Supergirl Mehcad Brooks is Jimmy Olsen

[Kelly]

^ It's opinions like yours that make "fanboy-ism" a dirty word

Seriously? It's posts like these that lead to problems where there weren't any.

He gave his reasons for not liking the change and there was absolutely nothing in them that warranted this kind of reply.


Good grief people....chill out.

Just enjoy the fun ride of this series, and enjoy!

 

[5red]

Jeez, not that hard to grasp. IF James Bond, as played by Idris Elba, is written, directed and acted to behave like James Bond, good.

But, as was pointed out, that is very unlikely to happen. James Bond (as written) is a character from the upper classes, privately educated, from a land owning aristocratic family with an estate in Scotland. Idris Elba is never going to pass as a distant relative of the Queen, no matter how hard he tries. The whole point of Elba is that we might get a Bond who is less Martini and more Jack Daniels, possibly even with a working class London accent. In short, the reason people are excited about Elba is that he could potentially reinvent the character away from the original 1950s aristocratic version, in the same way that Brooks reinvents Jimmy Olsen away from the 1940s geeky version.

Things change, characters are re-imagined and re-purposed. You can't turn up to the Tim Burton Batman and expect Adam West style KA-POW!! ZAP!! bubbles to pop up whenever a punch is thrown.

The reason this Jimmy isn't your comicbook Jimmy, is because he's not in a comicbook..! It's the same reason why the Lou Ferrigno Hulk wasn't like the comics, why the Adam West Batman wasn't like the comics (at the time of broadcast, at least), why the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman wasn't like the comics... etc... etc...

[Edit:] I mean, when all said and done, it's Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen -- and that's exactly what we're getting. It's just that we're getting Superman's Pal from the 2010s, not the 1940s. If you want the comicbook (1940s) version... he's in the comicbook..!

R5

 

[superboy13]

No one is arguing for Mehcad's immediate removal from the show. My wife would be quite upset if I did. I think it's terrific that they cast a charming African American actor as the romantic lead in a network superhero program. I just prefer that they didn't call said character "Jimmy Olsen".

Bingo.

He's 6'4" and it helps me.....

Ha! Okay, I went for generic leading man height. But that's even more of an argument for me than against me, Jimmy is taller than Superman! (EDIT: The very reliable celebheights.com lists him as 6'3", though so I guess I'm only one inch shorter than Jimmy!)

But, as was pointed out, that is very unlikely to happen. James Bond (as written) is a character from the upper classes, privately educated, from a land owning aristocratic family with an estate in Scotland. Idris Elba is never going to pass as a distant relative of the Queen, no matter how hard he tries. The whole point of Elba is that we might get a Bond who is less Martini and more Jack Daniels, possibly even with a working class London accent. In short, the reason people are excited about Elba is that he could potentially reinvent the character away from the original 1950s aristocratic version,

See, this is just you moving the goalposts. You're using a hypothetical casting choice and making up how he'll be written and/or directed. The analogy doesn't work at all.

in the same way that Brooks reinvents Jimmy Olsen away from the 1940s geeky version.

And the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s... see the trend?

Things change, characters are re-imagined and re-purposed. You can't turn up to the Tim Burton Batman and expect Adam West style KA-POW!! ZAP!! bubbles to pop up whenever a punch is thrown.

Yet you can still tell that both are Bruce Wayne. Here? Not so much. It's very obvious that the creative forces behind the show are capitalizing on a known brand with connections to Superman, but very intentionally designed the character to be as far removed from Jimmy Olsen as possible - the name, the clothes, the physique, the attitude, the job. Everything.

The reason this Jimmy isn't your comicbook Jimmy, is because he's not in a comicbook..! It's the same reason why the Lou Ferrigno Hulk wasn't like the comics, why the Adam West Batman wasn't like the comics (at the time of broadcast, at least), why the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman wasn't like the comics... etc... etc...

[Edit:] I mean, when all said and done, it's Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen -- and that's exactly what we're getting. It's just that we're getting Superman's Pal from the 2010s, not the 1940s. If you want the comicbook (1940s) version... he's in the comicbook..!

R5

We're not getting "Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen" and that's the whole point - we're getting leading man, James Olsen, art director.

 

[Kelly]

I'm not really debating with you on the merits of why he was cast, and why they were correct.

I'm just happy with his work on the series and that is all that matters to me.

 

[superboy13]

I'm not really debating with you on the merits of why he was cast, and why they were correct.

I'm just happy with his work on the series and that is all that matters to me.

Yeah, I get that. I'm not saying people shouldn't like him in the role or the character. In fact, I like the work the guy put in the pilot, it's the showrunners take on the character that I don't care for.

 

[5red]

See, this is just you moving the goalposts. You're using a hypothetical casting choice and making up how he'll be written and/or directed. The analogy doesn't work at all.

Sure, Elba is just a hypothetical (based on fan comment) -- but why does it make it invalid for the purposes of this argument?

Brooks' casting has changed some fundamentals of the original 1940s Jimmy, and Elba (if cast) would require some changes to fundamentals of the original 1950s Bond. Why would one be okay, and not the other?

