Jimmy Olsen is now JENNY Olsen in Man of Steel?

[Mat001]

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.

Aaron Ashmore ("Smallville") is a red head, as is Sam Hunnington ("Superman Returns").

[monkeysweat]

I think the reason for the change is simply balance. Trying to avoid having the movie be a sausage-fest featuring Lois Lane as 'The Girl'. Newsrooms are relatively diverse environments and they've chosen to not just sprinkle a couple of women and black guys among the extras.

[Judge-Dredd]

Not sure if I'm okay with this. I like what Morrison is doing with him in Action Comics. I like him being the same age as Superman and the close friend of Clark Kent. Clark needs a friend who is a guy and not a superhero, someone he can be normal with.

[DrSimonHurt]

I think most people never liked Jimmy anyhow. It's like having a book starring Peter Parker, who is friends with a guy named Spider-Man.

[C-Dot]

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?

Chloe Sullivan, character with journalistic background, was created exclusively for......and ended up being a part of......and crossed over to.....

The examples you listed are not the same as gender swapping (J.A.R.V.I.S. still has the voice of a male British butler and functions in a similar way, the Mary Jane/Gwen examples, etc.) but the highlighted ones show that creating all new characters does work out well. Chloe ended up being very popular and crossed over like Coulson, Quinn, etc.

[C-Dot]

I think the reason for the change is simply balance. Trying to avoid having the movie be a sausage-fest featuring Lois Lane as 'The Girl'. Newsrooms are relatively diverse environments and they've chosen to not just sprinkle a couple of women and black guys among the extras.

But there are other female characters in Superman besides Lois. As far as the Planet goes, you have other Planet female characters either existing in books (See: Cat Grant) or in other media (Chloe, Andrea Rojas, etc.).

There's also creating new characters.....

[C-Dot]

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.

That's a bit of a broad generalization to make. Everyone has their own views and opinions towards the Donner films and not everyone feels the way that you or some people do about Olsen in the films or his role in Supergirl.

[Kurosawa]

Now, if the deal was that Jimmy Olsen was turned into Jenny Olsen by a voodoo witch doctor on behalf of an angry Lucy Lane because Jimmy had made some comment about her getting out of the stewardess job and into the kitchen...then we'd have a movie.

[ascended]

Now, if the deal was that Jimmy Olsen was turned into Jenny Olsen by a voodoo witch doctor on behalf of an angry Lucy Lane because Jimmy had made some comment about her getting out of the stewardess job and into the kitchen...then we'd have a movie.

I'd watch the hell out of that!!

[ascended]

Chloe Sullivan, character with journalistic background, was created exclusively for......and ended up being a part of......and crossed over to.....

The examples you listed are not the same as gender swapping, but the highlighted ones show that creating all new characters does work out well. Chloe ended up being very popular and crossed over like Coulson, Quinn, etc.

Um. Not really. I like Chloe, dont get me wrong. I enjoyed watching her character arc over the course of the show. But Harley has had her own comic series, a co-staring role in at least two or three other series, online shorts, toys, she's shown up in video games and just about every Batman cartoon made since she was created. She's had a constant role in the comics and is a fully embraced aspect of the Batman world.

Chloe was created for Smallville. And outside of one short running backup series that was actually about Jimmy, and not her, she has not branched out anywhere else. Unless you count the Smallville season 11 digital comic. Still, she remains a fringe character to the extreme who has no real weight in the mythology.

But now that Barbara Gordon is out in the streets again as Batgirl, I wish they'd bring Chloe in as the new Oracle.

[C-Dot]

Um. Not really. I like Chloe, dont get me wrong. I enjoyed watching her character arc over the course of the show. But Harley has had her own comic series, a co-staring role in at least two or three other series, online shorts, toys, she's shown up in video games and just about every Batman cartoon made since she was created. She's had a constant role in the comics and is a fully embraced aspect of the Batman world.

Chloe was created for Smallville. And outside of one short running backup series that was actually about Jimmy, and not her, she has not branched out anywhere else. Unless you count the Smallville season 11 digital comic. Still, she remains a fringe character to the extreme who has no real weight in the mythology.

But now that Barbara Gordon is out in the streets again as Batgirl, I wish they'd bring Chloe in as the new Oracle.

We're not talking about "Harley vs. Chloe". Of course Harley has been around longer than Chloe and been a crossover success. And no one ever said that Chloe was on Harley's level of success. The point was a character becoming so well received that the character itself shows up in other media based on that character's reception. Just like Harley.

