Mister Bad Guy
Mr Mercury to friends
- Location
- Bay Area
Actually, that's pretty dead-on to very early Lee/Ditko Spider-Man, who mostly wanted to use his powers to make money. A major part of his character arc was growing out of it.
Batman vs. Superman: Killing and Expectations
- Thread starter Nikkolas
- Start date
- Location
- Texas, US
But you keep insisting what Superman is. Who defines that? Why do they define that? i brought up Miller and Batman earlier for a reason. These characters have existed for decades, been written by dozens of different writers. The original Superman did kill people. He TORTURED people.
How can you claim there is a monopoly on what makes Superman?
Well, the only Kryptonians left are Zod and his fanatics. Redemption is a gift not available for Superman to offer.
This is true. Superman does reject Krypton most explicitly. Jor-El was wrong there, but, well, Superman is his own person. He didn't have to follow his dad's big plan to the letter.
I don't think the movie was as depressing as you make it sound. It was serious but ultimately optimistic. Superman, in the end, is embraced as a hero and a part of Earth. Killing Zod was something he didn't want to do but he had to do so it didn't destroy him emotionally.
They're also really good and deal with the exact same themes as Man of Steel in a lot of ways. Superman the ideal vs. Superman the reality.
Yes, people wanted different things out of the movie. That's plain to see. It's also plain to see a lot of people have no baggage about what Superman "should be" and they liked the movie just fine. Many will grow up thinking this is Superman.
Ser_Serendipity
Building Character
It's impossible to buy the pathos of Superman being forced to kill that MoS shoves in the audiences face. Throwing in an improvised trolley problem is bad enough, but trying to sell Superman's grief when he's surrounded by millions of casualties? What, you're screaming now? Not to mention the film's complete inability to maintain the tone of the scene.
Mister Bad Guy
Mr Mercury to friends
- Location
- Bay Area
Okay, so we've learned you, in fact, have not read those Superman stories. People who know the character better than I do have traced the earliest possible example of Superman causing a person's death to 1953, a good fifteen years after his debut, and even then, it wasn't his fault. As for torture... closest thing I can think of is his second issue, where he intimidates a man by firing a bullet at him and catching it. That's... a stretch. Golden Age Supes was a rough-and-tumble hardass, but he wasn't a killer. If you want a story that actually does try to incorporate that, try Morrison's Action Comics, which did so sensibly and organically without a single neck snap.
"Doesn't follow big dad's plan to the letter" - that is literally the only thing he does in the movie. Jor-El, not Superman, is the one who comes up with the plan to save the day. Jor-El, not Superman, makes the outfit (one thing that didn't happen in the Byrne take, by the by). Jor-El, not Superman, decides that Superman has to reveal himself. Jor-El, not Superman, decides his purpose. And that's before you get into the Christ allegory the movie hits with like a train. Yes, he kills Zod - but as you yourself claim, he had no choice and would never have done so otherwise.
Oh, yes, and who decided that Zod's people needed to be gone? It wasn't Superman.
Yeah, he's embraced as a hero so hard that the very next movie he's in is about how nobody embraces him as a hero, his existence has created unimaginable chaos and death with more on the way, and he's either treated with a worshipful inhuman awe or an all-consuming fear and loathing, before he finally gets brutally murdered by the people he swore to protect.
And honestly? Saying that you can tell a Supreme Power Hyperion or Doctor Manhattan or Red Son Superman story with the core Superman is an insult to all four. Red Son Superman is fundamentally not Superman; that's the point of who he is and his eventual epiphany, that the ideals he tries to represent and follow are incompatible with his role as a Soviet leader. There's a reason that, after he retires, he becomes, essentially, Clark Kent - assuming a core part of the Superman identity for the first time. Doctor Manhattan isn't even slightly like Superman in personality, appearance, place in the world, morality, or backstory, bar the fact that he's very powerful. The ethos of Doctor Manhattan, that a superhuman being would find themselves turned into a government asset, change the balance of politics, and find nothing appealing about humanity, could be applied to literally any sufficiently powerful hero, and are all demonstrably untrue about Clark. Supreme Power is about how a being like Superman could not exist in a realistic setting, and treats the idea of Clark having a normal human upbringing as a childish fantasy that could only be the product of falsehood and simulation. It's not a new spin on the concept, it's a deliberate teardown, just as much as making Batman into a murderous racist is. Putting these three stories in the same room as Man of Steel is saying that Man of Steel Superman is no closer to Superman than the fucking Public Spirit.
