimmy Olsen" or anything else??- You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.
