Supergirl (CBS)

[Silver Nemesis]

Yet another DC property is being turned into a TV show. This time it's Supergirl that's getting the treatment, courtesy of CBS.

On the heels of the success of Arrow and the strong buzz for its upcoming offshoot The Flash — both co-created and executive produced by Greg Berlanti — the top producer is looking to transition another popular DC superhero character to the small screen. I've learned that Berlanti has teamed with Ali Adler, who worked on his ABC series No Ordinary Family, for a TV series based on Supergirl. Warner Bros. TV, which is behind all DC TV series, will produce with Berlanti's studio-based Berlanti Prods..

I hear the project, which is still in development, will be a new interpretation of the Supergirl character and her story. Adler will write the script and will executive produce with Berlanti Prods.' Berlanti and Sarah Schechter. DC's Geoff Johns, who has been involved in both Arrow and The Flash, is also expected to be part of the project but it is unclear at this time what his role will be. The Supergirl show doesn't have a name yet. I hear the producers are considering several options that need to be cleared, including Super and Girl. The project is expected to be taken out in a couple of weeks and pitched to the major networks the way WBTV and DC did with their high profile Batman prequel Gotham, which landed at Fox with a big commitment. The Supergirl series had been in the works at WBTV for some time with Berlanti and Adler.

http://deadline.com/2014/09/supergirl-tv-series-dc-comics-829364/

It sounds like it's going to be a proper superhero show, and not another 'no flights, not tights' series depicting the main character's pre-costumed origin. Although it's not a CW show, Berlanti's involvement opens up the possibility of it being set in the Arrow/Flash universe.

With Brandon Routh involved in the DCTV universe, I wish they'd just let him play Superman again. I suspect the reason WB won't allow it is because they know a more traditional portrayal of Superman on television would be more popular than the Cavill version in the movies.

[The Laughing Fish]

It will be interesting to see what the premise of the show will be about. I assume it will begin with the pilot showing her origin story, and the season shows more of her rogues gallery and supporting characters. I've heard one rumour that Superman himself will appear on the show, but I wouldn't believe it unless it's confirmed for real.

With Brandon Routh involved in the DCTV universe, I wish they'd just let him play Superman again. I suspect the reason WB won't allow it is because they know a more traditional portrayal of Superman on television would be more popular than the Cavill version in the movies.

I see some people on the internet having extreme hatred for Brandon Routh, which I think it's rather ridiculous. He's not the equivalent to Ted Bundy or anything. 

That being said, I do find him to be a rather mediocre actor. When I watched Superman Returns a few more times, I noticed how he slurred his lines in a scene he shared with Jimmy Olsen at a bar, and his line delivery came across as dull and monotonous, similar how Christian Bale does it as Bruce Wayne. But I got to say, I've seen snippets of his new role as Ray Palmer on Arrow (who could possibly become The Atom), and I thought his acting has improved a little bit. From what I've seen so far, he comes across as more confident than he ever did playing Superman.

Regarding the perceptions of Man of Steel, the main thing I liked about it is that it shows how an alien is unsure if the rest of the world will accept him because of who he is and what he can do. But when push comes to shove, he still protects humanity from genocide at the expense of his own heritage. People were upset with Jonathan Kent saying that dumb "maybe" line, but at the same time, it never really bothered me because he's a scared father who knows how people react negatively against anything they don't understand, and he believes he is trying to protect his son from possible persecution. At the same time, he can't discourage his son from finding out where he really came from and tells Clark that it's up to him to decide what kind of man he wants to be. To me, this is probably the only time that Goyer and Nolan came up with a plot-line that's complex and, dare I say, realistic. After all, if superpowers existed in real life, I don't think many parents would've done much better than Jonathan Kent.

There are definitely things about the film that should have been done better though. I don't believe for a second that Clark would let Jonathan die in that tornado. This is the same character who risked suspicion by rescuing drowning kids and trapped workers and so on, but he'll let his father die because "the world isn't ready"? Superman doesn't need a death in the family - his alienation is angst-ridden enough as it is. And even though the film shows us Superman saving people as Clark Kent earlier on in the film, we didn't see enough of him saving people as Superman. He still rescues humanity by destroying the world engine and killing Zod, but still, not saving that many people during battle makes it a little incomplete as a Superman movie.

Some of the criticism about the film just doesn't hold up though. I used to be understanding towards anybody who had complaints about Superman's recklessness, and I wasn't fan of it either. But then I remembered that Superman II showed us a Superman who began the fight with Zod, Ursa and Non in the middle of Metropolis, and at one point, punched Non from underground and sent him flying into a building with people inside, with the falling debris injuring a bystander crying "Superman help us!". And then of course people complained about Superman killing Zod in MOS...but conveniently forgot the same thing happened in Superman II.

Not only that, Superman had a smirk on his face when Zod died in SII (and no, the deleted scene with Zod and his henchman getting arrested doesn't count). And besides, Superman killed Lex Luthor's henchmen in Superman Returns too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disrespecting Reeve's Superman - I still consider the 1978 film the best Superman film to date. But at the same time, I don't think Man of Steel is anywhere near as bad as some people make it out to be. Flawed? Hell yeah, but it's still a decent Superman interpretation in my opinion.

[Edd Grayson]

I agree Laughing Fish, I was surprised at MoS getting such a negative reaction, I liked it too. I don't feel the need to compare it to the old ones because they're simply different interpretations.

