BvS Jimmy Olson (spoilers)

[guyisnotcool]

Man I'm not even a fan of Jimmy Olsen but even I find that mean spirited

 

[FunkMiller]

So Star Wars is a huge failure. Got it.

What the hell about the Star Wars story requires anyone to read anything else around it to understand the plot? Or are you talking about those piece of s*** prequels?

Star Wars's story is a masterpiece of simple, effective story-telling.

 

[FunkMiller]

The very idea of people defending this trash by implying those are too dumb to understand it is just adding insult to injury when it is one of the least logical, stupidest movies I have ever seen.

It's an (arguably understandable) defence mechanism. Some people just don't want to accept that a film is trash because they've invested themselves in it, and really want it to be good. Such is the case with this movie. All issues can be swept aside with a comment like 'well, if you don't like it, you must be dumb' rather than engaging with the actual movie's faults, and admitting it has a lot of problems.

 

[DerekLake]

So remember the North Africa sequence at the beginning of the movie, where Amy Adams’ Lois Lane is investigating something or other and her coworker turns out to be a CIA agent using her as cover? That CIA agent, played by The O.C. actor Michael Cassidy, is in fact Jimmy Olsen. He’s listed that way in the credits, and in speaking with EW, director Zack Snyder confirms the character’s identity and explains why he was dispatched with in such a shockingly dark way:

“We just did it as this little aside because we had been tracking where we thought the movies were gonna go, and we don’t have room for Jimmy Olsen in our big pantheon of characters, but we can have fun with him, right?”

http://collider.com/batman-v-superman-jimmy-olsen-cameo-jesse-eisenberg/

It's pretty clear from this article, from Jimmy's unnecessary introduction and death, and from the way Snyder handled Superman in this film, that he doesn't care about Superman getting a solo film down the road. It seems as though he's done everything he can to eliminate that possibility. Using Lex and Doomsday in this film, in the way that he did, is one thing. Denying Superman a chance at character development relevant to Justice League (leadership qualities) is another. His explanation for butchering and killing Jimmy Olsen and the implication that Batman and Wonder Woman alone found and lead the Justice League simply takes it to its conclusion: Snyder's Superman is a mere object, not the first-among-equals "granddaddy of superheroes" that he claimed he was respecting.

 

[gdw]

Yeah, I read Snyder's comments about him before seeing it, but I like to think in the theatrical cut, it's not actually Olsen, as it's never explicitly stated.

The only reason it was going to be Jimmy was for the fake out when he dies. Just to play with expectation, and this was originally the role Eisenberg was going to play. Don't mind that too much, but it's ultimately a waste.

Snyder attempted to justify it saying they realized there was no room for Jimmy in where they were taking the films.

That's absolute ******** though, as Jenny is still at the planet. She literally could have been swapped for an actual Jimmy Olsen, and boom, there's your room for him. He doesn't need to play a significant role in the films, but if your gonna populate the Daily Planet with named characters, and keep them around, then it's a complete lie that there's no room for Jimmy in the stories.

 

[The Shape]

Jimmy is an important supporting character in Superman lore; I would hardly call killing him in his only appearance is inconsequential. Especially since it was so unnecessary, too. Literally nothing is gained by this being Jimmy.

It's the same as if that was Lana Lang or Pete Ross getting blown away in that scene. Or Selina Kyle. Or Leslie Thompkins. Or Jim Gordon. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch about it because it's really just a weird choice in a film that has much larger issues to talk about, but yeah, it's pretty dumb.

The thing is that we are never lead to believe that this is the "real" Jimmy Olsen. He was never shown to be a Daily Planet staff member and friend of Clark's in Man of Steel, nor was he really shown to be one in BvS. As far as we know, he was a CIA agent who had been posing as a DP photographer and using the name "Jimmy Olsen".

Furthermore, in the theatrical cut, his name is never spoken out loud or shown to have been Jimmy Olsen and I believe was only listed in the credits as such. Apparently he introduces himself as Jimmy in the extended cut we'll eventually see, only to be revealed as a CIA agent who is quickly killed, but that's not in the version currently in theaters. The only real reason they planned to use the name of Jimmy Olsen was to shock, surprise, and subvert expectations within that moment. Was it pretty much pointless and unnecessary at the end of the day? Yup, but as Snyder said, the character hadn't already been used and wasn't expected to be used in any of the upcoming DC films, which is mainly why this doesn't bother me. In THIS universe, Jimmy is obviously not an important supporting character and therefore not an integral part of this Superman's lore.

Now, if Jimmy HAD been introduced in MOS as a Daily Planet staffer who had been shown to have some kind of relationship/friendship with Clark and other staffers in that film and during the first chunk of BvS, only to later be revealed as a CIA agent who winds up getting quickly shot dead for no reason other than shock value, that would have been way more unnecessary and offensive to me. Building up a fan-favorite character only to

I can completely understand why this might tick off some fans, but like you said, there are much larger issues to worry about in regard to BvS than something like this IMO. Within the context of this film and its over-arching universe, it IS inconsequential, whether we like it or not.

