BvS Jimmy Olson (spoilers)

[Man_of_Tomorrow]

Whoa some people really will defend everything.

 

[chamber-music]

If Snyder doesn't like the character then I prefer he just didn't use him.

James Gunn isn't big on Richard Rider (Nova). I would rather he leave the character in limbo for a potential future director to use then to shove the character in the movie and give them a bad portrayal.

 

[Ahasverus]

It was ok in the UC.

 

[Cobblepot]

Jimmy's a redhead with freckles. This was not the real Jimmy.

 

[DeGenerate10]

Jimmy Olson is one of my only complaints about the movie. I think Jimmy is an important part of the Superman mythos. To kill him off like that was completely unnecessary and never should've happened.

 

[Quasimod0]

I think it's a bit disrespectful to just bring in a great character like that ONLY to kill him. There was literally no reason to do that.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

If Snyder doesn't like the character then I prefer he just didn't use him.

James Gunn isn't big on Richard Rider (Nova). I would rather he leave the character in limbo for a potential future director to use then to shove the character in the movie and give them a bad portrayal.

I agree with this concept in general. If a director doesn't like a character, then don't use them. Or don't force them to use them against their will (like Sam Raimi with Venom).

It never works out.

 

[AnneFan]

Jimmy's a redhead with freckles. This was not the real Jimmy.

Yep. It's a cover name at most.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Yep. It's a cover name at most.

I was just thinking this. Not to sound like one of those fans with the Lex Jr. stuff, but why would an undercover CIA agent use his real name? Plus they referred to him as Talon, which I feel can't possibly be coincidence.

 

[Lencho01]

In recent history, when has Jimmy actually looked like his comics counterpart? Pretty much never. If we're going off that, I guess we haven't been watching the real Lois.

 

[Steelsheen]

I was just thinking this. Not to sound like one of those fans with the Lex Jr. stuff, but why would an undercover CIA agent use his real name? Plus they referred to him as Talon, which I feel can't possibly be coincidence.

yeah i picked up on that Talon thing too, although then again that might be his call sign. but yeah its a waste having this guy be Jimmy Olsen when there wasnt even any emotional connection to Lois or anybody at the Planet and then just off him just like that. i remember Snyder's interview and the reason why he used "Jimmy Olsen" to name drop. one of the rare times im glad it wasnt included in the TC.

 

[Jaxon]

Jimmy Olson is one of my only complaints about the movie. I think Jimmy is an important part of the Superman mythos. To kill him off like that was completely unnecessary and never should've happened.

It raises the stakes. It's a great way to tell us that everything is on the table.

And Jimmy Olsen is not important, you guys need to get over it.

 

[Light]

It raises the stakes. It's a great way to tell us that everything is on the table.

And Jimmy Olsen is not important, you guys need to get over it.

Yeah his not important I mean his only been in print and the overall lore for 70yrs. I guess Snyder knows best just like he knew best when he killed of Clark Kent for good.

 

[Nemeres]

Adding characters to a film's body count is easy -- building one up into a likable mainstay takes thought and storyteller skill. And do you guys really see the "real" Jimmy making an appearance later on, with his already taken name having been used randomly as a cover? Because that's a thing one sees often?

 

[Da-Scribe]

I don't see a "real" Jimmy showing up ever. I don't really care though. From what Snyder said, he was never going to have a role in the DCEU anyways, so it makes no difference.

If he does show up, then it wouldn't be too surprising. Flash has done that for two seasons now.

 

[Lencho01]

Adding characters to a film's body count is easy -- building one up into a likable mainstay takes thought and storyteller skill. And do you guys really see the "real" Jimmy making an appearance later on, with his already taken name having been used randomly as a cover? Because that's a thing one sees often?

Man, I don't even see another Superman solo film with this version happening any time soon.

But, I guess they can pull a Smallville if he shows up again.

 

[obredaan]

It raises the stakes. It's a great way to tell us that everything is on the table.

And Jimmy Olsen is not important, you guys need to get over it.

Nobody cares about who you deem important or not.

Jimmy Olsen has been an important character in the Superman mythos for decades. Get over it.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Well Jimmy is clearly not important in the DCEU.

 

[elgaz]

It's conceivable (silly maybe, but conceivable) that Jimmy Olsen is a real photographer who exists in this DC film universe. And the character who got shot in the film was a CIA operative using Jimmy's identity so if they tried to check out his background (e.g. is he a real photographer) it would appear legit.

That would be one way to introduce a real Jimmy Olsen in future. I'm no massive fan of the character though so if he never appears again, so be it.

I'm not really sure why Snyder used the name at all, it had no impact or meaning and the CIA op could have been called Donald Trump for all the impact it would have made. At best, it was a very brief and misguided nod to the fans which didn't really make much sense.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Well Jimmy is clearly not important in the DCEU.

It good example of why Snyder not understand the characters.

 

[Da-Scribe]

It good example of why Snyder not understand the characters.

I mean, not really. Not every comic character is going to pop up in this universe or any cinematic universe. Certain characters, inevitably, just aren't going to be important. Jimmy is one of those characters. That said, I don't really care what they do with him for a one scene easter egg. It has no bearing on anything moving forward. It just doesn't actually matter for the films.

 

[obredaan]

It's conceivable (silly maybe, but conceivable) that Jimmy Olsen is a real photographer who exists in this DC film universe. And the character who got shot in the film was a CIA operative using Jimmy's identity so if they tried to check out his background (e.g. is he a real photographer) it would appear legit.

That would be one way to introduce a real Jimmy Olsen in future. I'm no massive fan of the character though so if he never appears again, so be it.

I'm not really sure why Snyder used the name at all, it had no impact or meaning and the CIA op could have been called Donald Trump for all the impact it would have made. At best, it was a very brief and misguided nod to the fans which didn't really make much sense.

Snyder said himself that he did it for 'fun' cause he felt there was no place in this universe for Jimmy Olsen. So rather than ignoring the character and just leaving him out there in case someone else might want to use him later on... he decided to write the scene and give the character a backstory just so he could kill him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...s-why-he-killed-off-jimmy-olsen-a6954956.html

 

[Da-Scribe]

"I'm Jimmy. Jimmy Olsen. I worked with a CIA lookalike to help infiltrate an African terrorist cell. Pleased to meet you."

There, you have your Jimmy back should someone choose to use the bastah.

I'm kidding of course. My point is just that, if someone wants to use Jimmy then it won't take much to bring him back.

 

[obredaan]

Killing him off was dumb enough. Now I have to worry Snyder will dream up some convoluted way to bring him back.

 

[Enriquespy]

Killing him off was dumb enough. Now I have to worry Snyder will dream up some convoluted way to bring him back.

No need, the guy wasn't named in the theatrical cut. Snydy boy just needs to present a new guy and make him say "Hi, I'm Jimmy Olsen".