Why Dave hates Jimmy Olsen as he was, and why I hate Jimmy Olsen as he is

[thehefner]

My pal surrealname likes to cite Silver Age Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen as everything that's bad and wrong with comics. You know, the comics where Jimmy Olsen became anything from, oh, say, a giant freckled turtle monster, a wolfman, a Bizarro, a helium-bloated alien mule boy, a poor man's Elongated Man, not to mention the holy trilogy of filming a gorilla, becoming a gorilla, and marrying a gorilla (with the help of witch-doctor Superman). For Dave, it's the equivalent of disdain that many self-serious, old-school fans have for Adam West's Batman show: it's why superhero comics have and will never be taken seriously.

Needless to say, I love this crap. Maybe it's because I've grown up in the post-Miller era where comic fans and creators are terrified to be fun, because they're so desperate to be taken seriously. The Dark Knight's success has as much to do with this backwards mentality among fans as it does with actual quality. That's why I love the TV show, Batman: The Brave and the Bold, because it joyfully embraces all that's great and ridiculous in comics in an earnest way that's somehow reverently irreverent. When they recently did a whole episode of tributes to Silver Age Superman crackiness, I was in heaven. Do I want all my comics to be ridiculous crack? Hell no, I love a well-told, mature, serious superhero story, so long as it actually is all three of those things. But I also long to see comics embrace their history rather than run away from it, simply because that stuff is pure COMICS in ways that no superhero movies could be. It's fun as hell, and at its best, it emphasizes the "awe" aspect of "awesome," a badly-abused word in this day and age of Scott Pilgrim.

So theoretically, I should be in love with the current Jimmy Olsen comics coming out by Nick Spencer. After all, tons of fans and even comic bloggers adore this new take on Jimmy, which giddily incorporates all of his Silver Age silliness into a modern context. But as I read the universally-adored first few parts, something seemed amiss, starting with Jimmy's interaction with his ex-girlfriend, Chloe Sullivan (yes, Chloe from Smallville, making her comics debut). This Jimmy isn't the lovable dork who constantly gets caught up in trouble. He's an oh-so-cool slacker who lives in a world of wonders with smug bemusement rather than awe, fielding girl troubles due to his own douchebaggery and being the Nice Guy (TM) who clashes with a richer, more handsome, more overtly-jerkwadish rival.

In short... Jimmy Olsen is now Scott Pilgrim.

Pass me that Haterade, Dave. It's the perfect storm of meh-feh-BLAH.

Comments

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

So, you like Sam Raimi then?

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

How do you mean? Because he draws from the classic Lee/Kirby/Conway comics and brings them into a modern context with humor but general reverence? If so, then I respect his attempts with the first one, and LOVE the second. The third we do not speak of.

[surrealname.livejournal.com]

I stand by number three as a perfect example of how NOT to make a movie. I mean it is just awful and needs to exist so others can learn from its mistakes.

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

I'm not even just thinking of the Spider-Man movies. Raimi's career has been a case of one celebration of camp after another. We've given millions of dollars to a guy who apparently grew up on Lee, Kirby, Harryhausen, and a hearty helping of Roger Corman.

That said, concur with the one-line movie reviews. Dunno what the hell happened on #3. It's like he was in a bad mood or something.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Oh, well, yes, I adore Raimi's work. I need to rewatch Darkman, especially with Henchgirl. She's seen it long ago, but still holds a grudge against the film because it was SUPPOSED to have been Bruce Campbell's starring role. I can understand that.

That said, Drag Me to Hell was an amazing mix of everything I loved about classic Sam Raimi with something that just left a bad taste in my mouth. I think that would have been solved if the film had been successful enough to have the Justin Long starring sequel, Drag Her Out of Hell.

[bitemetechie.livejournal.com]

*sigh* You're just never going to let the kitten thing go, are you?

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

That, coupled with the ending, which takes the whole "fucked no matter what you do" idea to a horrible new level. Plus, on a more personal level that gets INCREDIBLY uncomfortable when it comes to awkward scenes where characters embarrass themselves and everyone looks at them wondering what's wrong with them... yeah, basically, every scene like that. Especially where she freaks out at work, and at her boyfriends' parents place for dinner. Ugh, so uncomfortable. I wanted to walk out of the theatre until it was over.

But also, again, the kitten. Jesus.

[bitemetechie.livejournal.com]

I still say that the cracky, awful parts of Spider-Man 3 was the direct result of the studio forcing Raimi to put Venom in the film.

"Oh, so you're going to wrest creative control from me despite the fact I made this franchise a raging success, are you? Oh, and you want Venom because he's so hardcore and evil? Okay...well, I have a contract and no choice and you'll probably kick me off the franchise after this no matter how I handle it because Venom sucks and there is no way to do a good Venom story, so...*thumbs nose*"



"HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR SUPREMELY EVIL SYMBIOTE NOW, SONY?!"

[surrealname.livejournal.com]

there is totally a way to do a good venom story. I'd have preffered a movie entirely about venom to a film about The Sandman. that is just me.

[bitemetechie.livejournal.com]

Thing is, I think Raimi may have intended for the Sandman stuff to be a secondary storyline, you know, just the OBVIOUS costumed villain of the piece, while playing with the themes of fathers and their children?

I'm pretty sure that the whole point of 3 was to make it Harry's story--since so much of the Harry stuff draws from DeMatteis's Spidey--but when Sony insisted on throwing Venom into the mix, the whole thing got so overstuffed that Harry's dealing with the shadow of his father hanging over him and any connection it may have had in relation to Sandman-as-a-father was lost in the suffle.

[bitemetechie.livejournal.com]

shuffle, even. Damn it, H key, why must you be a pain in the ass?

[surrealname.livejournal.com]

yeah, but what he was doing with the sandman in the first place was idiotic and undoes spiderman.

Peter failed to stop the robber who killed uncle ben. If peter had stopped the robber, uncle ben would have lived. This makes "with great power comes great responsibility a concrete lesson that peter, a self-absorbed, immature, irresponsible douche-bag, cannot ignore. Introducing the sandman as the guy who actually killed uncle ben completely undoes that. Uncle Ben would have died no matter peter's actions. Immature, irresponsible, self-absorbed douche bag that he is, taking away the concrete lesson and turning great power blah blah blah into an abstract idea again would be the kind of thing that makes peter throw his spider suit right in the garbage.

Fuck the sandman's appearance in spiderman three, that shit is fucking clown shoes that undoes the MAIN CHARACTER'S ENTIRE FUCKING MOTIVATION!

[sara-lakali.livejournal.com]

I prefer Bronze Age Mr. Action!Jimmy. For the most part he could take care of himself and he was a popular reporter like Wolf Blitzen or whoever the new blue-eyed guy is. And there was still enough silliness to keep him from being boring. The Kurt Schaffenberger pencils didn't hurt either.

[surrealname.livejournal.com]

I want it known that there is comics crack out there i love. I just don't love it when a frecklefaced shithead in a bow-tie is the center of it.