BvS Jimmy Olson (spoilers)

[Doctor Octopus]

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

That is why Snyder wrong person for director. He kill off important character like Jimmy and say it fun.

 

[Steyin]

To be honest, after watching the ultimate cut I'm sure they can just play it off as a CIA agent using Jimmy's name/credentials as a cover while the real Jimmy is well and good for the picking if they ever want to use him.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

If Snyder do that then he be admitting he did wrong and it not fun to kill Jimmy Olsen.

 

[PeterBenParker]

Dumb decision.

 

[Logan0327]

why are you people so upset if he didn't say his name was sjimmy olsen 99% of the audience wouldn't even of known it was him he looked nothing like jimmy,he was about as old as henry's superman and had a *****e bag arrogant personality

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Snyder say it was Jimmy Olsen. It was in credits. Worst is Snyder say it was fun to kill Jimmy off like that.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Lol, I'm still not understanding the big deal about all this. Yes, I know Jimmy is a big character in the Superman mythos. But I don't see why it matters whether he's dead or alive in the DCEU if he was never going to play a significant role in the first place.

 

[Sundancer]

To be honest, after watching the ultimate cut I'm sure they can just play it off as a CIA agent using Jimmy's name/credentials as a cover while the real Jimmy is well and good for the picking if they ever want to use him.

Pretty much what I got out of it.

 

[obredaan]

Lol, I'm still not understanding the big deal about all this. Yes, I know Jimmy is a big character in the Superman mythos. But I don't see why it matters whether he's dead or alive in the DCEU if he was never going to play a significant role in the first place.

How can you not understand why people are annoyed that Snyder killed off a staple of Superman lore for his own amusement? Its not a big deal in the grand scheme of things for the DCEU but it remains a dumb decision that accomplishes nothing. It made Snyder giggle so there's that.

 

[Da-Scribe]

How can you not understand why people are annoyed that Snyder killed off a staple of Superman lore for his own amusement? Its not a big deal in the grand scheme of things for the DCEU but it remains a dumb decision that accomplishes nothing. It made Snyder giggle so there's that.

If it's not a big deal in the DCEU then it really doesn't matter. I thought it was just a fun nod and that's where it ended.

 

[gdw]

To be honest, after watching the ultimate cut I'm sure they can just play it off as a CIA agent using Jimmy's name/credentials as a cover while the real Jimmy is well and good for the picking if they ever want to use him.

This /\

If Snyder do that then he be admitting he did wrong and it not fun to kill Jimmy Olsen.

Yes, and Snyder and co are also doing a good bit of "course correction" as far as where they are taking the cinematic universe. Things are heading in a direction, it sounds like, for which Jimmy WOULD actually make sense.

 

[The Shape]

I think some people are failing to realize that Jimmy Olsen wasn't killed. A CIA agent using the name "Jimmy Olsen" as a cover was killed.

The purpose of the scene in the UE (as it was originally meant to be seen) is pretty clear. The intention wasn't to shockingly kill a beloved character, but rather, to subvert expectations with misdirection to create a shocking/surprising moment that shows the danger of this high-stakes situation in which things quickly started going wrong. Viewers would have thought they were being introduced to an important new supporting character at the beginning of the film (as it's the first time Lois and Jimmy meet), but that was suddenly revealed to not be the case at all.

However, the TC butchered that scene. The guy never introduced himself on-screen as Jimmy, people learned afterwards that he was credited as "Jimmy Olsen", and then the whining of "Can't believe Snyder killed off Jimmy like that" began.

 

[Micromind]

I think some people are failing to realize that Jimmy Olsen wasn't killed. A CIA agent using the name "Jimmy Olsen" as a cover was killed.

The purpose of the scene in the UE (as it was originally meant to be seen) is pretty clear. The intention wasn't to shockingly kill a beloved character, but rather, to subvert expectations with misdirection to create a shocking/surprising moment that shows the danger of this high-stakes situation in which things quickly started going wrong. Viewers would have thought they were being introduced to an important new supporting character at the beginning of the film (as it's the first time Lois and Jimmy meet), but that was suddenly revealed to not be the case at all.

However, the TC butchered that scene. The guy never introduced himself on-screen as Jimmy, people learned afterwards that he was credited as "Jimmy Olsen", and then the whining of "Can't believe Snyder killed off Jimmy like that" began.

^ Agreed.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Ultimately it just doesn't make a lick of sense for a CIA agent to go undercover using his real name. Maybe I'm crazy, but that just seems counterintuitive.

 

[wnjcwjkk]

Lol, I'm still not understanding the big deal about all this. Yes, I know Jimmy is a big character in the Superman mythos. But I don't see why it matters whether he's dead or alive in the DCEU if he was never going to play a significant role in the first place.