[riddler]

You know it's not just us Burton fans or general batman fans who are sick of the Nolanites, they've taken their trolling act on Marvel films and now sci-fi fans as well as James Cameron and Steven Speilberg. So perhaps some of the MOS hate is a backlash against Nolan? Definitely the weaker points seem to have Nolans finger prints on them; the complete lack of humour, plot holes, poor editing, scenes dragging on, ultra realism. It does seem that popular opinion on comic films is that while it was interesting at first, Comic films should feel more like comic books and it is okay to deploy suspension of disbelief to an extent; notice season 2 of Arrow was much less gritty. I think had MOS came 10 years earlier fans would have been much more open to it but people seem to be sick of that style.


Back to the thread at hand after my anti-nolan venting; has CW/WB ruled out another Superman TV show in this universe? I did actually personally ask Stephen Amell about the JLA in August and he said they are keeping the TV universe and movie universe separate (so unless he's lying or a decision gets overturned, we wont see him in Batman vs. superman). If they're keeping superman in the cards, they may not want Routh playing him. Though I guess they could always rewind or fast forward continuity if needed. I'd like to see it, Routh has been a fan of the character since childhood so he could give the proper portrayal. I am seriously doubting whether Cavill can pull off Clark Kent anywhere close to Reeve or even Routh.

[The Laughing Fish]

^ Believe me riddler, I sympathize with anyone who is sick of Nolan's die-hard fanatics. I definitely understand people who are sick of the serious try hard 'realistic' approach to superheroes; after all, I heavily criticise Nolan's Batman films all the time. But although Man of Steel does share some of those films' flaws i.e. the humour, the heroe's recklessness and uneven pacing, I'm more forgiving towards that film because it didn't completely rid of everything that's 'comic book' about Superman, unlike Nolan's Batman, who comes across as a sore-throat suffering James Bond knockoff than the World's Greatest Detective. After all, let's not forget that Superman still disguises himself as Clark Kent by only wearing a pair of glasses in the end.  I believe that unlike Nolan's trilogy where each film has only two or three good performances, I thought the cast in MOS was excellent in my opinion. While I'll agree that I don't think MOS is as good as Marvel's best films (both Captain America films are especially leaps and bounds ahead of this in terms of quality), I still think it's a good enough film.

Comic films should feel more like comic books and it is okay to deploy suspension of disbelief to an extent; notice season 2 of Arrow was much less gritty.

Season 2 of Arrow was definitely more of a comic book than the first season i.e. introduction of the strength-enchancing Mirakuru drug, Deathstroke, and Barry Allen struck by lightning to become the Flash. But I'm not so sure 'less gritty' is the right phrase because there are lots of moments in season two that are rather painful to watch i.e.*spoilers in white* Deathstroke murdering Oliver's mother and the violent showdown between Oliver and Slade back on the Amazo ship .

The third season looks like it will have some light-hearted moments.

I did actually personally ask Stephen Amell about the JLA in August and he said they are keeping the TV universe and movie universe separate (so unless he's lying or a decision gets overturned, we wont see him in Batman vs. superman).

It's unlikely they'll merge the movies and the TV shows together, but Amell did say there were plans to have a CW version of Justice League characters at some point in the future:

"We are creating a Justice League on TV for us. Our show right now has me, Arsenal, Flash. There's going to be Firestorm and Atom. The Justice League elements of it are very present on our shows ['Arrow' and 'The Flash'] already. Now, boy we've referenced Ferris Air a lot. It would be really cool to have Green Lantern. Hopefully, that happens. I have no inside information, unless I do."

Source: http://www.fansshare.com/news/stephen-amell-says-justice-league-of-america-television-series-could-be-possible/

The difference is the proposed CW Justice League will unlikely include Batman, Superman or Wonder Woman.

If they're keeping superman in the cards, they may not want Routh playing him. Though I guess they could always rewind or fast forward continuity if needed. I'd like to see it, Routh has been a fan of the character since childhood so he could give the proper portrayal.

Routh will be playing Ray Palmer in season three of Arrow, a scientist who eventually becomes the superhero Atom. And Routh says there are plans for his character to become his heroic alter ego at some point in time, so I wouldn't expect him to return to playing Superman any time soon.

I am seriously doubting whether Cavill can pull off Clark Kent anywhere close to Reeve or even Routh.

Not a fan of Cavill I presume? If there is one thing that he and Routh in common, it's that their characters don't speak that much. But honestly, I preferred Cavill's line delivery better than Routh's.

I assume when you say pull off Clark Kent, you mean Clark Kent the reporter? I believe that the filmmakers will be going for more of a John Byrne/Animated Series style as a confident (if mellow) reporter than Reeve's simple portrayal. I'll always love Reeve's portrayal, but I look forward to see how Cavill's Clark works at the Daily Planet.

[The Joker]

Considering the digital prequel comic to "Man of Steel", where it's revealed that the empty pod Clark briefly looked at during the segment where he meets Lois for the first time, and subsequently finds out about his heritage, actually belonged to Kara, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Especially in terms of casting being successful with fans, to which I'm sure will subsequently follow with support of said actress being included into the Cinematic DC Universe. However, I'm more than fine with the Supergirl show being completely disconnected with that universe. As I believe DC/WB exploring the DC Multiverse concept with their television projects to be an intriguing approach.

