Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
You're missing the point by a mile, Windle. They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character for shock value is the complaint being made here. Not some nonsensical point about the importance of fictional lives (?).
"All you Fascists bound to lose."Folding Ideas actually discussed this at one point and said just because a narrative move is shocking or unexpected doesn't mean it's good or actually makes sense for the movie at hand. I can buy into a shock death, just not when it's completely pointless other than a split second of "Oh shit!" from the audience.
If they introduced Gwen Stacy in the next movie only to have her get crushed by a cement truck in her first scene, it'd be shocking but that's not exactly a move that'd add to the film in any way.
It's pretty simple.
Nameless Mook #1 isn't a character beloved by the fanbase with many interesting angles and stories behind him that could be used to enhance his (and the story's) narrative or interesting core character concept that can be adapted and used to tell interesting stories. Folks like Jimmy Olsen and Mercy Graves, however, are.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."The difference is in the character potential snuffed out by the death. Every death means the end of that character's ability to be involved in future storytelling. This means that the circumstances of the death must be sufficient to outweigh the sacrifice of story potential.
With extras, that's easy. Extras are a dime a dozen. "Guy Crushed By Fin Fang Foom's Right Foot" never had much story potential in the first place. We can feel bad for the Watsonian consequences of his death, while the Doylist cost is negligible. There are an infinite number of extra characters to perform nameless bit roles.
However, if Kamala Khan stepped onscreen for five minutes only to have her skull crushed by Thanos, then that means Kamala Khan can never appear in the franchise again. There can never be a Ms. Marvel film. She can never have another narrative. She is gone, and every single story that could possibly be told with her has died with her. The Doylist cost of killing her is massive.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Or alternatively, if you don't really like the character or feel that he doesn't fit with your take you could just not use him instead.
I wouldn't really have had as much of a problem if they had actually committed to building up Jimmy Olsen in any way as a character to care about before they offed him. It's honestly a bit lazy because why should we care about that version of Jimmy dying if we barely know anything about him?
It's not really bad, depending on the circumstances, to have an unexpected character death to subvert expectations. I mean, Psycho is really famous for doing that and killing the supposed main character and then completely changing the focus of the movie after that point. The thing is, Marion Crane was actually given time to be established and have an entire plot set up for her for the audience to get invested in.
edited 28th May '17 5:08:10 PM by Draghinazzo
As I see it, while there are certainly tasteless ways to kill off extras, from a writing perspective, they are not as important as, say, the main characters - you can afford to, say, kill them off to show how evil the villain is. They don't really have any meaning attached to them outside of the scenes they appear in.
Now, using preexisting characters - whether ones who already existed in your story or ones you're adapting - changes that. They have stories that can be told, and killing them in a senseless fashion essentially signifies that you don't care about that - indeed, sometimes it can actually demonstrate contempt for the idea. That is, in essence, the problem we have with such deaths, one I would share even if it was a named character just introduced - it is, as Gaon said, a waste.
, basically.
Now, if you have a different opinion, Windleopard, I invite you to elaborate.
edited 28th May '17 5:11:52 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!I can easily complain about Quicksilver's death but at least he had a whole movie building up to it and plenty of action scenes beforehand.
Olsen's death in BVS was abrupt and wasn't even functional shock value because people didn't even know who the Red Shirt was until a post-release interview revealed it. Not to mention Snyder's claims that Olsen was "incompatible" with the DCEU aren't great because there's dozens of different versions of Jimmy to use. In Secret Origin, he's an unpaid intern struggling with where to go in life. In Red Son, he's a CIA director. He's been everything from Elastic Lad to Doomsday; he is literally the most malleable Superman character.