But, oh wait - you've managed to find a child who liked Man of Steel. I guess you won the argument. (Incidentally, if we're speaking from the mouths of babes, I wonder what will happen when that little boy finds the sequel, with its onscreen mutilations, bath sex, half-coherent religious diatribes, and R-rated director's cut.)
- Location
- Texas, US
I read the first 30 or so issues of the original Superman comics. I made a whole thread about it many years ago now. Can't find it off-hand but I did find a post of me quoting myself
Superman's a Troll. | Page 2
Perhaps no killing here - my bad there. It has been ten years since I read these. But lots and lots of torture.
Except Superman lets Krypton die? He has no interest in using the genetic codex within himself to repopulate Krypton, and I would assume Jor-El sent it with him specifically for that reason. You yourself already said that Jor-El wanted to make Superman a bridge between two worlds. Except Clark outright rejects Krypton and has no interest in reviving it or its culture. He's an Earthling, that's it.
Wait what? Who murdered Superman?
And I didn't realize the discovery of an alien on our planet who could singlehandedly take over the world would be a "meh" issue everyone just got over immediately. Some people support him, others don't. That's just being realistic. There's a damned statue of Superman. I remember because I just re-watched the Doomsday fight and he kinda gives it a glare, like the Zod in him is all pissy. It was great.
He was tricked by Luthor exploiting his conscience. As the ending shows, he was right and Luthor was wrong. Supreme Leader Superman had the right idea all along.
Dr. Manhattan exists to question what if our godly protector couldn't care less about us. All of Watchmen questions the why of superheroes. Superman is no different. Stories like Kingdom Come and injustice focus on this, too. The loss of Lois - Superman's Laurie, his one connection to the world - makes him an apathetic despot.
One alien decides the fate of the world.
Yes they are different in many ways. I never denied that and those differences are self-evident. But I took away from Watchmen and Man of Steel/Batman vs. Superman the core idea of "what are the obligations of a super-man?"
No need to be unpleasant. I found that tweet yesterday and thought it was really sweet. It was also relevant to something you said. That's why I posted it. It is not supposed to be some conclusive end-all argument, it was just proving what you yourself said.
Last edited:
I've still got to get around to seeing it. I remember when the trailers came out I said to my friends, 'This looks like a The Dark Knight Returns style film. And while that was a great Batman story, it wasn't a Superman story. And I would like a Superman story.'
See, that's not actually fair to Dark Knight Returns. However inadvertently, that story actually had some level of understanding of who and what Superman was, and his basic character.
Batman versus Superman? It apes Dark Knight Returns without understanding it and is an insult to all of the characters it uses- there's a reason I referred to it as parading around in the flayed skins of the characters and stories.
I'm quoting Q99 because his post is the first in the queue, but I'm moreorless addressing a lot of broad points because brought up in this thread.
I've mentioned this before in another thread, but in Man of Steel, Superman consistently gets his arse handed to him. Not even a full day had passed between his first ever fight - not even first ever superhuman fight, but first ever fight - in Smallville and his subsequent duel with Zod in Metropolis. Sure, he's saved people from school buses, from exploding oil rigs, from spaceship, etc., but he has no experience fighting anyone, never mind trying to save people while being consistently turned into a human-shaped ragdoll physics simulator. Whereas almost every time MCU heroes fight in a situation where they need to keep collateral damage low, they consistently and conveniently find opponents with all the durability and danger of tissue paper (although the Iron Man VS Hulk fight in Age of Ultron was a pretty good exception). By contrast, Superman fought an opponent who, for all intents and purposes, was pretty much better at combat in every way, at a location of his opponent's choosing, which happened to be a major metropolitan center.
I mean, sure, you could argue that "giving Superman enemies too powerful for him to fight and minimize collateral damage" was a bad idea, and given what people expect out of a Superman story, I guess I can accept that. But I think the big part of what I liked about Man of Steel was the honesty in which they portrayed the damage that would be incurred when individuals that can achieve supersonic flight, whom bullets bounce off of, and who can shoot laser beams from their eyes end up in a fight. Battles in the MCU tends to be intensely sanitized, exemplified with little things like intensely underpowered weapons and galactic artifacts that look like they have the yield of a hand grenade, alien invaders in New York City with less combat potential than a modern helicopter gunship (which is probably why the film adamantly refuses to actually let them show up, instead hilariously going straight for the nuclear option), with the three rogue helicarriers all conveniently falling into the Potomac instead of on an urban center, and so on and so forth.