[riddler]

^ Believe me riddler, I sympathize with anyone who is sick of Nolan's die-hard fanatics. I definitely understand people who are sick of the serious try hard 'realistic' approach to superheroes; after all, I heavily criticise Nolan's Batman films all the time. But although Man of Steel does share some of those films' flaws i.e. the humour, the heroe's recklessness and uneven pacing, I'm more forgiving towards that film because it didn't completely rid of everything that's 'comic book' about Superman, unlike Nolan's Batman, who comes across as a sore-throat suffering James Bond knockoff than the World's Greatest Detective. After all, let's not forget that Superman still disguises himself as Clark Kent by only wearing a pair of glasses in the end.  I believe that unlike Nolan's trilogy where each film has only two or three good performances, I thought the cast in MOS was excellent in my opinion. While I'll agree that I don't think MOS is as good as Marvel's best films (both Captain America films are especially leaps and bounds ahead of this in terms of quality), I still think it's a good enough film.

Comic films should feel more like comic books and it is okay to deploy suspension of disbelief to an extent; notice season 2 of Arrow was much less gritty.

Season 2 of Arrow was definitely more of a comic book than the first season i.e. introduction of the strength-enchancing Mirakuru drug, Deathstroke, and Barry Allen struck by lightning to become the Flash. But I'm not so sure 'less gritty' is the right phrase because there are lots of moments in season two that are rather painful to watch i.e.*spoilers in white* Deathstroke murdering Oliver's mother and the violent showdown between Oliver and Slade back on the Amazo ship .

The third season looks like it will have some light-hearted moments.

I did actually personally ask Stephen Amell about the JLA in August and he said they are keeping the TV universe and movie universe separate (so unless he's lying or a decision gets overturned, we wont see him in Batman vs. superman).

It's unlikely they'll merge the movies and the TV shows together, but Amell did say there were plans to have a CW version of Justice League characters at some point in the future:

"We are creating a Justice League on TV for us. Our show right now has me, Arsenal, Flash. There's going to be Firestorm and Atom. The Justice League elements of it are very present on our shows ['Arrow' and 'The Flash'] already. Now, boy we've referenced Ferris Air a lot. It would be really cool to have Green Lantern. Hopefully, that happens. I have no inside information, unless I do."

Source: http://www.fansshare.com/news/stephen-amell-says-justice-league-of-america-television-series-could-be-possible/

The difference is the proposed CW Justice League will unlikely include Batman, Superman or Wonder Woman.

If they're keeping superman in the cards, they may not want Routh playing him. Though I guess they could always rewind or fast forward continuity if needed. I'd like to see it, Routh has been a fan of the character since childhood so he could give the proper portrayal.

Routh will be playing Ray Palmer in season three of Arrow, a scientist who eventually becomes the superhero Atom. And Routh says there are plans for his character to become his heroic alter ego at some point in time, so I wouldn't expect him to return to playing Superman any time soon.

I am seriously doubting whether Cavill can pull off Clark Kent anywhere close to Reeve or even Routh.

Not a fan of Cavill I presume? If there is one thing that he and Routh in common, it's that their characters don't speak that much. But honestly, I preferred Cavill's line delivery better than Routh's.

I assume when you say pull off Clark Kent, you mean Clark Kent the reporter? I believe that the filmmakers will be going for more of a John Byrne/Animated Series style as a confident (if mellow) reporter than Reeve's simple portrayal. I'll always love Reeve's portrayal, but I look forward to see how Cavill's Clark works at the Daily Planet.

Here's my brief interview with Stephen Amell

I guess less gritty is not the best adjective I could have used but what I'm getting at is in season 2 they took the reins off and let them be more fantastical. For instance I saw a panel with the cast and crew before season 1 and they openly said the rule was 'no superpowers'. At the time nobody bothered to ask them if they'd use the Flash (too bad in retrospect), they said probably no Green Lantern given the no powers rule, Batman would fit into that world but there were no plans to use him. Season 2 they obviously lightened up on that and allowed it to be more of a comic book.

I think people that are sick of Nolan and the Nolanites are looking for any shot they can take at them and MOS gives them plenty. It has its strong points and weak points but the weaker points are harder to defend against than the Batman flicks. I know most of us left the IMDB boards because of these clowns but check out them now, there's a lot of backlash against Nolan and more embrace of Burton. The Batman Returns board used to be a haven for Nolanites but now they've practically vacated that place.

I don't have an issue with Cavill or Amy Adams, they played the roles they were given fine. But every time I watch Reeve and Kidder, I have a hard time picturing Cavill and Adams capturing that magic. Kidder pulled off a tough blend of flirty and smart in a way I'm not sure Adams could. It's hard picturing Cavill pulling off the nerdy bumbly Clark Kent. I do think he'll pull off the possessed Clark Kent well.

[Silver Nemesis]

That being said, I do find him to be a rather mediocre actor. When I watched Superman Returns a few more times, I noticed how he slurred his lines in a scene he shared with Jimmy Olsen at a bar,

I always thought Clark was pretending to be tipsy in that scene. Hence the slurring of his speech. Jimmy was clearly a bit wasted, and I figured Clark was just playing along.

There are definitely things about the film that should have been done better though. I don't believe for a second that Clark would let Jonathan die in that tornado. This is the same character who risked suspicion by rescuing drowning kids and trapped workers and so on, but he'll let his father die because "the world isn't ready"? Superman doesn't need a death in the family - his alienation is angst-ridden enough as it is.

