BvS Jimmy Olson (spoilers)

[DACrowe]

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

As long as Zack Snyder is in charge? Absolutely not. But then again, he is a man who has made two Superman movies where Kal-El and Lois Lane are less developed than Alfred and Jim Gordon in Nolan's first Batman movie. And that would be funny if it were not true.

 

[Orba]

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

Except Snyder has said that the R rated release will have a longer version of the scene where he does name himself.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

It's not just about whether or not this is the "real" Jimmy Olsen. It's about the principle, and the thought-process Snyder goes through for these movies. He think's Jimmy Olsen getting shot in the head is a cool easter egg for the fans.

 

[Mysteryman]

When you say 'it's looking like', where does this come from?

I'd be really disappointed if this is true

I believe Clark will be back.
There was a lot of chaos on that day ,it would be easy for someone to be wrongly presumed dead.
Have faith, all will be well.

 

[DerekLake]

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

He's listed in the end credits as Jimmy Olsen. I'm quite sure that counts.

 

[Mysteryman]

I thought that he was listed as Henry James Olson.

 

[Enriquespy]

I didn't knew he was Jimmy until I saw it on tvtropes.

 

[The Guard]

This clearly does not actually have to be Jimmy. They left themselves an out.

 

[Dotten]

It's not just about whether or not this is the "real" Jimmy Olsen. It's about the principle, and the thought-process Snyder goes through for these movies. He think's Jimmy Olsen getting shot in the head is a cool easter egg for the fans.

In all fairness (since so many is on default to interpret everything Snyder says in the worst possible way):

As far as I understood it he talked about a Ned Stark-type arch for Jimmy Olsen. That is quite an honor.

But as he stated, there just was no time to fullfill the initial plan. So they compressed into this quick shot of him getting killed. But just imagening his backstory as a CIA-agent? That's kind of awesome.

People going bat**** crazy over it just adds to the pedantic mindset of a loud crowd. It even undermines the more sane criticism of the film.

 

[samsnee]

It's not just about whether or not this is the "real" Jimmy Olsen. It's about the principle, and the thought-process Snyder goes through for these movies. He think's Jimmy Olsen getting shot in the head is a cool easter egg for the fans.

This, a hundred times this. Of all the problems in this movie that could have been given more thought to expand upon and make clearer, they took time out to think about Olsen and came up with a solution to literally just shoot him in the head so fans wouldn't keep asking when he'd show up later.

 

[Light]

I didn't knew he was Jimmy until I saw it on tvtropes.

Same here, which is an absolute travesty. Jimmy Olsen is an intricate part of Superman Lore, love him or hate him he is part of that story and for him to be nothing more than fodder is disgraceful.

 

[The Guard]

If they're not going to use him anyway, and they give him a hero's death, how is that disgraceful?

 

[Marvel Knight]

If they're not going to use him anyway, and they give him a hero's death, how is that disgraceful?

Probably because they should have used Jimmy, and used him properly. Snyder has treated Superman and it's characters in a really terrible fashion. From the rushed Doomsday arc with no emotional investment (and his reasons for killing off Superman in interviews were bogus), to the terrible version of Lex Luthor, to the joyless and wooden Superman... the list goes on.

Snyder doesn't get Superman, and neither does WB.

 

[Drifting]

I can't believe how many people are upset about Jimmy freaking Olsen, the most annoying character in Superman mythos... lol

I'm more than okay with it.

 

[Light]

If they're not going to use him anyway, and they give him a hero's death, how is that disgraceful?

It's for the sake of killing of a character Snyder deems irrelevant, yet he plays a part in the lore of a character he claims to get. That female intern should never have been present in the first place in MOS and that role should have been Jimmy Olsen as that intern role was redundant and didn't add much to the story. They could have established the character of Olsen and shown that they were treating the Superman Lore with reverence.

 

[Light]

I can't believe how many people are upset about Jimmy freaking Olsen, the most annoying character in Superman mythos... lol

I'm more than okay with it.

To me it stems from the fact he does not respect the characters, don't be surprised if he kills off Gordon in Justice League.

 

[Drifting]

To me it stems from the fact he does not respect the characters, don't be surprised if he kills off Gordon in Justice League.