Which is fine, really. I get the idea of escapist heroic fantasy, of being able to "kick ass and take names" and assuming there isn't a massive trail of debris and dead bodies that don't get explored until a future film where the producers decide it's time to talk about some heavy themes, but mostly so they can set up a conflict between the ensemble cast. I get that we want to gloss over the fact that trying to just decapacitate someone instead of killing them in a serious life-or-death fight is actually extremely difficult, and that writers contrive coincidences for the nearly-invulnerable Superman because that's his narrative theme, his storyarc. In spite of what I said above, I do like the Marvel Cinematic Universe and have watched almost all of the films (and, by contrast, I have watched very little of the DC Expanded Universe). But I also respect Man of Steel for doing something different and honest with its fight chereography. You can't tell me that there's a fight between two metahumans who fly faster than sound, jump through buildings, and create craters just by falling out of the sky, and then tell me "oh, and they maybe destroyed an abandoned building under construction or something" without making it wish-fulfillment fantasy. (Which, like I said before, is fine, but I appreciate that Man of Steel tried something different.)
I think Clark Kent "misusing" his powers on a truck had a lot to do with the fact that Clark was not yet Superman. He was a well-meaning but troubled guy who was literally drifting across the North American continent, picking up odd jobs, figuring out his meaning in life with full knowledge that he's an alien with no idea of where he came from. He was a young adult who had not yet developed a full moral code that would attach itself to the Superman brand, but a lost young adult doing the best he could. You call it miserable; I call it character development, and that's probably what made me not snore through a Superman film.
Did we watch the same film? You know, the one where Clark Kent as a boy saves his classmates in a bus accident and then tells his father that he couldn't have let them die? The one where he saves people from an oil rig and stops a tower from collapsing onto a rescue helicopter despite the fact that he wasn't sure he could've survived that (requiring Aquaman to provide some off-screen help)? The one where he works up the courage and motivation to oppose Zod once he finds out that the latter intends to genocide humanity to recreate Krypton on Earth? The one where two villains at separate times tell him that they will deliberately target "a million more" humans because they know he cares, that it's his weak spot?
Yes, Clark Kent mopes. But that's character development. Man of Steel is an origin story in which he is Superman for literally less than a day. It's a story of "doing the right thing is difficult, it's sometimes heartbreaking, the world is sometimes too complex for simple solutions, but you try to do the right thing anyways because it's the right thing". It's trying to be more than an escapist superhero film, moving into the realm of a character study. And maybe that's not optimistic enough because a Superman story is supposed to be high-optimism and low-drama, which is okay. But I think your description is an incredibly willful misinterpretation of what is actually portrayed in that film.
Cute, but Kent quite obviously doesn't care when he should and where the plot stops mandating that he care–it seems pa kent bullied the basic empathy out if him. Forced villain exposition aside, the Superman we see rather than the one we're told we see visibly doesn't give a shit about the people he helps out of habit.
Kent's apathy seems to come over as less heroic and more psychopathic. People don't seem very real or meaningful to him other than if they belong to him.
Last edited:
...I don't even know how to respond to this. I honestly don't.
I'm trying to be as constructive as I possibly can, and I'll first say right away that I haven't watched Batman v. Superman so I can't take that into account, but did you actually watch the film? Or are you trying to suggest that constantly trying to save people is a...habitual sociopathic routine?
I'm saying that the only thing stopping the broken shell of a man they named Clark Kent from going on a murder spree is a vague sense of obligation and that no one took his favorite toy–sorry, his "loved ones" away. This is hammered home in the sequel- and outright stated- but even in the first movie, Clark Kent clearly does not give a shit about or understand other people in even the most basic of ways that Superman should.
Mosman comes over as incapable of genuine empathy and that above all else makes him a failed Superman.
Last edited:
Um. Okay.