I thought Costner delivered a very good performance in the film, but that tornadocide thing was ridiculous. Clark won't risk exposure to save his father using his super speed in front of a group of strangers, but he will risk exposure by trashing some creep's truck – and likely destroying the guy's livelihood – outside a bar filled with people who know his identity, and leaving said truck behind as evidence of what he did?

I think Nolan and Goyer misunderstood the significance of Jonathan's death. It's not meant to burden Clark with a guilt complex; it's meant to teach him humility. When his dad suffered a heart attack in the 1978 film, there was literally nothing Clark could have done about it. It taught him a valuable lesson: that there are some things beyond even his powers. But in Man of Steel he could have saved his father. He just chose not to.

Some of the criticism about the film just doesn't hold up though. I used to be understanding towards anybody who had complaints about Superman's recklessness, and I wasn't fan of it either. But then I remembered that Superman II showed us a Superman who began the fight with Zod, Ursa and Non in the middle of Metropolis,

Because they were already in Metropolis to begin with. Zod was about to kill everyone in Perry's office. Superman had to act there and then, or else suffer his friends' deaths on his conscience. And when he saw innocent people getting hurt, he lured the Phantom Zone criminals away from the city to finish the battle at the Fortress of Solitude. In Man of Steel, Superman attacks Zod at the Kent farm and actually takes the battle to Smallville. And he makes no effort to lure him away from Metropolis during the finale.

Several times in Superman II we see Superman break away from the fighting to save people. For example, the moment where Zod uses his heat vision to attack a tanker truck. How does Superman prevent it from blowing up? He uses a mirror to deflect Zod's heat vision back to its source, then uses his own freezing breath to cool the truck's fuel tank and ensure no one is hurt. In Man of Steel Zod hurls a tanker truck at Superman. How does Superman prevent it from blowing up? He doesn't. He doesn't even try. He just casually levitates over it and lets it explode against the side of a building while he strikes a too-cool-to-look-at-explosion pose. He doesn't even look to see if anyone might have been hurt.

and at one point, punched Non from underground and sent him flying into a building with people inside, with the falling debris injuring a bystander crying "Superman help us!".

That was the first time Superman had ever punched anyone at full strength, so I think he can be forgiven for misjudging it. And we get a clear shot of the office building interior so we can see no one was seriously hurt. In Man of Steel, Superman destroys several blocks of skyscrapers in Metropolis, not to mention half of Smallville. Reeve's Superman punching Non through one wall is hardly comparable to the level of devastation Cavill's Superman unleashed.

Superman films should incorporate elements of the disaster movie genre. But there's a difference between disaster movies and destruction porn. Man of Steel veered too far into the latter.

http://www.qualityjollity.com/MMOSGAME/MassMurdererOfSteel.html

Superman's meant to save us, not simply avenge us after we're all dead.

And then of course people complained about Superman killing Zod in MOS...but conveniently forgot the same thing happened in Superman II.

Not only that, Superman had a smirk on his face when Zod died in SII

Superman never killed Zod in Superman II. That's a viewer inference, but it's not supported by the script, the extended TV cuts of the film, or – most importantly – the filmmakers' intent. All you see in the film is Superman shove Zod into a wall, then Zod sliding down a slope into some smoke. And that's it. By contrast, Snyder made the conscious decision to end Superman's first adventure with him unambiguously murdering his enemy. It wasn't in the original script, Nolan opposed the idea, but Snyder went ahead and had it added to the ending so he could shock his audience. It might have worked in a later film, but for many fans it was an unnecessarily bleak and morbid note on which to end Superman's first adventure.

(and no, the deleted scene with Zod and his henchman getting arrested doesn't count).

The deleted content does count, as it clarifies the authorial intent behind the scene. It was never Donner's intention for Superman to kill Zod. Donner shot the scene where Superman throws Zod into the wall, and he also shot the scene of him being taken into custody by the Arctic police. They're two halves of the same sequence. Lester chose not to include the arrest scene, but it's been restored to several extended TV cuts of the film. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it as much canon as any of the restored scenes in the extended cut of the first film. And in the Donner Cut, Superman performs his time reversal trick to safely restore Zod and his allies to the Phantom Zone anyway (Donner's said he and the writers would have come up with a better ending had they been allowed to finish the film properly). So either way, it was always the filmmakers' intent that Zod and co survived.

In fact I seem to remember there were rumours circulating at one point that Zod would appear in Superman Returns, possibly played by Jude Law. And I don't remember anyone questioning that on the basis that Zod died in Superman II. The idea that Superman killed Zod in that film only seems to have emerged since Man of Steel came out.

After all, let's not forget that Superman still disguises himself as Clark Kent by only wearing a pair of glasses in the end.

But now it's rendered pointless because Lois already knows he's Superman before their working relationship has even started. The thing about her adoring Superman, yet failing to realise the man beneath the suit is right there in front of her every day, is the central premise of the Lois and Clark dynamic. Sure, it's unrealistic. But it's the central conceit underscoring their relationship and the thing that makes their love story so timelessly appealing. We, the readers, the viewers, all know. But Lois doesn't. Except now she does. And their relationship will be about as interesting and layered as the one between Thor and Jane Foster.