He wasn't missed in BvS and we had four movies where he was useless before Nolan trilogy.. lol

 

[The Guard]

Probably because they should have used Jimmy, and used him properly. Snyder has treated Superman and it's characters in a really terrible fashion. From the rushed Doomsday arc with no emotional investment (and his reasons for killing off Superman in interviews were bogus), to the terrible version of Lex Luthor, to the joyless and wooden Superman... the list goes on.

Snyder doesn't get Superman, and neither does WB.

So people can whine about the films being even more overstuffed?

I'm not even going to address the rest of your hyperbolic rant.

 

[Light]

He wasn't missed in BvS and we had four movies where he was useless before Nolan trilogy.. lol

He wasn't senselessly killed for the sake of being killed though was he?t:

 

[The Guard]

It's for the sake of killing of a character Snyder deems irrelevant, yet he plays a part in the lore of a character he claims to get. That female intern should never have been present in the first place in MOS and that role should have been Jimmy Olsen as that intern role was redundant and didn't add much to the story. They could have established the character of Olsen and shown that they were treating the Superman Lore with reverence.

A. This is assumes that this THE Jimmy Olsen and that there's no chance of ever seeing him in the future just because he doesn't figure in plans right now. It is heavily implied that it may not be, in dialogue and context, and that it is in fact just a nod.

B. The intern? She didn't HAVE a role. She had like a minute and a half worth of screentime. That's what you want for Jimmy.

 

[Marvel Knight]

So people can whine about the films being even more overstuffed?

I'm not even going to address the rest of your hyperbolic rant.

Hardly hyperbolic when the critics agree with me, and the cinemascore for this film is low.. mean bad WOM is coming.

The film didn't need to be overstuffed. Good writing and direction can effectively cater to an ensemble cast. The DCeU films just lack that.

 

[Dotten]

Why not kill of Gordon? Or anyone else for that matter.

Daredevil-example:

Spoiler

I absolutely love Ben Urich, but them killing him of in the fantastic first season of Daredevil?

That told me that nobody is safe.

Something Marvel has yet to tell us in their 15+ movies (Quicksilver. Anyone else?). And DC too, because we all know Superman is coming back.

There needs to be casualties and they need to be - at a minimum - of some importance. If not, the story looses something important. We should be sitting on the edge of our seats knowing that _no one_ - is safe.

Both DC and Marvel needs their Ned Stark-moments. It will elevate them to the next level.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

What Snyder did to Jimmy Olsen was so bad. He waste one of best Superman characters.

 

[Light]

A. This is assumes that this THE Jimmy Olsen and that there's no chance of ever seeing him in the future just because he doesn't figure in plans right now. It is heavily implied that it may not be, in dialogue and context, and that it is in fact just a nod.

B. The intern? She didn't HAVE a role. She had like a minute and a half worth of screentime. That's what you want for Jimmy.

Addressing point A: I wasn't aware it was Jimmy Olsen until I found out online from others stating Snyder confirmed it. If I am wrong I apologise whole heartedly and have perhaps jumped the gun but from what is going around that was in fact Jimmy Olsen.

Addressing point B: I am saying it made more sense for him to be present than to be completely dismissed only to be killed off in a non Superman sequel. Having no screen time with Perry,Steve or Clark. Hell call me a purist if you want but I would have liked the whole gang there including Cat Grant.

 

[Light]

Why not kill of Gordon? Or anyone else for that matter.

Daredevil-example:

Spoiler

I absolutely love Ben Urich, but them killing him of in the fantastic first season of Daredevil?

That told me that nobody is safe.

Something Marvel has yet to tell us in their 15+ movies (Quicksilver. Anyone else?). And DC too, because we all know Superman is coming back.

There needs to be casualties and they need to be - at a minimum - of some importance. If not, the story looses something important. We should be sitting on the edge of our seats knowing that _no one_ - is safe.

Both DC and Marvel needs their Ned Stark-moments. It will elevate them to the next level.

[BLACKOUT]Ben Urich was established and died for a noble cause, his death resonated with audience members and reaffirmed the villany of Kingpin. It made sense and I could see why the writers went with that as his arc seemed to be complete.[/BLACKOUT]

**HEY DUDE....WHEN SOMEONE PUTS A SPOILER IN SPOILER TAGS....THAT MEANS IT IS A SPOILER THAT NEEDS TO BE SPOILER TAGGED...SO TRY PUTTING YOUR REPLY ABOUT THAT SPOILER IN A SPOILER TAG NEXT TIME YOU TALK ABOUT THAT SPOILER**