The entire reason why Chloe was even in Superman comics was because of her popularity in Smallville (to this day, is still popular like other well-received successful shows). She ended up being a valid part of the formula for that show's success and a legitimate presence in Smallville media from web series to comics to other forms. Is Chloe as success in the regard of "popular character in other media showing up in comics" like the examples of Coulson, Harley, Livewire, X-23, etc? Very much so. We're not talking length of her appearances. The fact that she was there at all is a example of the character's popularity. Is she still here via Smallville media? Yes. Is she still popular? Yes. And that includes people whose only exposure to Superman is TV or that show in particular. I'm sorry but I'm not going to act like Chloe or even the show itself didn't have any significant impact.

Creating and designing original characters from the ground up does work. I rather see that or see other female characters in any established Superman media being used than just changing a male character who has been in media since the 1940s with his established look, personality, and character as Superman's young male buddy who sees him as a bit of a role model.

[King Krypton]

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.

I absolutely think if you're going to do something like this, you have to go all the way and make this change the "classic" setup. More to the point, you have to play out whatever the new arrangement is and see where it takes you. Even though the James Bond movies are kinda-sorta the same timeline and Judi Dench's M was a successor to the version played by Bernard Lee and Robert Brown, there was a big, big difference in the way her M interacted with Bond and the gang. With a version of Superman where Jenny Olsen is the stand-in for Jimmy, showing how this makes a difference is a must.

Let's start with your example: Clark bonds with Jenny Olsen and Lois doesn't like it. Maybe she thinks Clark's a creep perving on Jenny, or she thinks Jenny's got designs on Clark. Either way, she doesn't like it. She might also think they're sharing a secret she's not in on, and she doesn't like that, either. Maybe she's wrong and Clark and Jenny are just good working buddies. Or maybe she's right -- Clark might trust Jenny enough to tell her he's Superman. (We saw something like this happen with Jimmy in "3-2-1 Action," so it's not unheard of.)

Or, for another example, Lois and Jenny are the ones who've bonded and have a big sister/little sister relationship, and neither of them will give Clark the time of day. You could use this to emphasize Clark's sense of feeling like an outsider, and Jenny could be Lois go-to support system whenever she gets on Perry's bad side or gets herself in way over her head.

Or, for another example, if Jenny doesn't know Clark is Superman, how she feels about Superman could be something to toy with. Is she starstruck and in awe of him, as Jimmy is in the old setup? Is she afraid of him? Does she dislike him? Does she have a crush on him? Is she completely indifferent to him? Any number of ways you could go here, all of them with their own possibilities.

Or, for another example, assuming Jenny likes Superman, she could ultimately be Supergirl's best friend/confidante should she ever show up. The old "Superman's pal" motif could be transplanted to Supergirl, with Jenny being a sounding board and/or a contemporary Kara could lean on when she needs someone to talk to.

Or, for another example, Perry treats Jenny almost as a surrogate daughter...to the point of being as overprotective as any father could be. Basically the flip side of the "Everything Jimmy does makes Perry furious" motif, but in this case he'd be fearing for this young woman's life and, in turn, making her that much hungrier to prove herself.

Or, perhaps, we could do something completely different...make Jenny the love interest and use the opportunity to completely reinvent the Lois/Clark dynamic. Back during the "Lois Lane: Superb****" and Russian General Zod controversies and the lead-up to Birthright, the DC message boards at the time had discussions on whether or not Lois has to be Superman's lover, and if perhaps she could assume a different role in some iteration of the mythos. This could be a chance to try something like that. Maybe Lois and Clark are just really close friends, but nothing more. Maybe they can't stand each other at all and are constantly butting heads, with Perry and Jenny both trying to maintain order. Maybe they're just co-workers who get along in the workplace but go their separate ways at the end of the day, with Lois having a life outside of the Planet and company. You could try something like this with Jenny assuming the girlfriend role and see where a brand-new Lois/Clark relationship could go.

You know what? The more we muse on the possibilities of what could be done with a Jenny Olsen, the more ravenous I am to see the Superman mythos try something like this somewhere down the line. Even if we don't get a Jenny Olsen in Man of Steel, the idea of such is out there. It's on the table and can be implemented eventually. Or if not Jenny Olsen, another, similar change-up can be done and we can see what new twists, turns, and creative directions that takes. The avenues you could go down are limitless, and I'd love to see the mythos walk down as many of them as possible.

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.

JJ Abrams, Jon Peters, and McG's script for Superman Returns had a gay (or implied to be gay) Jimmy in it...described as "somewhat effeminate" and being the butt of Lois and Perry's jokes. Which was bad enough. But it was also packaged with a flurry of changes that would truly have destroyed the very core of the mythos: Krypton never exploded, Superman was a Neo-like messiah destined to liberate Krypton from his evil uncle and cousin, Lara got beheaded by said evil uncle and cousin, Jor-El committed suicide in order to go to heaven and talk Superman out of dying from kryptonite poisoning, Lex Luthor was a Kryptonian spy pretending to be human, the Supersuit was a living thing stored in a can...basically, it was Superman in Name Only. Not only was Jimmy put at risk of being a bad stereotype, but the entire point of Superman -- an orphaned survivor of a lost planet finding a new home on Earth -- got trashed. (The sad part of all this? Only Jon Peters -- who had been cheerleading this and similarly bad pitches by the likes of Tim Burton -- admitted years later that this was wrong. Abrams, like Burton before him, didn't see any problems with what he did and thought the backlash he got was unjustified.)