[The Laughing Fish]

I always thought Clark was pretending to be tipsy in that scene. Hence the slurring of his speech. Jimmy was clearly a bit wasted, and I figured Clark was just playing along.

Perhaps, but I can't even remember that scene properly. Nonetheless, Routh's line delivery came across as dull throughout the film. Not as horrendous like some people make it out to be online. But not that impressive either.

I think Nolan and Goyer misunderstood the significance of Jonathan's death. It's not meant to burden Clark with a guilt complex; it's meant to teach him humility. When his dad suffered a heart attack in the 1978 film, there was literally nothing Clark could have done about it. It taught him a valuable lesson: that there are some things beyond even his powers. But in Man of Steel he could have saved his father. He just chose not to.

This is yet another example showing Nolan and Goyer aren't as good as people make them out to be.

Because they were already in Metropolis to begin with. Zod was about to kill everyone in Perry's office. Superman had to act there and then, or else suffer his friends' deaths on his conscience. And when he saw innocent people getting hurt, he lured the Phantom Zone criminals away from the city to finish the battle at the Fortress of Solitude. In Man of Steel, Superman attacks Zod at the Kent farm and actually takes the battle to Smallville. And he makes no effort to lure him away from Metropolis during the finale.

Yes, Reeve's Superman had to distract the three villains, and eventually saved others during the battle in Metropolis, unlike Cavill's Superman. But nonetheless, Reeve's Superman, like Cavill, could've prevented endangering people's lives by taking the fight away from Metropolis right from the beginning. Instead, he was too slow to realize everybody else were in danger in danger until the three villains were tearing the city apart. You may argue at least he eventually did so, but I always thought it was kind of slow of Superman to take so long to figure this out.

That was the first time Superman had ever punched anyone at full strength, so I think he can be forgiven for misjudging it. And we get a clear shot of the office building interior so we can see no one was seriously hurt. In Man of Steel, Superman destroys several blocks of skyscrapers in Metropolis, not to mention half of Smallville. Reeve's Superman punching Non through one wall is hardly comparable to the level of devastation Cavill's Superman unleashed.

See, I'm not sure if I can agree that Reeve's Superman never knew how strong he really is. He is shown to be virtually indestructible and powerful in doing anything, not to mention he could turn the world back in time...but he doesn't know how devastating his punching can be? I don't buy it. And while it's true that he never hurt anyone in the office, it still doesn't change the fact that he indirectly injured a bystander crying out for help.

And as for Cavill's Superman for the damage he caused, if we really assess him, we'll realisze that all the damage that he caused was in Smallville: plowing Zod through what appears to be a plant and then into the gas station, plunging at Faora and crashing into a restaurant and a truck, and punching the gigantic Kryptonian into a train. The only person he directly rescued was the soldier who fell from the helicopter. The damage in Metropolis was all caused by Zod. Although I will say this, Superman should've at least carried the Genesis Chamber out of the city once he destroyed it, and sent it into the sea.

As for that deleted scene in Superman II? First of all, if it's not in the final cut, then it didn't happen in the movie. Second of all, there isn't one version of the movie that you can buy on any video format where the three villains survived. I have Superman II on DVD, and the only deleted scene that was included on my copy was Lois teaching Superman how to cook souffle. I suppose that's canonical too? It doesn't matter what Donner intended in the original script, the Lester cut shows that the three villains fell into the pits of the Fortress of Solitude. The only thing we can assume is that they must have fallen to their icy grave. After all, how could they survive now that they're deprived from their powers? The best you might argue that the deleted arctic police scene was included as an extra in The Richard Donner Cut, but it still wouldn't matter because it wasn't in the movie either.

Also, if we're going to argue that deleted scenes should count, then I suppose Non killing the boy in the country town is canonical too? (P.S. forgive me about that jerkoff editing himself in the movie, but it's the only copy I could find online where the kid was murdered, and Ursa delighfully saying "he'll never become a man".)

As for Man of Steel ending with Superman "ambiguously murdering" Zod...you're kidding me right? Superman acted like a cop in the line of duty against a genocidal maniac who refused to surrender and promised to wipe out the entire human race. Superman had no time, nor any other means to stop him. After all, any access to the Phantom Zone was long gone, so Superman was completely out of options. Even if Superman found a way to somehow incapacitate Zod, what place on Earth could actually restrain him? He is a living and unstoppable weapon of mass destruction. Superman was forced to kill him like cops who are forced to kill a psychotic maniac. Superman didn't commit criminal homicide, he took a course of action that saved the entire planet.

And Nolan is in no position to oppose the idea of heroes killing. This is what I've found in TDK Trilogy Screenplays book on Google:

Jonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E8ckVOnkIIL28QWO6oHgBg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=But%20he%20does%20wind%20up%20breaking%20it.&f=false

Of course, Nolan tries to cover up Ra's's death by arguing that Batman got off by a technicality.  And furthermore, if they imply that Batman did kill Dent on purpose to save Gordon's son, well then it defeats the purpose of not killing the Joker when he was about to kill thousands of people then, doesn't it?

In fact I seem to remember there were rumours circulating at one point that Zod would appear in Superman Returns, possibly played by Jude Law. And I don't remember anyone questioning that on the basis that Zod died in Superman II. The idea that Superman killed Zod in that film only seems to have emerged since Man of Steel came out.