Killing him namelessly just to establish how "DARKNESS! NO SIDEKICKS!" one's story seems like showing their knowledge of the comics begins and ends at the Pop-Cultural Osmosis "Silver Age Turtle Jimmy", and shows one's lack of imagination. Compare that to how well the Captain America series has managed to reintegrate Bucky the once-Plucky-Kid-Sidekick.
edited 28th May '17 5:21:02 PM by Tuckerscreator
You and I both know that if they had changed Jimmy to fit the DCEU, you'd have fans bemoaning that he wasn't the Jimmy from the comics. Hell look how people reacted to the changes to the character on the Supergirl show of the changes to Batman and Superman in the DCEU (which actually have precedent). Sure he could have left Jimmy out and people would be pissed that Supetman's pal wasn't in the movies. Nothing Snyder does will ever be good enough
Nobody who wasn't a comic fan knew nor cared about Bucky. Characters more well known are considered less malleable. Again I point to how controversial Superman and Batman's depictions were. There are numerous versions of these characters too but that doesn't stop fans from crying "ruined forever" when even the slightest of deviations are made. And I'm including myself in this too
I'd hardly consider Superman never smiling or Batman murdering people with guns to be "slight" deviations.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
Alright, but why would killing him off be preferable to, say, not using him at all?
I said it before but it bears repeating: Death is the most boring of consequences. The best example for this is Coulson. Yes, his death was meaningful in The Avengers. But not because of him...he was a pretty random character we mostly liked because he represented us with his constant fanboying. But if it had stayed this way, we would have never gotten Coulson's passionate speeches about the important of Shield, we would have never learned the Tahiti is a magical place, we would have never seen him doing a portal jump or being disappointed that he missed out on Quake and Ghostrider being badass together. So a dead character is always a missed story opportunity, while a damaged character is an opportunity to expand on the possible stories you could tell about a character. IE a lost hand could either lead to depression or to a badass tool.
In the case of Jimmy Olson or Mercy Graves we don't really feel the loss of the characters, but the loss of all the stories we could have experienced with them.
In quicksilver's case it is more a matter of taking out a too powerful player before he can ruin future story-telling while also creating now story opportunity's for Wanda.
I think that is the main problem....Jimmy Olson dying meant nothing, since he and Clark didn't even met at this point.
![]()
Well, yes. That's the nature of dealing with an established property like this. But honestly? Fuck the haters, you ought to do what's best for the story you're telling. And if Snyder didn't think that Jimmy Olsen would fit that (which I find dubious - I think he could make it work), then he, again, had the option of not using him.
So briefly including Jimmy (in a form that, as I understand it, scarcely anyone actually recognized as him at first) only to kill him off senselessly is possibly the worst thing you could do. It's practically a middle finger to every fan of the character, no matter how they would feel about possible changes to him, and runs the risk of alienating those who might not care one way or another, as they might see it as needlessly spiteful.
Also, this.
edited 28th May '17 5:49:29 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!![]()
![]()
I don't really find the "people would complain anyways" argument to be very compelling. Since you can use it to justify literally any bad storytelling decision because there's no such thing as a story element that absolutely no one complains about.
If Jimmy Oslen wasn't included at all in Bv S, then Zack Snyder could of simply replied "Jimmy Oslen didn't really fit with the movie I was trying to make, and while I could of put him in as a bit part, I felt that it was better to leave that door open for a future DCEU movie that could actually do the character justice." And while there would still be people who complain, the degree of the complaints would be an order of magnitude less intense.
![]()
not every potential story will be a good one.
well Snyder felt killing Jimmy and Mercy was good for his story (I'll admit I don't necessarily agree). Though I'm sure the haters already felt like he was giving them the finger any way.
in this case, I feel it's justified
I could point out that they could always reveal that Jimmy Olsen was just the agents cover name.
edited 28th May '17 5:52:45 PM by windleopard
No, but I don't think that's a reason not to try.
I mean, that's his right. But just because he feels that way doesn't mean that I have to let it end there - I think he's wrong, and thus I will say so.
edited 28th May '17 5:55:30 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!

At least there is some meaning in killing a named character as opposed to killing nameless extras the audience has no attachment to. Basically this argument is "I'm cool with shock deaths as long as it isn't a character I like".
Also, I thought we'd only discuss Marvel and DC movies in their respective threads?
edited 28th May '17 4:49:51 PM by windleopard