Yellow Oval wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:29 pm
If WB/DC bases the character on the current version in the comics than this film will, like all the others (except WW), tank at the box office no matter who writes, produces, or directs. WB/DC are such a complete lost cause now. A perfect example of an exercise in incompetence if there ever was one.
Hardly tanking. The DCEU has earned nearly 4 billion at the box office, and Wonder Woman certainly is not responsible for all of that.
Earning is one thing. Cost is another. When you factor in the movie production costs, the promotion expenses which can be almost as much or more than the production costs, and the fact that in overseas markets the studio has to fork over a sizeable percentage of the box office profit to whatever given hosting country (China retains something like 45% of the box office take) then I would say most DC films didn't really do so hot.
Then there's interesting stuff like Black Panther's overseas foreign earnings. According to Boxofficemojo the film has earned $304 million as of this weekend, but when I actually added the totals I come into the neighborhood of only just over $173 million. Something doesn't jive. I also noted Disney won't give the production or promo cost for comparison.
I suspect he was not Olsen at all. You ever hear of a undercover agent? That would be the out WB could use to bring in the real deal. It does make sense.
But that doesn't make sense, his name is Jimmy Olsen isn't it? Why not just have someone else be an undercover agent? Or are you saying he's an imposter who looks just like Olsen? But that seems stupid too. What happened to the real one? And if they have an imposter Olsen do they know Superman is Clark Kent?
It's just an unnecessary complication. Olsen is Superman (and Clark's) friend, part of what helps keep him grounded and a good supporting cast member. Making him a government agent or an imposter government agent isn't good.
Maybe there's no real Jimmy Olsen at all in the DCEU. It's been a long time since I've seen Man Of Steel, but I want to say there was a cameo near the end by a character called "Jenny Olsen" or something, and the buzz was, "Hey, look, Jimmy's a girl, now."
Also, was Jimmy even mentioned by name in BvS? I thought it was only revealed that he was called that in the script notes or something.
"You were right again, Batman. We might have been killed."
"Or worse. Let's go..."
I confess I've only seen BvS all the way through once, and that was on the extended cut Blu-Ray, so I don't know what was in the actual film as released to theaters.
Anyway, I'd believe a CIA man using the name "James Olsen" before I'd believe the "real" Jimmy had a side-job as a spy. But it only works if Lois never met him before, since she seems clueless about the whole "cover" thing.
Given that the movie also doesn't feature what I'd consider the "real" Superman, Lois Lane, Batman or Luthor, though, I'm not too worried about it.
"You were right again, Batman. We might have been killed."
"Or worse. Let's go..."
SprangFan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:01 pm
Anyway, I'd believe a CIA man using the name "James Olsen" before I'd believe the "real" Jimmy had a side-job as a spy. But it only works if Lois never met him before, since she seems clueless about the whole "cover" thing.
Why even use the name though? I don't get it. But I think you're right, the film made Jimmy Olsen a government agent. Instead of photographer and friend, he doesn't really have any role to play and gets shot.
SprangFan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:01 pm
Given that the movie also doesn't feature what I'd consider the "real" Superman, Lois Lane, Batman or Luthor, though, I'm not too worried about it.
Ha ha! This is more than I've ever thought about that terrible movie. I agree, a bad interpretation is just that, there's other better versions out there to be enjoyed.
robinboyblunderer wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:33 pm
But that doesn't make sense, his name is Jimmy Olsen isn't it? Why not just have someone else be an undercover agent? Or are you saying he's an imposter who looks just like Olsen? But that seems stupid too. What happened to the real one? And if they have an imposter Olsen do they know Superman is Clark Kent?
It's just an unnecessary complication. Olsen is Superman (and Clark's) friend, part of what helps keep him grounded and a good supporting cast member. Making him a government agent or an imposter government agent isn't good.
No, I am saying his cover was Jimmy Olsen, not his real name, that could have been joe schmo or something. He was using the name as a ruse to gain access to the terrorist campground for his shadowy employer. Perhaps there is a real Jimmy around and now that Snyder is gone he will be seen in the next sequel.
TBolt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:25 pm
No, I am saying his cover was Jimmy Olsen, not his real name, that could have been joe schmo or something. He was using the name as a ruse to gain access to the terrorist campground for his shadowy employer. Perhaps there is a real Jimmy around and now that Snyder is gone he will be seen in the next sequel.
I went and looked it up and this is what I found. It was a stupid decision in my opinion and shows how they don't understand these characters.
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?
I think the fact that they think shooting someone in the head is "fun" tells you all you need to know about the DC films, and why Marvel's beating them all hollow.
On the other hand, it's interesting to see Eisenberg was almost Jimmy instead of Luthor. That's a change I could've lived with, swift demise included.
"You were right again, Batman. We might have been killed."
"Or worse. Let's go..."