I've always thought Zod was killed in Superman II. I never counted the deleted scene. As a matter of fact, it wasn't the only time that Superman killed on film - he also used lethal force against his evil self in Superman III, and Nuclear Man in Superman IV. Now, you can argue that they were "clones", but it still goes to show that Superman was not shy of using lethal force when necessary. And Superman, once again, did kill Lex's henchmen while lifting up the Kryptonite island in Superman Returns.

If there was a thought to bring Zod back on screen for a sequel to Superman Returns, then it could be possible that they were going to follow Richard Donner's version of Superman II.  It doesn't matter anyway because it never happened.

But now it's rendered pointless because Lois already knows he's Superman before their working relationship has even started. The thing about her adoring Superman, yet failing to realise the man beneath the suit is right there in front of her every day, is the central premise of the Lois and Clark dynamic. Sure, it's unrealistic. But it's the central conceit underscoring their relationship and the thing that makes their love story so timelessly appealing. We, the readers, the viewers, all know. But Lois doesn't. Except now she does. And their relationship will be about as interesting and layered as the one between Thor and Jane Foster.

This change doesn't bother me because honestly, this is something that's been done all the time. And there have been a few Superman stories where Lois eventually knows Clark is Superman i.e. Superman: Unbound (the animated film at least, I haven't read the source material). And besides, if people can embrace Batman movies where Bruce Wayne becomes who he is thanks to being actualized by Ra's al Ghul and Lucius Fox - and NOT because he is driven by his own personal grief to fight crime- then I don't think Lois Lane figuring out who Clark Kent is should be a big problem.

[Silver Nemesis]

Yes, Reeve's Superman had to distract the three villains, and eventually saved others during the battle in Metropolis, unlike Cavill's Superman. But nonetheless, Reeve's Superman, like Cavill, could've prevented endangering people's lives by taking the fight away from Metropolis right from the beginning. Instead, he was too slow to realize everybody else were in danger in danger until the three villains were tearing the city apart. You may argue at least he eventually did so, but I always thought it was kind of slow of Superman to take so long to figure this out.

I see the battle as a feint to trick Zod and his cronies into thinking they'd beaten him. It was the first time they'd ever met Superman face-to-face, and after the way everyone had been hyping him up, Superman had to make them think they had an advantage over him. That way they'd be overconfident enough that he could lure them into his trap.

He begins the fight by luring them out over the river, then tries to conduct the rest of the fight in the sky. It was the Phantom Zone criminals who took things to street level. And since it was three against one, he didn't have much choice. Even then, he still broke away from the fighting to protect people from getting hurt: he catches the antenna before it falls on the ubiquitous "My baby!" woman, he freezes the tanker truck to stop it blowing up, and he catches the bus when Ursa and Non throw it.

See, I'm not sure if I can agree that Reeve's Superman never knew how strong he really is. He is shown to be virtually indestructible and powerful in doing anything, not to mention he could turn the world back in time...but he doesn't know how devastating his punching can be? I don't buy it.

The force you exert to lift a weight is not the same as the force you exert to throw a punch. As anyone with boxing or martial arts experience will attest, you don't put all of your strength into a single punch. Not unless you want to break every bone in your hand. When Superman climbs back up to street level after punching Non, he's shaking his hand in pain. He clearly wasn't used to hitting people that hard and he misjudged it. It's the kind of rookie mistake an inexperienced fighter would make. There was nothing accidental about the way Cavill's Superman punched one of the bad guys into a train yard, destroying one of the trains in a fiery explosion. That was performed with deliberate precision and a complete disregard for other people's property and safety.

And while it's true that he never hurt anyone in the office, it still doesn't change the fact that he indirectly injured a bystander crying out for help.

The important thing is that he did save them. I still don't think one woman with a sprained wrist crying out for help is comparable to the thousands who must have perished during Superman's battle with Zod in Man of Steel.

And as for Cavill's Superman for the damage he caused, if we really assess him, we'll realisze that all the damage that he caused was in Smallville: plowing Zod through what appears to be a plant and then into the gas station, plunging at Faora and crashing into a restaurant and a truck, and punching the gigantic Kryptonian into a train.

The worst part of it is that there were cars parked outside the gas station, which suggests there were people inside it when Superman caused it to blow up. Recalling that, I'm reminded of some advice the comic book Superman once gave to Maxima after she punched an opponent through a store.

I still don't understand why Superman took the fight to Smallville when he could have battled Zod out in the fields. I know from a marketing perspective it was done so they could include all the product placement references. But in terms of internal logic, it doesn't make much sense.

As for that deleted scene in Superman II? First of all, if it's not in the final cut, then it didn't happen in the movie. Second of all, there isn't one version of the movie that you can buy on any video format where the three villains survived.

I have to disagree. Particularly since Superman II has had so many different edits over the years – perhaps more than any other film – that there isn't one version everyone unanimously agrees on as being the definitive final cut. And it doesn't matter which cuts were released on video or DVD. What matters is they exist. The European-Australian TV edit is an official licensed version of the film approved by Warner Bros, and it contains the arrest scene.

The scene was also included in the ABC -TV version and the Canadian CBC edit, both of which were official cuts of the film approved by Warner Bros. Zod surviving isn't something contemporary fans have made up to excuse a mistake in the original film. It was intended from the very beginning. From the original shooting script dated 18/4/77:

SUPERMAN smiles tolerantly as CAMERA PANS: they have
reached a large snow cat vehicle with the THREE VILLAINS
tied up inside, guarded by an ARMY PATROL. SUPERMAN hands
the now desperate LUTHOR over to them.

