Jimmy Olsen is now JENNY Olsen in Man of Steel?

[jackdaw53]

You could swap him out for a chick and not change a single thing about his friendship with Clark, Superman, or the job at the Planet or anything else. His romantic involvements have been fleeting and relatively few, and none of them overly important to the mythos in general, sexuality has never been a primary character trait.

.....

Honestly, Im more pissed that Jimmy/Jenny might not be a redhead. That, to me, is a far more important character trait here than gender. Jimmy/Jenny is a redhead, gods damn it! Always has been and thats how our Founding Fathers and god and Obama and Spider-Man and Siegel and Shuster meant it to be!! And how dare Snyder possibly maybe not-likely-but-its-fun-to-talk-about cast some brunette chick in the role! If high end CGI isnt used to fix the color of Jimmy/Jenny's hair and make the actor/actress a ginger there's gonna be hell to pay!!

Interesting view that hair colour is more important than gender in character issues. (Most seem to regard gender as more important... especially in picking lovers.)

Seriously... you're right. You could switch Jimmy to Jenny with no real story impact in a modern Superman story. But what would be point?? If you're going to do it, I'd argue it makes more sense to do it to try something something different... maybe, for example, make Lois just a tad jealous/ suspicious of Clark/ Jenny relationship.

[Darth Joker]

If this turns out to be true.....whatever.

Seriously, why is this even a thing?

Im as big a Superman fan as it gets (without overstepping into the creepy end of the pool) and even I dont care about this. Jimmy's gender isnt a point of interest or a core aspect of his character.

I disagree. It ties in directly to the whole idea behind his character.

Superman = The Main Character
Lex Luthor = Superman's Arch-Enemy
Lois Lane = Superman's Girlfriend (even a comic itself titled this)
Jimmy Olsen = Superman's Pal (even a comic itself titled this)
Perry White = Superman's Boss (when Superman is Clark Kent)

A strong case can be made that these five make up the core of Superman's world (at least in Metropolis), and that these characters are set-up so that Superman has relationship dynamics that people can easily and quickly relate to (romantic longing and eventual romance = Lois Lane; pal, buddy, bro, "sidekick" at times = Jimmy Olsen; enemy = Lex Luthor; boss, "guy I have to answer to at my place of work" = Perry White).

Its not like he walks around proudly announcing "Hey everyone! I have a penis! Isnt it grand!!"

You could swap him out for a chick and not change a single thing about his friendship with Clark, Superman, or the job at the Planet or anything else.

Much, much easier said than done. How many male/female friendships in fiction felt like two bros to you? How many didn't have even an ounce of sexual tension? Don't you think it's good for Superman to have someone in his immediate world that offers a "male bonding" friendship for him?

QFT

Someone asked what this supposed gender change brings to the table.

The answer? Almost nothing. The only thing this gender switch brings, if it turns out to be true at all, is a little more diversity in Superman's world.

How does it bring more diversity? It's not like Lois Lane is the only female character of note in Superman's world. There's also Cat Grant. In Smallville, there's Chloe. There's no real need to turn Jimmy female if this is just about having more female characters of note in the movie. Turning Jimmy female arguably lowers the diversity in Superman's world by removing a "male bonding" option.

[zryson]

I think its just more proof that this film will be very different to any other Superman movie. I think WB are basically just throwing as much out there and hoping audiences will like it. I think they are prettty much desperate at this point because WB didnt gross as much as they wanted with SR and they gave audiences what they probably figured was as close to the Reeve Superman movies as possible. And that didnt work so now they are going about it completely differently and hoping the strategy will work. I'm pretty much expecting lots of big battles and lots of action but that the script might not be as compelling.

[Free-Man]

Okay, does Man of Steel potentially changing Jimmy Olsen into "Jenny Olsen" seem like a "change for change sake?" Sure. However, as been pointed out, this is an adaptation of a comic book and it's not as if comic book movies haven't done significant alterations to various superhero franchises. After all, the original Spider-Man trilogy and the Amazing Spider-Man had Mary Jane and Gwen as the first love interest respectively and that Peter knew them in high school. Jarvis in the Iron Man films isn't a butler but an Artificial Intelligence created by Tony Stark. The character of Rachel Dawes was exclusively created for the The Dark Knight Trilogy. Phil Coulson was also exclusively created for the Marvel movies, and Harley Quinn was originally created for the Batman Animated series. In short, it happens all the time. And who knows? Maybe it could be revealed in Man of Steel that Jenny actually has a younger brother named Jimmy?