I mean, I have a hard time seeing a protagonist risk his life on multiple separate occasions to save people he doesn't know - however imperfectly - and chalking it up to "a vague sense of obligation" and "incapable of genuine empathy". I don't expect all characters to constantly emote. But if that's your interpretation, it's your interpretation, and you're welcome to it. I'm just completely perplexed.
He compares unfavorable to Shinji Ikari when it comes to genuine heroism and motivations therof, but basically MoSman does it because no one outright told him to stop. He's a puppet on autopilot- and I'm thinking in particular of a certain scene in the sequel that you'll probably recognize as being what I'm talking about if and when you get around to watching Murderman vs Captain Hypocrite: Dawn of Trainwrecks.
MoSman is not a hero in anything but the most technical sense. He's a distant, apathetic idiot being led by the nose and uncaring for the damage he leaves in his wake. Whether he makes things better or not really doesn't seem to MATTER to him beyond the degree that he's vaguely aware they SHOULD matter but isn't capable of actually feeling anything about it.
As I said above, for all these movies' failings? They would make an excellent viewpoint into Luthor's deranged worldview, where The Alien doesn't actually care about humanity and everyone's blind sheep. The world of MoSman is a world where comics Luthor is right. Even downright better than all the alternatives.
I don't know about you, but I think that particular "what if" being the face of DC movies is outright unpleasant.
Last edited:
Ah, that explains it. You enjoy Supes being a fascist.
- Location
- Texas, US
Communist and yes but that has no bearing on this whatsoever seeing as DCEU Clark's problem is his reluctance to get involved, as opposed to being "excessively" involved.
And it's just a fact the end of the comic twist is that Superman isn't an alien at all but from the future and he was sent back to prevent Luthor from taking over. All comic we had one selfish madman (Luthor) determined to undermine global peace because he just couldn't stand being beaten. Superman by contrast made his utopia out of a sincere desire to improve life for everyone.
Last edited:
Literally the entire point is that it's not a utopia. They lobotomize people for God's sake.
Also, one of the bugs me things with MoSupes is, ok, action wise he's a rookie hero out of his depth in such a big brawl, right? He's *not* the iconic Superman who knows how to use all his powers well. Ok, we're on the same page so far.
Then he gets all these moments trying to sell him as a Jesus icon! No! Go with the rookie hero angle movie, that is what your action shows.
Then he gets all these moments trying to sell him as a Jesus icon! No! Go with the rookie hero angle movie, that is what your action shows.
Reveen
Castro-Trudeauist
What is this dumb muthafucka talking about? People care about Superman plenty. If they didnt Man of Steel wouldn't have been one of the highest earning movies of the year and this wouldn't be a controversy.
And for me, superheroes not killing is about respecting the legacy and purpose of the character. The narrative purpose of no kill rules is to absolve then from having to act out of pure necessity and pragmatism. It's so they can solve the problem without killing, and they hold onto that is an ideal.
Of course, differing interpretations are always fine. But the question is whether those different interpretations should be in the mass marketed movie, the ambassador of the characters to the general public.
Revlid
blob of bugs
- Location
- England
...they're not.
Setting aside actual critical reviews, which are dismal for good reason, audience scores for BvS peak in the mid-60s, and are highly polarized.
Superman Returns was regarded as an awful flop, and it had similar-or-better reviews than Man of Steel, and made maybe $150 million less, at a time when cape movies were not considered the sure thing they are today.
Man of Steel was a Superman movie, starring one of the most recognisable characters across the world, and it was outgrossed by a movie starring Harley Quinn and Deadshot. It was almost matched by Doctor Strange. It barely beat Ant Man and Thor 2. Ant Man, for god's sake. Its sequel, Batman vs Superman, a film concept that would have slaughtered the box office less than a decade prior, made barely $100 million more than D-listers like Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy. Batman vs Superman with Wonder Woman guest-starring! It made half the money that the Avengers did.
Don't frame this as "why did Snyder's direction make Superman popular again". I think these movies are dogshite, but my opinion has nothing to do with the way you're trying to set up this discussion.
Last edited:
- Location
- Texas, US
I was talking about Man of Steel and The Dark Knight. I guess I could have made that clearer but I though the fact I mentioned TDK and this thread was about Batman not killing kind of gave it away. ('cuz he kills in BvS) I was commenting on how people get mad at Batman in TDK for not killing The Joker yet they also get mad at Superman in MoS for killing Zod.