I think it's part of a larger issue people have with Snyder, where they don't feel he shows enough reverence or respect for the mythology. I get it, though it doesn't bother me really.


I think the thinking was "Well, we don't need Jimmy Olsen, so let's put his name as an Easter Egg for the fans, to shock them, subvert expectations, and basically say 'This is a whole new Superman story'"

Very short sighted if you ask me. Best case scenario: people love the film, the ones who don't care about the mythology don't care at all about the Olsen twist, the ones who do care, are just okay with the choice, maybe some fraction of a percent actually think it's fun or enhances the film in any way. BUT, let's say a large section of the fans don't like the movie, which was always a possibility, they're gonna use that as ammunition that Snyder is disrespectful to the mythos, and he's basically saying "F*** y'all and your Silver Age BS, this is MY story!"


Reminds me of Stanley Kubrick doing an adaptation of Stephen King's The Shining, King wasn't happy with some of the choices he was making and changes to the story. In the book, the family drives a yellow Volkswagen, I think it was. In the film, a character is driving in the snow and passes by a wreck on the highway, an overturned, you guessed it, yellow VW. It's widely interpreted as Kubrick's little FU to King, "There's your characters, this is my story!"

I don't think Snyder's choice was meant with those intentions, but the point is, that choice could easily be interpretted that way.

It's one of those head scratching decisions where you think "What did they possibly think they were going to gain from that?" Like not making Doomsday look faithful to the comic version. And this is coming from someone who really likes the movie. I just don't think it was really gonna have anybody like "Now I realize anything can happen!" And make them watch the rest of the film from any different point of view. Maybe if it was Eisenberg and they kept him as just Jimmy Olsen journalist, but Idk.


For me, I think they could have benefitted from an Olsen character somewhere, even if they just had him kind of hanging around in the Planet scenes. Easily could have worked him into the Perry White battle of Metropolis scenes in MoS, and it could have added a little humanity to Clark's character down the line, a buddy he could have a beer with, similar to Matt Murdock and Foggy Nelson. It's not like he had to be some "Aw shucks, Golly gee" kid with a camera around his neck, just a regular bro for Clark. Dude could use a friend. I believe Jimmy even had his own comic line once, Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen. That's a pretty big part of the Superman mythos. You're already taking a risk with Batman's No Kill code. Why push the envelope?



My worry is that they feel like there's no need for Jimmy because they are cutting off the Clark Kent, Daily Planet Reporter persona, which would be a real loss for me, depending on where they're going in the future. I worry that they took the view, it's silly that nobody recognizes Superman behind the glasses, that could only last for so long, so we'll incorporate that aspect of the character at first, and then move on without it. Hope not.

 

[wnjcwjkk]

In MoS, there was that one character, I think he ran this online "news" source that involved a lot of conspiracy theories, kinda like an X-Files type nerd who would say "The truth is out there", and he's not taken very seriously by the professional journalists, but has some relationship to Lois. That could have made a perfect Jimmy Olsen, and could use him in a small role in other movies, too, like it turns out a lot of his conspiracy theorist rumors about the supernatural and aliens is actually true, he's been researching some of the other metahumans, maybe he has some information Luthor or Amanda Waller could use, in their search for metahumans, and it kinda gives him a little more credibility in the journalism world, maybe gets him a job at the DP, develops a friendship with Clark, who accepts him even though he's seen as a weirdo or nut. When I first saw him in MoS, I thought it might be Olsen.

 

[Tra-El]

I think some people are failing to realize that Jimmy Olsen wasn't killed. A CIA agent using the name "Jimmy Olsen" as a cover was killed.

The purpose of the scene in the UE (as it was originally meant to be seen) is pretty clear. The intention wasn't to shockingly kill a beloved character, but rather, to subvert expectations with misdirection to create a shocking/surprising moment that shows the danger of this high-stakes situation in which things quickly started going wrong. Viewers would have thought they were being introduced to an important new supporting character at the beginning of the film (as it's the first time Lois and Jimmy meet), but that was suddenly revealed to not be the case at all.

However, the TC butchered that scene. The guy never introduced himself on-screen as Jimmy, people learned afterwards that he was credited as "Jimmy Olsen", and then the whining of "Can't believe Snyder killed off Jimmy like that" began.

I agree with this. The one glaring thing that stuck out to me with the Jimmy Olsen-name being undercover as a CIA agent was how the dude knew a different language and was communicating with the terrorists while Lois did not. That's a tip right there if they wanted to bring Jimmy back. It simply wasn't him and his willingness to take the bullet is something a high ranking person of power officiated with military, CIA or government experience would have no problem sacrificing. If that WAS the real Jimmy Olsen, he was a pretty bad#$& representation when the character in the mytho's clearly isn't.

