@Jmellox81 - Olé!

@Kman - Is really bad and stupid screen writing, is taking one of the most incredible characters of the Superman Lore and using it like a Plot Device, only because they wanted to.

Because at the end, anybody could have been that character, some stupid CIA agent, some guy. But no, for some reason they choose it was a good reason to made Jimmy Jones dat character?

Why?

At right, because they are bad writers, bad directors and really shitty creators...

@AleSir19 @Kman - If you wanna look at a filmmaker's intentions, look at the details. I honestly think Zack Snyder was trying to make a point by killing who is often considered a campy comic book character. "This isn't your daddy's Superman. See? We killed Jimmy Olsen!" He just didn't expect that people don't like when classic characters are shot in the face after saying 2 lines. Either that or he thought fans would appreciate the easter egg. Either way he was way off.

@GuardianAngel - yeah you're exactly right with the "this ain't your daddy's superman" bit.

But that's the problem. That is [frick]ing disrespectful as [frick] to the superman fans. I'm more of a batman fan myself, but for zack to do that shows he really doesn't care about the comics at all.

Piece of shit director. I don't even care about jimmy, he just has to find another way to piss off fans because he's "edgy".

@GuardianAngel - I think it was more that to fully move into what will be the core narrative in JL, there is no need for Clark Kent. So erase those connections to Kent and kill the alter ego. I'm down. And did Snyder write and edit the flick? I cant remember.

@scapegoatjones - As the film's director, he has chief creative control over both of those aspects. If he thought shooting Jimmy in the head was a bad idea, he could've stopped it.

@GuardianAngel - and in regards to the film's editing you feel that Brenner's editing and wanting to appease WB's want for a shorter more homoginized version of the film was more Snyder's decision also I assume. I'm fine with Olsen being dead btw.

@GuardianAngel - lol perhaps I could get an internship snapping the clapperboard in one of your films? j/k I don't give a shit about that. any involvement in film that I've had has been camera/aesthetic work, and I feel Snyder nailed the tone that many people are complaining about. I love the dark, graphic, contrasty look (which is the most comic book like with all of the heightened definition) and tbh its probably for the best that he took that route and played to his strength or we'd be hemming and hawing over how he copied Marvel but making everything look saturated and saccharine. I think that you're underplaying the well established difference or goal between Snyder and WB as well. Snyder wanted to do a dark Braveheart length homage to Bat and Supes that was a more modernized and nuanced approach to the dynamic associated with a brawler vigilante and an alien and their relationship to the current world. WB wanted him to make his version of the Avengers, which I'm glad he didn't do. Certainly I agree that biggest flaw was the casting of Lex. I somehow have to think that in hopes of doing a completely different Lex he went with a lesser served representation of the character from the comics. I do however feel that he will redeem the selection in JL or another follow up film where the inspiration for the casting becomes more apparent with the continuation of his character's narrative. Not unlike how the massive destruction of the fictional city Metropolis was a central plot point in BvS.

@GuardianAngel - I still don't understand how the Jimmy Olson was killed. Seems like it was a CIA guy posing as a Jimmy O., the photographer who we never even saw. Just seems weird overall if that was actually Jimmy Olson who now happened to be a CIA agent and has never met Clark Kent.

@GuardianAngel - @ALostCause @scapegoatjones @Knightrider @Kman @rsahadi

I dont really have a problem with DC/Warner or Marvel killing iconic characters, if they have a coherent reason to do it and if the story needs it.

For example, Zack Snyder and David Goyer craft such a shitty Superman that in order to make him some kind of relatable, they need him to fight Batman (a vigilante) and later sacrifice himself in order to be a hero.

That in some way made sense, even if they build himself into that trouble.

But killing Jimmy Jones, dont make any sense, because again IS A [frick]ING PLOT DEVICE!

If you need a CIA undercover Agent to die, then do it, but it really dont make any sense to make that character Jimmy Jones, because at the end you are killing Jimmy because you want it. Not because the story is asking, please kill Jimmy!

Even worst, i would enjoy even more they made the guy in the weelchair Jimmy Jones and that at the end he was kill by Lex Luthor, that would have been a perfect reason to kill Jimmy and at the end would be sad and relatable.

But kill him for the sake of a plot device is just mediocre, lazy and stupid writing. Because at the end, we need more people around Clark Kent, he is so alone, he only have Lois and is like, what about friends? What about social life?

This guy is only alone and with his girlfriend all the time?

Is like "The Force Awakens", where "The Starkiller Base" was a McGuffin and did look like a huge Plot Device. In the beginning, when i saw the movie i thank, shit, the Starkiller Base could have been anything...

From an old desert planet with a Jedi Temple, to some weapon in the space.

But today i understand a little bit more why "The First Order" create the Starkiller Base and why. It doesnt forgive the fact is still a really obvious callback to the first and third movie.

But it makes sense now, that i understand we where seeing an "In Media-Res" story, with The Republic making a Peace Teatry with the Remanents of the Empire.

And with Leia and other Senators forming "The Resistance" like a way to take the back, the remanent systems control by the now call "First Order".

Who after years building this secret weapon, decides to destroy the Republic, killing all the senators and the chancellor, taking back the Empire.

So now Episode 8, has to explain what happen 35 years before, what happen with the Political System and what are this old Jedi and Sith miths they are putting into the story.

So yes now, it makes sense, The Force Awakens in some way is "Revenge of the Sith" only that we never saw it coming. They destroy the Republic and now they only have to take it back.

@AleSir19 - also I think this version of Supes is more than appropriate for this modern world that they are all cast in. I'm not from the 50s so the unbridled general acceptance of an alien becoming this symbol of the American Way wouldn't make any sense. his darkness is a resultant of his attempt at persistent patience with a world that 1/2 of which dont understand him, and the other 1/2 dont accept him. also killing Olsen is a way of vaulting past the necessity of Kent. the shit the JL will have to deal with will likely not give way for an opportunity to pay tribute to or include some of the Kent associated characters like OLSEN and Perry, although obv Lois will still be involved.