Shh. Don't bring logic or examples into this. We need a true 100 percent adaptation of the comics! Page for page! Panel for panel!

[Nyssane]

It wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't always just the supporting characters getting their races or genders changed for an adaption.

[Free-Man]

It wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't always just the supporting characters getting their races or genders changed for an adaption.

That's because Hollywood is never going to make a movie about a black Superman. Period. So they diversify the supporting cast because they're lesser known and the movie doesn't hinge on them. And even then you still have people whining about them making Perry White or Nick Fury black but obviously that's really just the internet.

[Mecegirl]

This potential change doesn't offend me. In fact I'm willing to wait until the movie comes out to judge it.

The media tends to play things up when it comes to male and female friendships. I guess they feel that have to include some form of conflict to make things interesting. But as far as comic book characters and platonic relationships go it isn't impossible. Let us not forget the greatest platonic friendship of all times(no matter how much DC wants us to).

[Lexrules]

This potential change doesn't offend me. In fact I'm willing to wait until the movie comes out to judge it.

The media tends to play things up when it comes to male and female friendships. I guess they feel that have to include some form of conflict to make things interesting. But as far as comic book characters and platonic relationships go it isn't impossible. Let us not forget the greatest platonic friendship of all times(no matter how much DC wants us to).

We all know that didn't turn out well...

[Mecegirl]

Oh the marriage tanked, and much else besides, but Dick supported Donna through the entire journey.

[The Scarlet Sapien]

Jamie would have been a better name choice imio

[ascended]

I disagree. It ties in directly to the whole idea behind his character.

How many male/female friendships in fiction felt like two bros to you? How many didn't have even an ounce of sexual tension? Don't you think it's good for Superman to have someone in his immediate world that offers a "male bonding" friendship for him?

How does it bring more diversity? It's not like Lois Lane is the only female character of note in Superman's world. There's also Cat Grant. In Smallville, there's Chloe. There's no real need to turn Jimmy female if this is just about having more female characters of note in the movie. Turning Jimmy female arguably lowers the diversity in Superman's world by removing a "male bonding" option.

Isnt the whole idea of Jimmy's character "friends with Superman" ? I am fairly certain the character does not need to be a dude for that. In fact, I would say that Jimmy's relationship with Clark has more often been that of student/mentor, hero/sidekick, celebrity/fan, big sibling/little sibling, moreso than bro's and peers. Therefore, Jimmy's gender matters even less to the traditional relationship he has with Clark. The idea that the two of them could be friends of equal standing is actually a fairly recent addition to the mythology.

As for friendships in fiction that felt like two bros? As I understand it, we're not talking about all of fiction, we're talking about this one movie. And an example was already listed above with Grayson and Troy anyway. That example didnt take long for someone to come up with, and it didnt even have to move too far away from the genre in question.

As for whether or not Clark needs a male bonding friendship in his inner circle, yes I think that role should be filled. But thats not to say it *has* to be filled in *this* movie, or if it is, it doesnt *have* to be Jimmy. It seems that Clark's relationship with his fathers plays a large role in the overall story. That might be enough.

As for Cat Grant, it seems that she isnt going to be a player in this film, or if so, she's going to be a very very very minor character. And Chloe is from a completely different take on the mythos and I'm more than willing to bet next month's rent she wont appear at all. Seriously, she showed up in one television series and a couple of back-ups in Action. She's not a player. Gangbuster has more cred than Chloe.

This isnt about diversity within the franchise (which it certainly has). This is about diversity within this one movie. The rest of the franchise doesnt mean a thing to this film beyond the name recognition Superman already brings. And if, for whatever reason, the brilliant minds that brought us the much-loved Dark Knight films think that Jimmy should be a chick here, who am I to argue? I think they've more than earned a little faith. And yes, Nolan's people were involved in the casting so this cant even be placed upon the weak link that is Zakk Snyder.