But I never made any claim Man of Steel or Batman vs. Superman were super popular. They did well, though. That's a fact.
Last edited:
I think you have a different expectation of a character.
https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/naturally-altruistic-heroes-are-uninteresting.38035/
Judging by this thread, some people want Superman to help others with altruism.
In a way, you could view it as not altruism. Superman wants a better society for himself and others to live in, so he tries to make it as such. He saves people and earns favors sometimes. You could frame it as a more selfish behavior.
I personally didn't mind Superman messing up and wrecking Metropolis. I viewed it as, I don't blame a firefighter for a fire or knocking down a door to save people, I didn't mind here.
Even with the dark tone and screaming people the cinematography focused on. Superman didn't really seem to have an option.
I didn't mind killing Zod or the somber tone elsewhere. Clark didn't have a choice.
What I did mind, was the sudden cut from the somber scene to Superman drop kicking a satellite out of space and making a quip to a General. That mood whiplash bugged me.
The satellite less so since the government was established to be able to afford that.
I was less favorable on Superman wrecking the trucker's truck.
Yes the trucker was rude and a jerk. Yes he harassed people.
Wrecking his truck didn't solve this. It seemed very petty also since not only can the trucker not replace this, the trucker likely doesn't even own the truck.
Superman's beaten up people before who tried to pick a fight with. He doesn't always turn the other cheek and incorporates some power fantasy elements sometimes. The original Reeve films have Superman throwing a drunk out of a bar who was harassing Lois and punched him. But he didn't do any permanent harm in that scene, besides breaking a few plates. And plates have a lot less value then a truck.
I don't think that was it. Not all comic fans expect happy endings. Many stories can be rather dark or difficult even without Elseworlds.
And there's comic types besides Superhero comics.
Again I didn't mind the destruction of the city. Godzilla got treated as a hero in a slightly corny way in the latest Godzilla film, and Godzilla couldn't really stop from wrecking the city, though Godzilla got a few scenes of trying to be careful.
Also I'm not sure about your quote.
"
Before MOS, the general public, nerd culture and people outside the hardcore Superman fandom could have cared less about Superman. Now, after MOS and BvS, everyone and their mother has an opinion on the character and how he should be portrayed. All the while, Supes movies have been making more money than they ever have in the past. Guess it's like Stan Lee said; "Never give the audience what they think they want. Give them what they really want.". The audience didn't want a Reeve Redux (Superman Returns). They wanted a go get'em action movie in line with The Dark Knight and Snyder, Nolan and Goyer gave it to them.
"
I've seen stores where people dress up in a red cape and make an obvious nod to Superman while being as lawyer friendly as possible so they can get away with it.
People know about Superman all over the world, he's an icon.
So many people do care to a degree. People always have.
People just vocally care more now about showing it and their ideas and opinions.
Last edited:
- Location
- Washington
I personally have no issue with the killing story-wise. They pretty much wrote themselves into a corner by not having Zod go with the rest of his army into the Phantom Zone and that was really the only way they could go about it. My problem is the way it was handled and the why it was included.
So Superman kills Zod gives a big "Nooooo" and then next scene he is okay. Just okay. Doesn't seem bothered by it afterwards. Which is super weird to me. Granted, that scene with the general takes place maybe a month or so later, but it is so jarring to go from Superman giving his best "Do Not Want" to going "Hey! Crashed your expensive drone equipment because I'm the good guy!" I would have loved to see a scene of him getting himself over his act of killing to continue to be a hero, to swear to never take another life because that's not what Superman should do.
I mentioned I take issue for the why the scene was included. You see, according to Zach Snyder the reason he had Superman kill Zod was, and I am not kidding here, to give an origin to his aversion to killing because him not wanting to kill people was never explained before. Which is the most baffling stupid thing I have ever heard. Snyder was basically saying that Superman doesn't know it is wrong to kill unless he kills someone; that only killers know that it is wrong to kill. That is insulting to a level that is staggering.
So Superman kills Zod gives a big "Nooooo" and then next scene he is okay. Just okay. Doesn't seem bothered by it afterwards. Which is super weird to me. Granted, that scene with the general takes place maybe a month or so later, but it is so jarring to go from Superman giving his best "Do Not Want" to going "Hey! Crashed your expensive drone equipment because I'm the good guy!" I would have loved to see a scene of him getting himself over his act of killing to continue to be a hero, to swear to never take another life because that's not what Superman should do.