The Donner Cut makes their survival explicit by having them recaptured in the Phantom Zone. Towards the end of Richard Donner's DVD commentary he refers to the fate of Zod and co, saying:

"So they're still out there in space. They could come back."

So on the one hand we have theory A: the Phantom Zone criminals live and are arrested by Arctic police and/or restored to the Phantom Zone (Donner Cut). This theory is perfectly consistent with what we see on screen and is also consistent with the characterisation of Superman in the rest of the film. It's also supported by:

•   The filmmakers' intentions
•   The script
•   The deleted scenes
•   The European-Australian extended TV cut (official)
•   The ABC –TV cut (official)
•   The CBC-TV cut (official)
•   The Donner Cut (official)
•   The Restored International Cut (fan edit)

And on the other hand we have theory B: Zod and his allies die. Nothing on screen supports this. Nor does anything in the script, the extended cuts or in the filmmakers' comments. And it's inconsistent with the characterisation of Superman as someone who protects life at all costs.

This second theory also seems to hinge on the idea that when Zod slid down that slide, he landed in something lethal: a bottomless crevasse, a pool of acid, a pit filled with hungry polar bears, etc. But we don't see any of these things in the film, and there isn't anything to suggest them. This is the Fortress of Solitude, not the Batcave. So isn't it more likely they landed in water? The Fortress is built on a lake, not a crevasse. And since the ambient temperature inside is warm enough for Lois to strut about in a state of undress, then the water was probably quite warm too. Which would account for the layer of mist/vapour that the Phantom Zone criminals pass through when they fall. Based on what we're shown, it seems far more likely to me that this is what happened, rather than them landing in some inescapable death trap that is never shown, mentioned or hinted at.

I have Superman II on DVD, and the only deleted scene that was included on my copy was Lois teaching Superman how to cook souffle. I suppose that's canonical too?

Sure, why not? If it was scripted and filmed, and as long as it doesn't contradict anything else in the film, then there's no reason it shouldn't be considered canon.

It doesn't matter what Donner intended in the original script, the Lester cut shows that the three villains fell into the pits of the Fortress of Solitude. The only thing we can assume is that they must have fallen to their icy grave. After all, how could they survive now that they're deprived from their powers?

We see them falling about ten feet into some mist. That's it. And Zod doesn't even fall; he just slides into the mist. If there was a line in the script, or a deleted scene, or any kind of reference in any of the numerous cuts, that suggested they fell into some kind of pit filled with spikes, then I might believe they died. But that's not the case. Superman planned the whole finale and knew what he was doing. The Phantom Zone criminals either fell into some kind of containment chamber or, more likely, into water. Then Superman handed them over to the Arctic police. We don't see them being arrested in Lester's theatrical cut. We also don't see Luthor being arrested in Lester's theatrical cut. Instead we see Superman flying back to Metropolis with Lois. That doesn't mean he left Luthor to die in the Arctic. And it doesn't mean Zod and his cronies were left to die in a pool of piranha fish beneath the Fortress of Solitude.

Also, if we're going to argue that deleted scenes should count, then I suppose Non killing the boy in the country town is canonical too? (P.S. forgive me about that jerkoff editing himself in the movie, but it's the only copy I could find online where the kid was murdered, and Ursa delighfully saying "he'll never become a man".)

Again, why not? As long as it doesn't contradict the rest of the film, I don't see why it shouldn't be deemed canonical. That particular scene was shot by Lester and not Donner, which makes it less important in my view. But if it was scripted and filmed, then it counts. I also consider the deleted 'Red Book' scenes from Batman Forever as canon, otherwise that whole subplot makes no sense in the theatrical cut.

As for Man of Steel ending with Superman "ambiguously murdering" Zod...you're kidding me right? Superman acted like a cop in the line of duty against a genocidal maniac who refused to surrender and promised to wipe out the entire human race.

But Superman is not a cop. He's a civilian. And he deliberately killed someone. That's murder. You could argue it was justifiable homicide – and that entire sequence is clearly constructed towards supporting that assertion – but it's still murder. Superman, more than any other superhero, fights to uphold the sanctity of life. Zack Snyder didn't end that scene with Superman killing Zod because it was the natural, unavoidable conclusion of the scenario. He wanted to shock people by showing one of the purest most morally-upright heroes in contemporary pop culture doing something barbarically violent, then constructed the preceding scene in such as way as to justify the outcome.

Three things that really bother me about that scene:

1) It was unnecessary. The movie was already overlong as it is. I think they should have stuck to the original script and had Zod drawn into the Phantom Zone with the other Kryptonians.

2) It was ridiculous. As Neal Adams and Kevin Smith pointed out, the direction your eyes are facing is not contingent upon the direction your head is facing:

Adams added, "The other thing that they did too. I don't know...there's like a rivet in the back of what-his-name's head that makes his eyes not move like our eyes can move. Like there are people over there...all I have to do is go like that, and they're dead. Why are his eyes traveling the movement of his head."

Smith laughed, "He had no ocular motion. He could only move his head. He was like 1989 Batman."

Adams added, "If I let his head move, then he'll cut some more wall. Those guys...oh, there's people over there. Oh, I just looked at them. Sorry, they're dead."