And this of course, is all dependent upon the presumed fact that we are indeed looking at a female Jimmy. We might not be. This is a rumor, and some people are taking it for truth. This could be a billion different things, and none of them might be Jimmy Olsen. This might be absolutely nothing more than an intern character with two lines of dialogue in the whole film who doesnt even warrant a name.

But people, you all better prepare yourselves for a very different Superman movie, regardless of Jimmy's sex. Its been said from the start that this is a new take on the character, and the trailer confirms it. Have you noticed the pebbles floating into the air when Clark takes off into the sky? That alone denotes a change in his traditional powerset that is, Im sure, going to set some people to rage.

Someone posted a quote wherein it was said Superman has reached that level of cultural saturation where many different versions of his story can be told, much like Robin Hood and King Arthur and Tarzan. This is true, and as was said in that quote, its something to be happy about. This is not going to be a exact translation of the comics. It shouldnt be. If you want it to be, you're going to be disappointed. Make your peace with it, or, as a cartoon Superboy once said, Get out of the way.

[ascended]

Interesting view that hair colour is more important than gender in character issues. (Most seem to regard gender as more important... especially in picking lovers.)

Seriously... you're right. You could switch Jimmy to Jenny with no real story impact in a modern Superman story. But what would be point?? If you're going to do it, I'd argue it makes more sense to do it to try something something different... maybe, for example, make Lois just a tad jealous/ suspicious of Clark/ Jenny relationship.

Okay, I was going for sarcasm in that post. Maybe I went too under the wave. But, honestly, yeah, I think Jimmy should be a ginger, regardless of gender. But its all about the core of the character. If the spirit of who/what they are is upheld, I will accept just about any change to the window dressing. And in this particular case, Jimmy's gender is window dressing. It doesnt, and never has, mattered to the mythos. So its something you can change without endangering the integrity of the whole.

As for changing things up within the relationship dynamics, if it suits the story, sure. As far as I am concerned, Jimmy could be written as a woman, gay, straight, comical, serious, whatever role needs to be filled for the purposes of a good story.

[Mecegirl]

Um... has Jimmy been portrayed as a ginger in live action yet? Cause I'm totally blanking on that. He's been a brunette for a while now, in live action anyway. There might be like one.

[ascended]

Yeah, one or two maybe. As we all know, gingers scare people so the media tries to avoid them.

[manduck37]

It strikes me a s bit strange that they may change Jimmy to Jenny, as I just don't see why they made the change. Though to be fair, I haven't seen the movie either. Chances are, she'll just be referred to as "Jenny" without a last name mentioned and she'll work at the planet. The "Olsen" name probably won't be mentioned at all.

Now, in the comics it makes more sense to have Jimmy, the man. He's Superman's pal and the biggest male/bro relationship that Superman has. He fills in the best friend/guy buddy role that needs to be explored for Superman in a long running series. You need to explore different aspects of Superman as the years go on and his relationship with male friends is one of them. The movies are a different thing entirely though. The movies don't have the luxury of exploring all the themes in Superman or all the aspects of his life. They need to pick one major theme and explore it fully. So if they aren't choosing to explore Superman's private life as one of those themes, his relationship to Jimmy has no bearing on the film. So Jimmy can become Jenny or be left out entirely and it won't hurt the film, as it doesn't add to the exploration of the movie's themes. You only have a couple of hours to get into something about your hero and what the movie is about. So you pick what's really important to the story you're trying to tell and the rest can be compromised.

Really, it's not a big deal. How important was Jimmy in Christopher Reeves' Superman: The Movie? He was barely in it. He certainly didn't come off as Superman's pal. He was just a photographer at the Planet. Sure, it was "Jimmy", but does anyone really look back fondly on his character from that movie? They mainly remember Reeves as Superman, how well he pulled off the dual identity and the cool Superman scenes. Jimmy didn't add anything to the narrative of that movie aside from being window dressing for the Planet and being a slight nod to those of us that read the comics.