I mean, if you want to make Jimmy gay, that's fine. Do it with dignity and taste. Don't try to make him a joke. And don't destroy Superman himself while you're at it!!!

That's because Hollywood is never going to make a movie about a black Superman. Period.

Actually, the Abrams/Peters/McG script was originally written with Will Smith in mind. David Williams talked about it on his DA page and how he balked at drawing concept art of Smith in the suit. And Smith himself thought he'd be miscast and turned it down. While that doesn't mean you'll ever actually see a black actor as Superman, the idea has certainly been considered.

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.

Well, that and outside of DC Direct merchandise aimed at hardcore comic book fans and maybe the occasional bonus piece in an action figure pack, you don't see Lois Lane, Perry White, or Jimmy Olsen on T-shirts, posters, decorations, mass-market toys, or the like. Their comic book looks really aren't that important. Superman is quite literally a branded image with a set look, and as such the most you can do with him is costume tweaks and updates. (Again, that didn't stop WB from courting Will Smith at one point, but still....) With the supporting cast, you've got more flexibility in how you can portray them.

It can also be used as a strength, I think, as you do different versions of the mythos. The world and the people around Superman are fluid and ever-changing, but Superman himself is the constant, the steady in it all who binds everything together. How Superman deals with the change and chaos surrounding him is where you can really go to town with it all.

[destro]

Jimmy Olsen is an expendable character. Always has been, always will be. Of the "core" characters, he's the one you can omit or kill off without losing anything whatsoever. If they've turned the character into a woman for this film, it does nothing to harm the mythos at all.

.

Yup. I don't think the change adds much, but it doesn't really hurt anything either. It's null, so who cares really. I can't believe people actually get angry over stuff like this.

[destro]

Well they can.

You either end up fucking them because of casual attraction, or if theyre not sexual attractive just friends. But theres no WAY you can be friend with a girl the way you can be with your best buds. Neither of those is how Jim's and Clarks relationship is.

Come on, dont fool yourself.

Man that's not true. My own life experience and plenty of other people I know have close friends of the opposite sex (or same sex if gay) and are capable of "not going there" just fine.

[King Krypton]

Since we seem to be talking about character relationships and how they will or won't be changed by a potential Jenny Olsen, I'd like to go back to Dracula for a moment and take a look at how that story's relationships change from version to version. I'll specifically be looking at the book vs. some of the movies.

In the Bram Stoker novel, Jonathan Harker is engaged to Mina Murray. Lucy Westenra, Mina' friend, has three young suitors: John Seward, Arthur Holmwood, and Quincey Morris. Before the events of the story, Vlad the Impaler/Dracula has never met any of these people.

The Bela Lugosi movie? Seward is an old man, Lucy is his houseguest, and Mina is his daughter. Arthur and Quincey are AWOL. Dracula: Dead and Loving It uses the same setup.

Horror of Dracula? Arthur Holmwood is married to Mina, and Lucy is his sister and is engaged to Jonathan Harker. Jonathan and Lucy both get vampirized and killed. An aging Seward has a brief role in the proceedings. Quincey's still AWOL.

The Frank Langella movie? Lucy is Seward's daughter and Jonathan's fiancee. Mina is Van Helsing's daughter, and he's forced to kill her when she becomes a vampire. Lucy also gets romantically involved with Dracula. Arthur and Quincey? Still AWOL.

The Dan Curtis and Francis Ford Coppola versions? Lucy/Mina is the reincarnation of Vlad the Impaler's lost love, and Dracula embarks on a doomed romance with her in both. Jonathan is vampirized and killed in the Curtis version, Arthur and Quincey actually show up in the Coppola film.

Wow. That's a LOT of shuffling things around, isn't it? And that's just...what five, six films I rattled off? And oddly enough, with the possible exception of the Coppola film, these reworkings, reshufflings, these new combinations...they all work. They all make sense in the context of the films in which they take place, and some of the movies really push them to their biggest advantage. And yet these are major, major changes from the original. Lesson learned? You can change and reorganize character relationships and interactions to great success so long as you do it with smarts and creativity.

So if we apply this to Superman, reworking the character dynamics in the event of gender-switching members of the supporting cast or even changing their sexual orientation isn't the overwhelming problem some fear it is. It can be done successfully. It's all about how it's done and what you do with it.