And the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s... see the trend?

Erm, nope. Go get yourself some back issues of Jimmy Olsen from the 1960s, or his Superman Family run. He throws more punches and kicks more butt than Brooks is likely to do in the tv series. Even when Jimmy guested in the Superman comic itself during the 1970s, he is older, more self assured, and streetwise, than the character you think he is now.

Yet you can still tell that both are Bruce Wayne.

Seriously? Have you ever watched the Adam West Batman ?!??!!! It is slightly different to the Schwartz/Infantino comicbook of that era, y'know.

Look, if you don't like Mehcad Brooks because you don't like him as an actor, then that's fine.

But not liking him because he doesn't fit with the current rendition of the comicbook Jimmy is a bit silly, IMHO. Firstly, tv/movies have a history of re-intention to suit their own need -- so by your own standards you'd have to criticise a lot of classic stuff like The Incredible Hulk, Batman, Wonder Woman (which shifted the character back 30 years in time) ... And the original Helen Slater Supergirl wouldn't even get a look in, given that it was different in almost every way to any version of the character up until that point.

Secondly, the Jimmy Olsen character hasn't always been the geeky character you think he is. He has been re-invented over the decades to suit different tastes and purposes. The Julius Schwartz era cast him more as an investigative journalist action hero than the geeky character popularised during the radio series era.

So, sure, you can say you don't like Mehcad Brooks -- fine. But you can't claim there has been a single consistent Jimmy Olsen for all time, because there hasn't. And really, if you're going to complain that tv is messing with your favourite comicbook characters, you probably shouldn't watch any tv superhero show ever...!

(And for heaven's sake, don't Google "1967 Wonder Woman Pilot"... or your head might explode!)

[Edit: Or indeed 1974 Wonder Woman pilot. Or indeed 2011 Wonder Woman pilot.]

Nice debating with ya'. Thanks for your comment.

R5

 

[metaphysician]

As I understand it, Jimmy didn't become a complete wet noodle until after Crisis, when essentially Lois and Jimmy swapped status as "action reporter" and "in distress".

 

[5red]

As I understand it, Jimmy didn't become a complete wet noodle until after Crisis, when essentially Lois and Jimmy swapped status as "action reporter" and "in distress".

Yeah, that's probably a good assessment.

Originally, in the 1940s and 1950s, he was youthful, brave, and enthusiastic, and sometimes prone to getting himself in a jam. He was a bit like a younger brother to Superman's big brother. This is the version we all remember from the radio show, and the George Reeves tv show.

By the 1960s, when Jimmy and Lois both had their own comics, Lois' adventures were largely wacky gimmick-based stories to do with her as a reporter, and romance stories to do with Superman. Jimmy's stories were more about his adventures as a junior investigative photo journalist, plus some relationship woes with Lucy.

In the 1970s, once Mort Weisinger was gone as Superman editor, Jimmy became a little older (it seemed) and pretty handy in a fist fight. Superman had become less of a feature in his adventures by now, and (IIRC) the signal watch was quietly dropped.

By the late 1970s and 1980s he was quite mature in his personality, and an experienced photographer -- more like Superman's best friend than his enthusiastic younger brother. In some ways this is the version that is closest to Mehcad Brooks' James Olsen.

R5

 

[ARBH]

I have just learned that different medium will have different takes on the character. I have no issues with Mechad Brooks as Jimmy (James) Olsen. It is not like they cast him to play Supergirl. It is tough to get a grasp of what to expect from him in the pilot. We know he is there to help Kara become the hero she was destined to be. It is also safe to assume he will be a love interest. Other than that, it does not matter to me. I get it that comic purists will have issues. But they will have to come to terms and accept that the comic universe and the tv universe of these characters do no need to mirror each other. The different entities can stand on their own.

 

[Kelly]

I have just learned that different medium will have different takes on the character. I have no issues with Mechad Brooks as Jimmy (James) Olsen. It is not like they cast him to play Supergirl. It is tough to get a grasp of what to expect from him in the pilot. We know he is there to help Kara become the hero she was destined to be. It is also safe to assume he will be a love interest. Other than that, it does not matter to me. I get it that comic purists will have issues. But they will have to come to terms and accept that the comic universe and the tv universe of these characters do no need to mirror each other. The different entities can stand on their own.

Well said...

 

[Dr.]

Originally, in the 1940s and 1950s, he was youthful, brave, and enthusiastic, and sometimes prone to getting himself in a jam. He was a bit like a younger brother to Superman's big brother. This is the version we all remember from the radio show, and the George Reeves tv show.

And arguably, even this “classic version” of young Jimmy only makes sense in terms of Clark/Superman’s early years at the Daily Planet. But in the Supergirl iteration, Clark/Supes is ~36 - and has, apparently, been active for ~12 years. Likewise, Jimmy has been a professional photographer at a big city newspaper for about the same duration. So “realistically,” he would have - quite naturally - matured out of his awkward, “Golly, Mr. White!” phase.