 

[Tra-El]

In MoS, there was that one character, I think he ran this online "news" source that involved a lot of conspiracy theories, kinda like an X-Files type nerd who would say "The truth is out there", and he's not taken very seriously by the professional journalists, but has some relationship to Lois. That could have made a perfect Jimmy Olsen, and could use him in a small role in other movies, too, like it turns out a lot of his conspiracy theorist rumors about the supernatural and aliens is actually true, he's been researching some of the other metahumans, maybe he has some information Luthor or Amanda Waller could use, in their search for metahumans, and it kinda gives him a little more credibility in the journalism world, maybe gets him a job at the DP, develops a friendship with Clark, who accepts him even though he's seen as a weirdo or nut. When I first saw him in MoS, I thought it might be Olsen.

He was in Batman V Superman as well during the Superman montage; news telecast scene. He was speaking with the "False God" footage shown behind him. His name was Woodburn.

 

[Miss Lois Lane]

My worry is that they feel like there's no need for Jimmy because they are cutting off the Clark Kent, Daily Planet Reporter persona, which would be a real loss for me, depending on where they're going in the future. I worry that they took the view, it's silly that nobody recognizes Superman behind the glasses, that could only last for so long, so we'll incorporate that aspect of the character at first, and then move on without it. Hope not.

Me too - I don't think we're getting Clark back. I just saw the UE the other day and although it included Perry and Jenny at Clark's funeral, there's no reason why they couldn't keep his secret. Jenny could be 'Jimmy', as many of us thought she would be in MOS. However from what ZS has said about secret identities, and neither Diane Lane nor Laurence Fishburne have been cast in JL (yet), although Jeremy Irons has...I hope I'm wrong but :-/

I don't think there's any way Jimmy can come back in this universe. If he had been introduced with a random name and Lois had said "I usually work with Jimmy Olsen" that would have been a nice nod - but can you imagine Perry bringing the real Jimmy into the Planet after what happened?

Lois is sitting there going about her work:

Perry - "Lois I'd like you to meet our new photographer. Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen. Jimmy Ols-"

Lois: *jumps up and starts beating Jimmy around the head with her keyboard* "I'm not falling for that one again!!!"

 

[Swamp Spectre]

Me too - I don't think we're getting Clark back. I just saw the UE the other day and although it included Perry and Jenny at Clark's funeral, there's no reason why they couldn't keep his secret. Jenny could be 'Jimmy', as many of us thought she would be in MOS. However from what ZS has said about secret identities, and neither Diane Lane nor Laurence Fishburne have been cast in JL (yet), although Jeremy Irons has...I hope I'm wrong but :-/

I don't think there's any way Jimmy can come back in this universe. If he had been introduced with a random name and Lois had said "I usually work with Jimmy Olsen" that would have been a nice nod - but can you imagine Perry bringing the real Jimmy into the Planet after what happened?

Lois is sitting there going about her work:

Perry - "Lois I'd like you to meet our new photographer. Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen. Jimmy Ols-"

Lois: *jumps up and starts beating Jimmy around the head with her keyboard* "I'm not falling for that one again!!!"

Lol. Nice.

As for your first paragraph. I don't see them not bringing Fishburne and Lane back in the near future. Both seem to love working with Snyder, and Lane in particular seems to have an affection for her character. And I'm sure the studio appreciates having actors of their caliber continuously praising the franchise. Plus, Lane is Supes's mom. I can't see them dropping her after how important she was shown to be to Clark in the first two films of the series. Surely they'll want to showcase her reaction to his return as much as they will Lois's.

 

[wnjcwjkk]

He was in Batman V Superman as well during the Superman montage; news telecast scene. He was speaking with the "False God" footage shown behind him. His name was Woodburn.

That's right, Woodburn (I suppose like Woodward + Bernstein)

 

[Miss Lois Lane]

Lol. Nice.

As for your first paragraph. I don't see them not bringing Fishburne and Lane back in the near future. Both seem to love working with Snyder, and Lane in particular seems to have an affection for her character. And I'm sure the studio appreciates having actors of their caliber continuously praising the franchise. Plus, Lane is Supes's mom. I can't see them dropping her after how important she was shown to be to Clark in the first two films of the series. Surely they'll want to showcase her reaction to his return as much as they will Lois's.

I really hope they do return as I love both actors and their portrayals of their characters - especially Fishburne, he gives Perry just the right amount of gravitas and levity. But I don't know, I just feel that Superman is going to be sidelined and Clark is going to be gone in JL - but as I said I hope I'm wrong!