Smith interjected, "Dude, you had me with covering his eyes with his hand."

http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/06/30/comic-creator-neal-adams-bashes-man-of-steel/

3) It contradicts Zod's hitherto rational motives. Zod delivers a moving speech about how everything he's done has been motivated not by evil, but by the purpose for which he was bred. This, combined with his words of remorse concerning Jor-El's death, add an extra layer of pathos to his character. But then he totally undoes all this by turning into a one-note wrecking machine hell bent on unleashing evil for the sake of being evil. And why? So the audience will endorse Superman snapping his neck.

Superman had no time, nor any other means to stop him. After all, any access to the Phantom Zone was long gone, so Superman was completely out of options. Even if Superman found a way to somehow incapacitate Zod, what place on Earth could actually restrain him? He is a living and unstoppable weapon of mass destruction. Superman was forced to kill him like cops who are forced to kill a psychotic maniac.

He could have put his hand over Zod's eyes long enough for the family to move, then used his heat vision to lobotomise him. That's perfectly within the capabilities of the comic book Superman. Sure, it's a harsh measure. But it's better than slaughtering the guy and violating his moral code and sacred Kryptonian oath. Alternatively, they could have had Superman use a reflective surface to deflect Zod's own beams back at him. That way Zod would have inadvertently lobotomised himself, which for me would be preferable to Superman snapping his neck.

Of course, Nolan tries to cover up Ra's's death by arguing that Batman got off by a technicality.   And furthermore, if they imply that Batman did kill Dent on purpose to save Gordon's son, well then it defeats the purpose of not killing the Joker when he was about to kill thousands of people then, doesn't it?

I can't see anywhere in that quote where they say Batman killed Dent on purpose. Dent's death was a tragic consequence of Batman's attempt to save Gordon and his family. Anyway you already know my views on that subject, so I won't bore you with them again.

I've always thought Zod was killed in Superman II. I never counted the deleted scene. As a matter of fact, it wasn't the only time that Superman killed on film - he also used lethal force against his evil self in Superman III, and Nuclear Man in Superman IV. Now, you can argue that they were "clones", but it still goes to show that Superman was not shy of using lethal force when necessary.

He killed Nuclear Man in Superman IV, no doubt about it. That's an awful film and I won't try and defend it.

But I don't think he killed Zod, for the reasons stated above, or the evil Superman in Superman III. The evil Superman was never a clone or separate being to begin with. It was always part of Kal-El, like the projection of Clark as his good side. The two combatants in that scene were projections of one being. This is actually very faithful to a certain red kryptonite storyline from the comics, only in the film they replaced the red kryptonite with synthetic kryptonite. Both stories show Kal-El overcoming the negative effects of the kryptonite exposure, at which point the two halves re-merge into a single being. No one was killed.

The only time the Reeve Superman ever killed was Nuclear Man. And I'm sure even Reeve would admit that film sucked.

And Superman, once again, did kill Lex's henchmen while lifting up the Kryptonite island in Superman Returns.

I think that's a bit of a stretch, to be honest. Superman moved a continent in order to save North America, and somewhere on that continent a rock fell on someone. And Superman couldn't have possibly saved those people, even if he'd been anywhere near them, because of the kryptonite. I see what you're saying, but it's a very remote chain of consequence. It's like blaming Batman for killing the Penguin in Batman Returns, because his trick with the signal controller (which I still don't understand) caused the penguin commandoes to set fire to the zoo, which ten minutes later caused Penguin to expire from the heat.

And at least in Superman Returns the moving of the kryptonite continent was a central and essential part of the plot, unlike the final fight between Supes and Zod in Man of Steel.

If there was a thought to bring Zod back on screen for a sequel to Superman Returns, then it could be possible that they were going to follow Richard Donner's version of Superman II.

The discussions about Zod returning were conducted before work had even begun on the Donner Cut.

This change doesn't bother me because honestly, this is something that's been done all the time. And there have been a few Superman stories where Lois eventually knows Clark is Superman i.e. Superman: Unbound (the animated film at least, I haven't read the source material).

The comic – Superman: Brainiac (2009) – is vastly superior to the film. The most poignant subplot in the book, which concerns the death of Jonathan Kent, was ignored in the film in favour of the Lois proposal plot. That comic was part of the Modern Age pre-Flashpoint canon, in which Lois discovered Clark was Superman back in 'Secrets in the Night' (Action Comics #662, February 1991). By that point they'd been working together for years, and it was a natural progression in their relationship. I'm currently re-watching Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, and in that show Lois discovers Superman's true identity at the beginning of season 3. Again, a perfectly acceptable and natural progression of their relationship, since they'd been working together for two years by that point. I don't mind her eventually finding out. But in Man of Steel she knows right from the beginning, even before he's donned the suit. It would be like if Bruce Wayne met Dick Grayson for the first time when the latter was already grown up and operating solo as Nightwing. You'd skip the whole father/son, mentor/sidekick aspect of the relationship.

Superman's my favourite superhero, and this particular change did bother me. It's Clark's relationships with ordinary people like his parents, Lois, Jimmy and Perry that ground him as a character and allow us to relate to him. That's why I don't like versions that show him having fantasy relationships with super powered beings like Wonder Woman. I've heard numerous people describe Man of Steel as a Superman movie for people who hate Superman, and its changes like this one that lend credence to that description.