 

[DrCosmic]

Stupid Dr. Cosmic. Stupid stupid stupid.

You thought you were going to come in and discuss an awesome new character on network television. You thought people would be discussing his position in the mythos, this idea of a grown up Jimmy versus a nerdy teen. You thought you were going to discuss something other than his skin color. You thought you were going to come onto a comic book forum where a person's race had been updated for 2015 and that it would be possible to discuss anything else.

I understand the desire to keep racial division intact by having non-whites play new characters and the original characters to remain white as was necessary in all things important in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s. I get it. But when we say that we are literally saying that all the important characters have to remain white. A Todd Jackson character can't play the same role as Mechad Brooks' Jimmy Olsen. He can't be the guy who was in Superman's Inner Circle for years because Todd Jackson is a new made up black guy who is less important, useful and relevant than Jimmy Olsen.

So when tv producers are faced with the choice of making a cast which is white by virtue of 1940s racism and a cast that is diverse because of the little bit of progress we've made in treating all humans equally since then I hope they always choose diversifying the cast.

When TV producers are hiring a black actor for their awesomeness for an established fandom and are faced with casting them as a brand new inherently less important character and an important character to the mythos that isn't essentially Caucasian (Norse like Thor, French like Ducard, German like ) I hope they make the black person important instead of keeping unimportant because that's the way it was in the 40s.

--------

I love this show and this character makes it sing. The way he comes in with that confidence is sooo awesome, and the idea that our little Jimmy grew up to be this awesome savvy dude is sooooo cool to me. I really love this character and this performance is about as charismatic as I've ever seen on a TV show. I feel all heartwarmed and stuff. Melissa is definitely carrying this show, but Mechad gives her much more to bounce off of than anyone else.

 

[super85]

I find it pathetically weak that Hollywood still struggles to create awesome new cool characters that are not white men. Instead they use a known comic book characters name and make that character black. Its lazy. I mean "Arrow" created Diggle and that's a cool original character that has even been introduced in the comics now.

As for this interpretation of the character? I guess the actor is pretty good, I just don't think he has shown anything fantastic yet, at least he isn't written as annoyingly as Calista Flockhart's "Cat Grant".

 

[BH/HHH]

I really like this guy and his version of James Olsen. I for one don't think we need to see every character been portrayed the same ways over and over.

 

[Infinight888]

I could forgive the fact he looks nothing like Jimmy Olsen if he acted even remotely like the character...

I could forigve the fact that he neither looks nor acts like Jimmy Olsen if he was at least a well-written character... He's just not interesting, though. He's charismatic, sure, and Mechad Brooks seems like a good actor... But there doesn't seem to be anything more to his character than helping Kara become more of a hero... Maybe I just need to be more patient, but so far, there's nothing to make me care about James.

 

[Boy Scout]

To be fair, we're only two episodes in. We've only scratched the surface of his character.

 

[Kelly]

The 2nd episode made me a James fan....his and Kara's balcony scene where he begins to open up was fantastic. It was written well, acted well, all around excellent scene to really set up who James is, and where he is coming from...I loved it.

 

[Infinight888]

To be fair, we're only two episodes in. We've only scratched the surface of his character.

True. Which is why I said I might just need to be more patient. But I just have zero investment in him at the moment...

 

[The Guard]

I just figure it's post-Turtle Boy/Elastic Lad Jimmy Olsen.

 

[Boy Scout]

True. Which is why I said I might just need to be more patient. But I just have zero investment in him at the moment...

How did you feel about his conversation with Kara after Cat threatened to fire him? I thought it did a good job of both explaining who he was and giving the audience insight into who he wants to be.

 

[zenith16]

lol Yooooooo I just came across this via CBR


Comic Book Resources

13 hrs ·





What hero would you like to see transformed by Bizarro Red Kryptonite?




The Line It Is Drawn: Bizarro Red Kryptonite Transformations!
Bizarro Red Kryptonite is spreading throughout the multiverse, resulting in some bizarre transformations, like Squirrel Girl becoming Girl-Squirrel!
COMIC BOOK RESOURCES

Jimmy Olsen
​

John Trumbull apparently inspired Xum to make this suggestion (Xum wanted to make sure he got his due credit), so John decided to make a special guest appearance this week to draw this one. Here is his website.
​

 

[TyBig]

Lol

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That's brilliant.

 

[Mysteryman]

I really like this guy and his version of James Olsen. I for one don't think we need to see every character been portrayed the same ways over and over.

Bingo.

 

[Loki882]

It's been heavily implied that he used to be more like "classic" Jimmy. But YEARS of being around/learning from Superman (combined with getting older/more experienced) has inspired him to be more mature, confident, and sure of himself. Which is a perfectly valid avenue to take the character imo. Also, it speaks really highly of Clark's character as well.

Oh and as an aside, I continue to be impressed with how much natural chemistry Brooks and Benoist have. It doesn't matter if they're just talking to each other, flirting, being confidantes, or heck even arguing. They just play off of each other really well.