 

[The Guard]

What's this?

Reason?

 

[samsnee]

I'm guessing Jimmy did work with Lois at the Daily Planet for some time (before MoS), and then got a job at the CIA. Jimmy clearly knows Lois well, so he was sent on the mission in Africa with her.

Snyder's approach feels very much like what he did with Watchmen. There's a history there, it's just off screen. It's the same thing with Robin. Robin's dead, but it doesn't mean he was "thrown away".

I think people take the movie at face value and think "That's it?", but really, there's just more not in the film. I feel like that's the general problem with the movie for people. Everything needs to be spelled out.

What I'm HOPING will happen (but it probably won't), is that there is non-film media (animated series, comics, novels) that explore all this stuff that happened in the past like Star Wars. That would be cool as hell. Actually make an expanded universe that shows Jimmy's history with Lois before BvS, and so on.

But . . . the movie totally sucked bro, blah blah blah.

Snyder admitted they didn't know what to do with Jimmy. There is no fancy backstory. But keep making it up to justify this stuff.

 

[Steelsheen]

tbh i didnt even know Jimmy was there, and i only caught his name when the credits rolled. how many actually saw that eh? pretty sure it was a handful (at most) out of hundreds in the theater.

so since the name Jimmy Olsen wasnt spoken out loud and face matched for audience to see, i doubt this thing would stick.

 

[Rocketman]

I mean, this is Superman's sequel. It's his movie through and through. Not sure what the issue is. And Justice League will focus on the return of Superman. We've basically got a Superman Trilogy here with the Justice League supporting two of the films. We're at the point where "solo movies" are kind of irrelevant. That's not the ONLY way to do things for every character.

 

[Saint]

The thing is that we are never lead to believe that this is the "real" Jimmy Olsen.

Yes, there's no data one way or the other. I am only responding to your assertion that this is an inconsequential matter that people are seizing upon just because they want something to complain about.

 

[DieSmiling]

Maybe I'm losing my mind but I thought "Jenny" from the Daily Planet was a female Jimmy in Man of Steel?

 

[DerekLake]

I mean, this is Superman's sequel. It's his movie through and through. Not sure what the issue is. And Justice League will focus on the return of Superman. We've basically got a Superman Trilogy here with the Justice League supporting two of the films. We're at the point where "solo movies" are kind of irrelevant. That's not the ONLY way to do things for every character.

Well it's a Superman sequel that develops everyone but Superman and his plot thread.

 

[Harry Dresden]

This type of ignorance is why Snyder needs to be removed from the DCEU.

 

[Dotten]

They invisioned a Ned Stark-type impact/story, with Eisenberg in the part. They later changed it and reduced it to this.

I actually care little, Jimmy Olsen did not do much for the other films and he's not easy to insert in the film-medium (or TV-shows, he's kinda a drag in both Smallville (they killed him off) and Supergirl). And they had planned to make an "epic" twist. So in all fairness, they had intended to give the character some mojo.

Like most of the criticism this is overdoing it. The film has its issues, some major, but there are so much nitpicking it's getting insane.

 

[The Guard]

It's pretty clear this was thee original plan and it changed. He's not even mentioned by name in the film.

 

[craigaat]

Do you guys honestly think there's time for a proper fleshed out Jimmy Olsen character in this universe?

 

[The Guard]

Long term? Absolutely.

 

[DerekLake]

Do you guys honestly think there's time for a proper fleshed out Jimmy Olsen character in this universe?

It's called a Superman sequel. And he wouldn't have to be a fully fleshed out character. Just a three-dimensional background or supporting character. I'm even fine with a mature Jimmy Olsen.

But this is less about introducing Jimmy Olsen and more about introducing Jimmy Olsen just to kill him off. And calling that a "fun" thing to do. That mentality shows a profound disrespect for Superman's lore, and more importantly, Superman fans.

 

[TripleJ]

It's just a nod.

Honestly, fans are the only ones who can blow things like these out of proportion.

 

[The Guard]

It's really kind of pathetic.

 

[Plaidchuck]

Then don't put him in at all. Killing him off as an extra and calling it a nod is just stupid.

 

[DACrowe]

So Star Wars is a huge failure. Got it.

Star Wars never requires for you to read the EU. Even the bad ones (the prequels) never said you had to watch the Clone Wars to see General Grevious or read about Obi-Wan's youth.

Each Star Wars movie is fairly standalone with a beginning, middle, and end. Only in the last few years has that suddenly seemed like a novelty in fan communities like this one.

 

[Marvel Knight]

This type of ignorance is why Snyder needs to be removed from the DCEU.

He won't be. There's no hope for a Superman solo franchise now.

Especially with the lame Eisenberg version of Lex.

It's embarrassing.

 

[The Guard]

Then don't put him in at all. Killing him off as an extra and calling it a nod is just stupid.

Which is why they didn't name him in the film. They changed their mind.