I mentioned I take issue for the why the scene was included. You see, according to Zach Snyder the reason he had Superman kill Zod was, and I am not kidding here, to give an origin to his aversion to killing because him not wanting to kill people was never explained before. Which is the most baffling stupid thing I have ever heard. Snyder was basically saying that Superman doesn't know it is wrong to kill unless he kills someone; that only killers know that it is wrong to kill. That is insulting to a level that is staggering.
To be fair, Godzilla is literally the size of a building fighting other things the size of buildings, so collateral damage is to be expect. I guess he is treated more like a hero is because after he defeats the MUTO, who were pretty much destroying something in every scene they were in, he just sort of leaves without destroying anything else. And weirdly enough, I think the cities Godzilla fought in were more intact then Metropolis in MoS.
Speaking of building-sized beings fighting in cities, we saw in Pacific Rim, the Jaegers very consciously moved around buildings and tried to drag things where damage was minimized (water, preferably), while the Kaiju plowed right through. A nice contrast for me.
Also I do think people definitely wanted a Superman action movie- Superman II was the best of the old batch, after all, and Returns was... kinda weird, and that Superman had his own issues too (sure, it wasn't killing, but what's up with the stalking? Or running out for years?). But, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have preferred a Superman action movie with a different moral compass. Because in all 5 Superman live action movies before MoS, a full 3/5 of them have no physical opponent at all, and one of the two that did sucked.
Personally, and this is a hypothesis that hasn't been tested since Superman 2, 37 years ago, I think people would really dig a morally iconic Superman movie where he fought villains who were physical threats and managed to come out on top. They don't want Superman vs real-estate scams (???) or hackers, they want him to go up against threats that push him and challenge him, and then show why he's the greatest hero and earn that status!
Also I do think people definitely wanted a Superman action movie- Superman II was the best of the old batch, after all, and Returns was... kinda weird, and that Superman had his own issues too (sure, it wasn't killing, but what's up with the stalking? Or running out for years?). But, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have preferred a Superman action movie with a different moral compass. Because in all 5 Superman live action movies before MoS, a full 3/5 of them have no physical opponent at all, and one of the two that did sucked.
Personally, and this is a hypothesis that hasn't been tested since Superman 2, 37 years ago, I think people would really dig a morally iconic Superman movie where he fought villains who were physical threats and managed to come out on top. They don't want Superman vs real-estate scams (???) or hackers, they want him to go up against threats that push him and challenge him, and then show why he's the greatest hero and earn that status!
Last edited:
Mister Bad Guy
Mr Mercury to friends
- Location
- Bay Area
Except that Man of Steel dropped 65% in its second weekend. The general consensus among box-office experts is that the Snyder Superman films have largely underperformed, to the point that there was some doubt for a while as to whether BvS even turned a profit.
As for it being something new... no, not really. Man of Steel is mostly just a remix of Donner (the villain, Jor-El becoming God, Superman's journey being overlaid with an imposed moral imperative) and Byrne (the treatment of Krypton and resulting assimilation narrative, the heavy role of the Kent family, ending on a death), but lacking the nostalgia and innocence of the former and the genuine humanism of the latter. Even its most memorable quote - Jor-El's "they will join you in the sun" speech - is lifted directly from the comics (All-Star Superman #12, to be specific).
And talking of that speech, it actually worked in that context, because unlike Man of Steel, All-Star Superman doesn't just talk about how Superman has the capacity to forgive and find hope. It's a story where Superman manages to find the good in an entire planet of insane monsters, a pair of Kryptonian conquerors, an evil space computer that tried to kill the sun, and Lex Luthor, all because Superman refuses to give up on them. It's also a story where the people of Kandor cure cancer, a girl finds the will to live, and a scientist manages to continue Superman's legacy even when he's gone, all because of the ways Superman has helped them. Nothing even slightly like any of those things happens in Man of Steel or Batman v. Superman. The only character Superman manages to redeem or uplift is Batman, and that's only posthumously - and "the last time you really inspired anyone was when you were dead" was not a line meant to be proven right.
Or, to put it another way, in the comic the DCEU pulls from, Jimmy Olsen risks his life and turns himself into a monster to save his best friend. In the DCEU, Jimmy Olsen gets shot in the head.
Last edited: