Supergirl (CBS)

[The Laughing Fish]

Don't get me wrong, I was never trying to paint Reeve's Superman negatively in favour of Cavill's Superman. I was only trying to point out that both films should've made their heroes try to take the battle away from populated areas from the beginning. One eventually did so, even though it was arguably too late (Reeve). The other didn't (Cavill). The only reason that SII and MOS' filmmakers went for this direction is because they wanted an action spectacle, without applying too much logic on the heroes' part. Cavill's Superman instantly destroying that gas station was particularly laughable. I agree that Superman was reckless.

Nonetheless, there is a precedent that Superman is capable of recklessness. I read Superman: Earth One Volume 2 a while ago and there was a scene where Superman saved Jimmy Olsen's life by ploughing Parasite into buildings and vehicles.



But to be clear, I didn't like Earth One Vol. 2. I thought Volume 1 was better, and had a few striking similarities to MOS.

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.

But still, Superman isn't an ordinary man. I really doubt that he wasn't aware how strong he really was. Clark Kent in MOS was afraid to fight back when he was a teenager because he knew he could instantly kill someone with his strength. Of course that gets forgotten once he loses control against Zod, but still.

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.

I strongly disagree. I never count deleted scenes as part of any movie's continuity. If I did, I'd have to accept the good AND the bad. I'm not capable of doing that, and since I don't want to have a double standard, I choose to discard all deleted scenes from continuity. I only treat them as a curiosity - what might have been.

In my opinion, I always treat the theatrical versions as the only one that's canonical. I've seen a few deleted scenes I liked for The Avengers, but there were some I didn't care for. I'm not going to cherry pick which is canonical for my own liking.

In Superman II's case, the fact that the European-Australian cut was never even released on home video to this day reinforces that those scenes aren't in continuity. Regardless if they were approved by Warner Bros. All we see is the three villains falling into the pit. And that's it; they're in their icy graves. And this isn't a new belief to favour the new film. That "Greatest Superman Moment Ever" clip I embedded from YouTube was uploaded in 2007. If you take a look at the comments posted before 2013, the majority of users believed all three of them were killed and didn't think the deleted scene counted.

There are a few websites that counted SII's Zod as being killed off. These are just two examples:

http://www.moviedeaths.com/superman_ii/general_zod/ (Article dated back in 2008.)

http://whatculture.com/film/10-most-satisfying-villain-deaths-in-movie-history.php/6 (P.S. I hate WhatCulture but the author has expressed his appreciation for both SII and MOS.)

Once again, it doesn't matter what Donner originally intended. I don't consider The Richard Donner Cut to be canonical in any form. Not only because I think it's an inferior version of Superman II (except for the Jor-El scenes), but it's also an unfinished film. Filmmakers and producers cut scenes all the time during filming, for better or for worse. There are tons of scenes in Burton's Batman films that had been planned in the script, but they were discarded, regardless if they were filmed or not.

it's inconsistent with the characterisation of Superman as someone who protects life at all costs.

And yet, that's what we're shown on screen in the final theatrical cut. And let's face it, it makes no sense to me that the three villains miraculously survived when they no longer had any powers and they fell deep cold into the arctic. How the hell Superman get contact with the police in the first place?

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.

Excuse me, but the same thing can be said about Batman. How can you argue that Batman is a soldier when he doesn't have any jurisdiction and operates outside the law? You don't think this is a double standard? If we're going to complain about Superman killing Zod, then we might as well complain about Burton's Batman and Nolan's Batman killing off villains as well. *

Superman killing may be a rare thing in comics, but it has happened in the films – regardless if they were good or bad. In this case in MOS, Superman, like Batman in The Dark Knight Rises, had no choice.

*By the way, in case you forgot, my argument against Nolan's Batman is that he should've killed the Joker when people's lives were in danger.

Three things that really bother me about that scene:

1) It was unnecessary. The movie was already overlong as it is.

That's how I feel about Two-Face in The Dark Knight. I always thought that movie was way too long than it needed to be, and Two-Face's subplot made it even longer. And it also doesn't make any sense how he transformed to the dark side. Never mind we see no signs of any real psychosis earlier on, but Dent knows the Joker tried to kill Rachel before and eventually succeeded in doing so...but he lets him go? If Dent hated Gordon because the commissioner's lack of guts towards corruption indirectly played a part in Rachel's murder, then surely his hatred for the man who intentionally killed her must be burning even stronger.

It's a laughable attempt at character development.

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/

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.

Even if Superman were to cover Zod's eyes, do you seriously believe that Zod would surrender? And besides, if Faora had to quickly move her hand away from Superman's face when he was firing his heat vision, then it's unlikely that Superman could cover Zod's eyes long enough, don't you think? I find this suggestion by Neal Adams to be ludicrous to be honest. Superman had to act fast, and took the guaranteed course of action to save lives. What he did in that scene is a lot more moral and less ridiculous than Batman's premeditated murder of Ra's al Ghul. And unlike Bale's Batman, Superman was at least broken up about it.

But hey, Zack Snyder sucks and Christopher Nolan is hyped up to be a great director, right? So we're supposed to like anything and everything Nolan does. 

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.

I don't believe Zod contradicted his own motives at all. His motive was to restore Krypton back from extinction, even if it meant it comes at the expense of another race. When Superman and the US military defeated him, Zod's hopes to restore Krypton were shattered. He no longer had a purpose, and blames Superman for taking everything away from him. Zod thought Superman cared more for the people of Earth than his own Kryptonian heritage. That's why he was full of rage and swore to kill everybody person on Earth, and made the ultimatum that either he or Superman dies.

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 seriously doubt that the filmmakers can offer an objective evaluation of their own work. Sometimes, an idea is badly executed.  They even coped out that Batman was directly responsible Ra's'death for crying out loud. But TDKR did have Batman acknowledge that he killed Ra's to save millions of innocent people.

For god's sake, Christopher Nolan admitted in that book that he wasn't even aware that Batman had a no-kill policy until David Goyer told him about it. Jonathan Nolan admitted that he thought Ra's al Ghul's murder was dubious, but he didn't persuade his brother to not go ahead with those scenes. They knew they were breaking their own rules to suit the story, and they didn't bother to remedy their mistakes and make Batman's actions more believable. They encouraged the audience to have it both ways – Ra's al Ghul deserved to die, but the Joker didn't, without any justification why, even though the latter was far more sinister than the former.

This passage in the script describes how Two-Face dies, without even a mention or insinuating that it was even an accident.

Dent flips the coin. High. Dent's eyes follow the coin up. Batman hurls himself at Dent and the boy.

All three of them vanish over the edge. A terrible crash - then silence, but for the sound of Dent's coin, spinning on the floor at the edge of the hole.

Gordon, horrified, runs to the edge - peers down.

Dent lies at the bottom of the hole, his neck broken. Dead. 

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PA319&dq=Dent+flips+the+coin.+High.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QTAmVNTrCMXZ8gWZy4DoBg&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Dent%20flips%20the%20coin.%20High.&f=false

And after that watching TDK's ending again, I realized the reason why Batman called Dent "a true hero" was because he decided to take the blame for everything he did while talking about the supposedly disastrous consequences with Gordon. As soon as Gordon says people will lose up if the truth comes out, Batman decides to preserve Dent's reputation instead.

Really poorly staged scene that was.

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.

I disagree. Superman knew that there were people stranded on an island, but he didn't care about their own safety when he lifted to island. And because of this, they were crushed to death. I'd imagine that Superman would've captured Lex and his henchmen first, and then get rid of the island.

Unless, of course, the island was growing at a rapid rate and Superman had to get rid of it as quickly as possible? I honestly can't remember.

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.

I see what you mean. And that's similar to how I feel about Nolan's Batman. Nolan came up with a story not about a man who is driven to avenge the murder of his parents who trains himself to be at peak condition in order to become the best and dedicated crime fighter possible, but a man who endures a series of coincidences. Norm Breyfogle was interviewed on a fan's podcast called Trentuss Magnuss Punches Reality, from this pop culture site called Two True Freaks. While talking about how difficult it is to apply "realism" in comics without hurting people's suspension of disbelief, Breyfogle was very critical about Batman's characterization in the Nolan films:

The other equally troubling problem I had with the Nolan films is that the story made Batman less of his own man. I mean, the Nolan films portrayed him as an unfocused, angry guy until Ra's al Ghul got a hold of him when he was an adult. That's not Batman! In fact, it makes even more difficult to believe that Batman can do the things that he does. One of the main things about Batman that makes him a little bit more believable that he can do these superhuman feats is that he was so driven from the age of nine or so (or whatever age he was when his parents got killed) to reach the peak of human ability in the mental spirit and the physical spirit. And Nolan completely wiped that away! And not only that, he made Batman's creation as a result of Ra's al Ghul, one of his own villains, instead of being his own man.

The main problem I have outside of portraying Batman realistically on live action is that Batman is that not his own man. In my opinion, we are still waiting for the best Batman to be portrayed on screen. For instance, one great example that is a glaring lack we've had in the Nolan films is that because Bruce Wayne is unfocused until he meets Ra's al Ghul, we don't get to see any montage sequences of young Bruce Wayne growing and building his physique, by going through his acrobatics, weightlifting, training and his martial arts. We don't get to see that. As any strong Batman fan of the comics, including me, will tell you is that's one of the most important things about Batman. To me, it also helped me as a young man to be a self-actualised individual. Bruce Wayne in the Batman films is not a self-actualised individual – he's actualised by Ra's al Ghul!

Breyfogle also complained how ridiculous it is for Lucius Fox being the supreme scientist instead of Batman, and calls Batman in these movies "an angry guy in a Halloween costume". His complaints about Ra's al Ghul's role in Bruce becoming Batman is similar to people not liking the Joker responsible for murdering Bruce's parents.

You can listen to the entire podcast for yourself here. http://twotruefreaks.com/media/podcasts/TrentusMagnusPunchesReality/mp3/NormBreyfogle02.mp3

[Silver Nemesis]

But to be clear, I didn't like Earth One Vol. 2. I thought Volume 1 was better, and had a few striking similarities to MOS.

I've only read Superman: Earth One volume 1. I also thought it was very similar to Man of Steel. So much so that I suspect it was a conscious influence.

I strongly disagree. I never count deleted scenes as part of any movie's continuity. If I did, I'd have to accept the good AND the bad. I'm not capable of doing that, and since I don't want to have a double standard, I choose to discard all deleted scenes from continuity. I only treat them as a curiosity - what might have been.

I accept the story that was scripted and filmed as canon. The fact that certain scenes were cut from the original theatrical release – most likely due to legal reasons which no longer apply – does not change the story. And the story of Superman II ends with the Phantom Zone criminals being depowered and handed over to the police along with Luthor. The Donner Cut ends with them being returned to the Phantom Zone. That's the official plot of Superman II, as substantiated by the script and the longest edits of the film, which have been officially endorsed by Warner Bros. And nothing in Richard Lester's theatrical cut contradicts this version of the story. Nor does Lester's cut support the theory that Zod definitely died in the film.

In my opinion, I always treat the theatrical versions as the only one that's canonical. I've seen a few deleted scenes I liked for The Avengers, but there were some I didn't care for. I'm not going to cherry pick which is canonical for my own liking.

The original theatrical cut of Superman II was mired by legal problems and behind-the-scenes interference. They had to minimise the use of footage shot by Donner and Hackman refused to do reshoots with Lester, which is why half of Luthor's scenes were cut. They also couldn't use any of the scenes with Brando. And the end result is an incomplete producer's cut which was never screened before a test audience and on which the original director and writers had no input. Several key events are not shown on screen in this version, again for legal rather than creative reasons. We don't see how Superman recovers his powers. We know it happens, but we're never shown how. It's only by looking at the script or the extended cuts that we learn he was rejuvenated by the vestigial energy of Jor-El in the sunstone crystals. We don't see Luthor leave the Fortress of Solitude, but we know he did. In the case of Superman II, we have to take into account the longest cuts of the film, otherwise we only get part of the story.

In Superman II's case, the fact that the European-Australian cut was never even released on home video to this day reinforces that those scenes aren't in continuity. Regardless if they were approved by Warner Bros.

I don't determine canonicity on the basis on home video releases. The Adam West Batman TV series has never been given a home release (thankfully that will soon change). Does that mean the sixties TV show is not canon? Will it suddenly become canon when it gets a DVD release? Has it been apocryphal for the past 48 years?

All we see is the three villains falling into the pit. And that's it; they're in their icy graves.

But that's the point – we don't see him fall into a pit. We see him fall into some mist and we don't see what lies beneath it. There's nothing in the film to suggest there's a bottomless pit down there. Why would there be? The Fortress is built on ice and water. So the logical conclusion is that there's water down below. That would explain the layer of mist, which looks like the mist we see floating above the water outside.

Why would the sunstone crystal that created the Fortress drill a bottomless chasm beneath it, then drain all the water out of it and create a thin layer of mist in the middle of the air? Is there anything in the film to even imply this is what happened? Since we saw the crystal walls of the Fortress emerging from beneath the water in the previous film, isn't it far more logical to assume there's water underneath it? I just don't get where this idea comes from that there's definitely a pit down there and they definitely couldn't have survived. Nothing in the script or any version of the film supports that as canon. It's just a fan theory, and one which is directly contradicted by all the evidence.

Even if we were to disregard the script, authorial intent, licensed extended cuts, Donner Cut, and the logical inference that Zod and co landed in water and were arrested, why should we then accept the fan theory of a pit/trap which is never shown, never hinted at, is not mentioned in the script, deleted scenes, extended cuts, and has never been mentioned by anyone who worked on the film? It's one thing to deny the canonicity of something in the face of evidence. It's another thing to then assert the canonicity of something contradictory which has no evidence whatsoever to support it.

And this isn't a new belief to favour the new film.

I'm pretty sure it is.

That "Greatest Superman Moment Ever" clip I embedded from YouTube was uploaded in 2007. If you take a look at the comments posted before 2013, the majority of users believed all three of them were killed and didn't think the deleted scene counted.

There are almost five thousand comments on that video. I glanced over the first few dozen, all of which were made within the last year by foul-mouthed Man of Steel fans claiming that Superman f***ing broke Zod's f***ing spine and f***ing threw him down five f***ing storeys and f***ing laughed after he f***ing did it. Since that clearly isn't what happens in the clip, you'll forgive me for not taking these people's words as law.

I expanded all the remaining comments and used control-search to scan for those dating from 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012. I could only find one pre-2013 comment, and it had nothing to do with Superman killing or not killing Zod. All the other comments dated from after Man of Steel's release date. I'm not saying you're wrong – there may well be something wrong with my web browser, but I just can't find those comments you mentioned. Could you perhaps provide me with a link to some of the pre-2012 comments where people say Superman definitely killed Zod? Again, I'm not saying your wrong. I just can't seem to find them.

There are a few websites that counted SII's Zod as being killed off. These are just two examples:

http://www.moviedeaths.com/superman_ii/general_zod/ (Article dated back in 2008.)

http://whatculture.com/film/10-most-satisfying-villain-deaths-in-movie-history.php/6 (P.S. I hate WhatCulture but the author has expressed his appreciation for both SII and MOS.)

I'll take the evidence of the filmmakers, the script and the official extended cuts over fan articles with nothing to back them up. Incidentally, that What Culture article was posted in September 26th 2013. After Man of Steel came out. And judging from the author's review of Man of Steel, he's a fan. So this just reinforces my earlier point.

Once again, it doesn't matter what Donner originally intended. I don't consider The Richard Donner Cut to be canonical in any form. Not only because I think it's an inferior version of Superman II (except for the Jor-El scenes), but it's also an unfinished film

I like the Lester Cut, but I prefer the Donner version. You're right about it being incomplete, but I still think it's more tonally consistent with the original film than Lester's edit. There are some nice moments of symmetry between the 1978 film and the Donner Cut which aren't in the theatrical version, like the scene between Lois and Superman outside the Fortress. Compare the dialogue in that scene to the scene in the first film where he says goodbye to his mother in the field. Nice touches like that connect it with the first film and add an extra lay of emotionality. We get more of a sense of what Superman is feeling in the Donner Cut than we do in Lester's. And the plot itself makes more sense thanks to the restored Brando scenes. We actually see how Superman got his powers back. We also get more scenes of Gene Hackman, which is always a good thing in my book.

Ultimately, Superman II was written and conceived under Donner's supervision. It was his project from the get go and was intended to be a continuation of the story he began in the first movie. Lester was brought in to salvage the project after the Salkinds screwed things up. But Lester clearly never understood Donner's vision, or the essence of the Superman character. I like humour in Superman films, but some of the stuff Lester added – particularly in Superman III – was horribly misjudged. And unfortunately there are elements of that in his cut of Superman II. He also added superpowers which weren't consistent with the comics. I see his version as a decent Alan Smithee cut, but far from definitive. Donner's version, in my opinion, is more consistent with the first film, is better acted, has a more coherent narrative, balanced tone and feels more like part two of the saga that began in 1978. Most diehard Superman fans seem to agree that there isn't one single definitive cut of this film, as each different version has merits the others don't. But for me, the Donner Cut is the closest we have to definitive. He started the film in '77, and in 2006 he got to finish it.

There are tons of scenes in Burton's Batman films that had been planned in the script, but they were discarded, regardless if they were filmed or not.

And people on this site, myself included, have frequently invoked those scenes to explain the numerous plot holes in the theatrical cuts. I think many of us agree that Batman Returns in particular would have benefited from sticking closer to the script.

The difference between the scripted scenes in Batman Returns and those in Superman II is that Donner did actually shoot those scenes with the intention of including them in the film.

And yet, that's what we're shown on screen in the final theatrical cut.

Once again, that's not what we see. We see them falling through some mist. And in the official extended cuts we see them being arrested. Snyder fans can write all the fan fiction they want about bottomless pits, but there's nothing in the script, Lester's cut or any other version of the film to substantiate or even hint at the existence of such a pit. In fact all the evidence contradicts that theory.

How the hell Superman get contact with the police in the first place?

Using a telephone? If the Fortress is equipped with crystalline computers, sentient holograms, a red sun chamber and, most impressively of all, a flushing lavatory, then a primitive radio device shouldn't be out of the question. Superman uses the Fortress to monitor events all over the planet. Sending signals to the police should be a piece of cake.

Excuse me, but the same thing can be said about Batman. How can you argue that Batman is a soldier when he doesn't have any jurisdiction and operates outside the law? You don't think this is a double standard?

Of course it's murder. Unless we're talking about the Pre-Crisis or Adam West versions of Batman, who were both deputised agents of the law, and were therefore legally empowered to dispense lethal force when necessary.

I used the word "solider" in a previous discussion to explain Batman's attitude to killing. He sees himself and Robin as soldiers and has said so in numerous comics, particularly those written by Frank Miller. That's how he sees himself, and that's how Nolan's Batman sees himself. I never said I agreed with his self-perception or thought it was morally right for him to kill people.

If I said I was cool with Batman killing, then yes it would be a double standard. But I've said in several threads that I prefer Batman not to kill. I don't like the fact that Batman kills in the films, but I accept the fact that he was originally conceived as a killer back in 1939. Superman wasn't. I don't like the double standard Batman displays in the films where says he won't kill/use guns, but then does. But again, I accept that he's done this in the comics for decades, even in stories written by people like Denny O'Neil. Superman has never flaunted a comparable double standard, or at least not with the same frequency. Batman's killed literally hundreds of people over the years. Superman hasn't. Batman hasn't taken an oath to relinquish his super powers and retire if he ever kills. Superman has. They're two different characters, but I never extended clemency to one that I then denied the other.

Superman killing may be a rare thing in comics, but it has happened in the films – regardless if they were good or bad. In this case in MOS, Superman, like Batman in The Dark Knight Rises, had no choice.

It happened in Superman IV and Man of Steel. And I'm not convinced it was justifiable in either case.

Even if Superman were to cover Zod's eyes, do you seriously believe that Zod would surrender?

No, which is why I suggested lobotomising him immediately afterwards. The Superman in the comics is perfectly capable of doing this with his heat vision. A parallel Superman lobotomised Doomsday once in an episode of Justice League. If he can use this method to pacify Doomsday, then he can certainly use it on Zod.

And besides, if Faora had to quickly move her hand away from Superman's face when he was firing his heat vision, then it's unlikely that Superman could cover Zod's eyes long enough, don't you think?

Heat vision hurts, but unless Cavill's Superman is substantially weaker than every previous incarnation of Superman, he should be able to withstand it for a few seconds at least. He just needs to do it long enough for the family to move, then lobotomise Zod. Neal Adams and Kevin Smith have both contributed to Superman stories over the years, and they agree with me on this. The hand over the eyes/lobotomy strategy is perfectly within the abilities of the comic book Superman.

And unlike Bale's Batman, Superman was at least broken up about it.

He yelled "Nooooo!" once and then happily went off to destroy some government property and exchange banter with the military. The extent of his grief over Zod remains to be seen in Batman vs. Superman. If the comic book Superman had killed an enemy like that, he would have relinquished his powers and/or left the Earth to go into exile.

But hey, Zack Snyder sucks and Christopher Nolan is hyped up to be a great director, right?

Pretty much.

That's why he was full of rage and swore to kill everybody person on Earth, and made the ultimatum that either he or Superman dies.

Zod's purpose was to protect Krypton and preserve the future of his people. Going on a mindless rampage and killing as many innocent humans as possible in no way served that purpose. It was a completely irrational thing to do. A more logical course of action would have been to retreat, leave Earth and try to locate one of the lost Kryptonian seeding colonies, then salvage the scientific apparatus he'd need to either: A) release his allies from the Phantom Zone; B) build a new world engine with which to terraform Earth; C) extract the codex from Superman's body. But he doesn't try to pursue any of those options. Instead he basically commits suicide by initiating a scenario where Superman will be driven to kill him. And by placing himself in that situation, in direct contravention of his raison d'etre, he wilfully compromised his people's last chance of survival.

Until that point, Zod had been portrayed as a rational, methodical character whose actions served a purpose. There are exceptions to this, like when he inexplicably decides to freak Superman out with a vision of him being buried in skulls. Wasn't he trying to get him on his side at that point? Why terrify him with such a horrific vision? But anyway, the ending just didn't work for me. It reduced Zod from a potentially interesting and layered villain to a one-dimensional berserker.

This passage in the script describes how Two-Face dies, without even a mention or insinuating that it was even an accident.

It also doesn't mention or insinuate that Dent's death was an outcome Batman actively wanted.

I'd imagine that Superman would've captured Lex and his henchmen first, and then get rid of the island.

But how could he possibly capture them when they were hiding on a continent made from kryptonite?

Unless, of course, the island was growing at a rapid rate and Superman had to get rid of it as quickly as possible? I honestly can't remember.

That's my recollection. Metropolis was already suffering the consequences of its presence, and had it continued to grow it would have destroyed most of North America, just like Lex predicted.

Breyfogle also complained how ridiculous it is for Lucius Fox being the supreme scientist instead of Batman, and calls Batman in these movies "an angry guy in a Halloween costume". His complaints about Ra's al Ghul's role in Bruce becoming Batman is similar to people not liking the Joker responsible for murdering Bruce's parents.

You can listen to the entire podcast for yourself here. http://twotruefreaks.com/media/podcasts/TrentusMagnusPunchesReality/mp3/NormBreyfogle02.mp3

Thanks for the podcast link. I'll try and listen to it when I get the time. The quote is interesting too. I see what you and Breyfogle are saying, and it's a valid viewpoint. And I agree with him that we've yet to see the definitive live action Batman.

[The Laughing Fish]

As for the YouTube comments, that will take me forever looking at the oldest comments since there is no "Oldest first" option. How did you expand the comments and re-arranged them? Off-topic, looking back at the way people post their comments on YouTube reminded me why I always thought that place and IMDB message boards are a cesspool on the internet. Reading the garbage that people post online makes me want to shoot myself. Ugh. 

RE: the comparison between the 60s Batman TV show and Superman II - there's a big difference between a completed television series that has been in regular syndication over the years, and a TV-exclusive version of a movie that's barely ever been broadcasted. How many times has the European-Australian cut aired after the 1980s? I only got to watch that version thanks to my cousin who taped it way back in 1982 or whatever. In contrast, the theatrical version of Superman II has been shown on TV all the time.

Sorry, but I maintain my stance that the final theatrical cut should be canonical. It's not people's fault if the final official cut gave them the impression the villains perished. Blame the Salkinds and Richard Lester for cutting out that arctic police scene. They could have re-filmed that scene if they wanted to, or at least show the villains survived. But they didn't. They left it exactly the way it is. And if it's true that Richard Donner badmouthed the producers to the world media, then he has to take some responsibility too. No matter how shifty and amoral your employers are, don't give them the excuse to fire you.

But that's the point – we don't see him fall into a pit. We see him fall into some mist and we don't see what lies beneath it. There's nothing in the film to suggest there's a bottomless pit down there. Why would there be? The Fortress is built on ice and water. So the logical conclusion is that there's water down below. That would explain the layer of mist, which looks like the mist we see floating above the water outside.

Once again, that's not what we see. We see them falling through some mist. And in the official extended cuts we see them being arrested. Snyder fans can write all the fan fiction they want about bottomless pits, but there's nothing in the script, Lester's cut or any other version of the film to substantiate or even hint at the existence of such a pit. In fact all the evidence contradicts that theory.

The fact they've fallen into the bottom with their voices echoing must mean their chances of survival isn't that good. What could be in the bottom of the Fortress? It's never explained, and if there was water there then how could they survive if they don't have any powers? It is easy to assume that there's nothing there because the Salkinds and Richard Lester thoughtlessly disregarded their aftermath. I always thought they were killed. Once again, blame the producers and Lester.

And once again, if we're going to accept all deleted scenes as canon in movies, then what about the deleted scene where Ripley finds Dallas and Brett turning into eggs in Alien?

(WARNING - Not for the faint of heart)

That was planned and intended in the original script, but then that was cut out because of pacing and creative issues. If we accept that as canon, then it doesn't make sense since all the Xenomorph victims have been cocooned, and it was the Queen that gave birth to the eggs.

And this isn't a new belief to favour the new film.

I'm pretty sure it is.

[/quote]

And I'm pretty sure some people would be inclined to disagree with you. 

I like the Lester Cut, but I prefer the Donner version.

The Jor-El scenes in the Donner cut are the best simply because someone is telling Clark that giving up his powers is a terrible idea. But there were too many things I didn't care for e.g. the alternate opening scene was ridiculous, the final showdown between Superman and the villains in the Fortress of Solitude was awkward and dragged on, I really didn't the alternate version of Lois finding out Clark was Superman, and if I remember correctly, the villains' attack of that country town was entirely cut out. And it just reminded me about my gripes about Superman's willingness to give up his powers. To me, only Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 does the quitting theme any justice. Even the recent TASM2 during the last ten minutes packs a punch, albeit briefly.

I'll tell you this though - no matter how much I liked MOS, Richard Donner's 1978 film remains the definitive live-action Superman movie to date in my opinion. It may have its share of plot holes, and Superman turning back time may be illogical, but I have no problem turning a blind eye because of the sheer emotion of Superman's scream and determination to save Lois. It always gets me invested watching that. I don't think any Superman film has come close since. And yes, that includes Superman II.

Of course it's murder. Unless we're talking about the Pre-Crisis or Adam West versions of Batman, who were both deputised agents of the law, and were therefore legally empowered to dispense lethal force when necessary.

I used the word "solider" in a previous discussion to explain Batman's attitude to killing. He sees himself and Robin as soldiers and has said so in numerous comics, particularly those written by Frank Miller. That's how he sees himself, and that's how Nolan's Batman sees himself. I never said I agreed with his self-perception or thought it was morally right for him to kill people.

If I said I was cool with Batman killing, then yes it would be a double standard. But I've said in several threads that I prefer Batman not to kill. I don't like the fact that Batman kills in the films, but I accept the fact that he was originally conceived as a killer back in 1939. Superman wasn't. I don't like the double standard Batman displays in the films where says he won't kill/use guns, but then does. But again, I accept that he's done this in the comics for decades, even in stories written by people like Denny O'Neil. Superman has never flaunted a comparable double standard, or at least not with the same frequency. Batman's killed literally hundreds of people over the years. Superman hasn't. Batman hasn't taken an oath to relinquish his super powers and retire if he ever kills. Superman has. They're two different characters, but I never extended clemency to one that I then denied the other.

If you were only trying to rationalise what Nolan's Batman thought he was doing but not condoning it, then that's fine. It's exactly like me trying to rationalise why Burton's Batman was trying to counter Catwoman's point about the two of them being above the law in Batman Returns.

But I still don't understand how you can argue that Superman killing Zod is more ambiguous than, for example, Batman planning to kill Ra's al Ghul.

It happened in Superman IV and Man of Steel. And I'm not convinced it was justifiable in either case.

Well in that case, Batman was unjustified to burning down a temple that killed who knows how many people, unjustified to kill Ra's al Ghul and Two-Face in the spur of the moment, and Talia. On his first day out, an inexperienced Superman was struggling to fight a maniacal Zod, and quickly panicked in taking a course of action to save lives. In contrast, Batman had several years to learn how the criminal mind worked - and failed - and makes the conscious decision to end Ra's despite knowing he could've save him.

Heat vision hurts, but unless Cavill's Superman is substantially weaker than every previous incarnation of Superman, he should be able to withstand it for a few seconds at least. He just needs to do it long enough for the family to move, then lobotomise Zod. Neal Adams and Kevin Smith have both contributed to Superman stories over the years, and they agree with me on this. The hand over the eyes/lobotomy strategy is perfectly within the abilities of the comic book Superman.

If Neal Adams is going to complain about Superman killing, then he should apply the same standard to Batman. But given how he seems to like Nolan's first two films, I doubt he will. At least Superman acted in the heat of the moment and didn't cop out saying BS like "I won't kill but I don't have to save you". Batman saying that meant he was aware that he could have saved him. That's much worse if you ask me. If Adams can live with that, then Superman killing a genocidal maniac shouldn't be a big problem for him.

And Kevin Smith comes across as a sycophant in everything I read or see. I never get the feeling he's actually telling the truth about what he really thinks. Like Frank Miller conveniently saying he loved BB when it first came out but now he says he dislikes all Batman movies.

He yelled "Nooooo!" once and then happily went off to destroy some government property and exchange banter with the military. The extent of his grief over Zod remains to be seen in Batman vs. Superman. If the comic book Superman had killed an enemy like that, he would have relinquished his powers and/or left the Earth to go into exile.

At least Cavill's Superman reacted with grief for a moment. Unlike Bale's Batman after destroying the temple or at the end of BB, or even the sequels.  And once again, at least Superman didn't cop out with such BS by saying "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" either. We don't really see any change in Bruce Wayne as a person either, do we? I think Cavill's Superman at least reacting is better than nothing.

There is one particular flaw that MOS and Nolan's Batman films share though. For all the talk about symbolism and so on, both MOS and BB fail to show us what sort of impact that the heroes' made on their cities. We don't get to see people's reaction or impression of Superman or Batman at the end of each movie, despite the middle portion of the movies talk about their heroes wanting to become something symbolic. Both films have incredibly impersonal endings where things wrap up too conveniently, and the heroes forgot about the aftermath too quickly. Compare this to The Avengers, where we get to see a montage sequence of people around the world reacting to the Chitauri aftermath and show their appreciation. WB/DC's recent films have been a massive failure in this area.

But hey, Zack Snyder sucks and Christopher Nolan is hyped up to be a great director, right?

Pretty much.

I'm far from a Zack Snyder fan myself, believe it or not. I hated 300, I didn't like Watchmen and I turned Sucker Punch off after twenty five minutes. But Nolan isn't much better either as far as I'm concerned. People love complaining about other movies suffering from a lack of character development, poor scripting and pacing, but I'd argue the same thing can be said about Nolan's films if you really pay attention.

The only two decent films he has ever done are Memento and The Prestige. The fact that I can suspend my disbelief easily while watching those two compared to Nolan's Batman ones should tell you something. Besides those films, Nolan is nowhere near as good as he's hyped up to be.

RE: General Zod. Of course he became irrational by the end of the movie – his chance to restore Krypton was destroyed, and it was his only chance. He lost everything. And how could he retreat? He has no other means to escape Earth, the Phantom Zone is closed and sent to god knows where, and he certainly can't fly his way deep into outer space without the Earth's yellow sun. And let's not forget that Superman destroyed the scout ship that carried the only remaining Genesis Chamber – where it stored embryos to create new Kryptonian people. That was Zod's only chance to save Krypton, and Superman took it away from him. Zod was stuck on Earth all alone and was devastated. His purpose was stripped from him, and now he's overcome with rage.

I know that I always criticise for Goyer and Nolan for excessive monologues, but for once, this speech is used for great effect. It says everything about Zod's distraught state of mind:

As far as I'm concerned, this is far better written than any of the nonsensical things that the villains did in Nolan's Batman films. Although it's not really saying much. It's still far from perfect. The Codex becomes an afterthought at times and Zod wanting Lois to come on board of his ship with Kal-El – for no good reason - is a dumb plot hole (that's used for plot convenience so Jor-El can pass on the information on how to beat the Kyptonians). But then again, it's nowhere less logical than anything that Nolan's villains came up with. I don't see Zod anywhere near as contradictory or underdeveloped as Joker, or especially Two-Face in TDK. Or Talia in TDKR. Only Ra's al Ghul had a clearer motive, and yet even he does things that don't make any sense. I still do not understand the point of him having a decoy and lied to Bruce about his true identity.

This passage in the script describes how Two-Face dies, without even a mention or insinuating that it was even an accident.

It also doesn't mention or insinuate that Dent's death was an outcome Batman actively wanted.

It does go to show that the scene should have been done better and coherently if it was meant to be an accident. I've met lots of people who thought Batman killed Dent on purpose in the spur of the moment. Anyway, I won't be beating up a dead horse about this anymore.

But how could he possibly capture them when they were hiding on a continent made from kryptonite?

Well, if the continent was made from Kryptonite, how did Superman lift it up without the Kryptonite instantly killing him? Sounds like a plot hole if you ask me. For what it's worth, Neal Adams complained about the same thing too.

Thanks for the podcast link. I'll try and listen to it when I get the time. The quote is interesting too. I see what you and Breyfogle are saying, and it's a valid viewpoint. And I agree with him that we've yet to see the definitive live action Batman.

You're very welcome. It's a very good interview where he recalls his career, specifically his run on Detective Comics in the late 80s and early 90s.

[Silver Nemesis]

As for the YouTube comments, that will take me forever looking at the oldest comments since there is no "Oldest first" option. How did you expand the comments and re-arranged them?

I clicked 'ALL COMMENTS', then kept scrolling down and clicking 'VIEW MORE' until there were no more left. Then I used ctrl+f to search for pre-2013 comments. I could only find one.

Off-topic, looking back at the way people post their comments on YouTube reminded me why I always thought that place and IMDB message boards are a cesspool on the internet. Reading the garbage that people post online makes me want to shoot myself. Ugh.   

Tell me about it. Look at practically any clip from the Burton Batman films on YouTube and odds are there'll be at least one comment to the effect of:

1) Burton's Batman is not Batman because the Batman in the comics NEVER kills.

2) Nolan's Batman is the Batman from the comics because Nolan's Batman NEVER kills.

Needless to say both of these statements are patently wrong. The IMDb's almost as bad. It's a good place to go for reference information, but the message boards are pretty horrible. I stopped posting there a long time ago. Batman-Online is far more civilised.

RE: the comparison between the 60s Batman TV show and Superman II - there's a big difference between a completed television series that has been in regular syndication over the years, and a TV-exclusive version of a movie that's barely ever been broadcasted. How many times has the European-Australian cut aired after the 1980s? I only got to watch that version thanks to my cousin who taped it way back in 1982 or whatever. In contrast, the theatrical version of Superman II has been shown on TV all the time.

The Batman TV show and extended cuts of Superman II have never been released on home video due to legally-motivated decisions made my Warner Bros/Fox home video departments. The people who actually made the Batman TV show and Superman II had nothing to do with those decisions. So the two situations are in fact comparable. Businessmen decide what gets released on home video. They don't determine the canonicity of the filmmaker's work after the fact. Not unless the original director personally approves/oversees a new video release (e.g. Ridley Scott's 2007 'Final Cut' of Blade Runner).

In the case of the Superman II extended cuts, I suspect the lack of home release has something to do with DGA regulations concerning director royalties. It's one thing to broadcast something on television, but it's another to sell it for home entertainment purposes. It's the same principle behind licensed music in TV shows. Often songs are replaced with different music when TV shows are released on video/DVD, even though they can still use the original soundtracks in syndicated reruns. The footage of the arrest scene was shot by Donner, hence why it's included on the DVD of the Donner Cut and not Lester's cut. They probably needed Donner's permission to sell that footage, and they didn't get his permission until they allowed him to create his own cut of the film in 2006; a cut which ends with Zod and co definitively alive. I'm open to correction on this point, but I think I'm right. So like the Batman TV series, the most probable reason for the arrest scene not being released for home entertainment before 2006 was legal, not creative.

Sorry, but I maintain my stance that the final theatrical cut should be canonical.

So you would take the 1958 theatrical version of Touch of Evil – the one which Universal took away from Orson Welles in postproduction, cut over 15 minutes of footage from, and hired director Harry Keller to reshoot portions of and reedit in its entirety, all against Welles' express wishes – over the superior 1997 extended cut which has the missing footage restored and which was edited in accordance with the directives outlined by Welles in a 58-page memo he wrote to the studio back in 1957? You would take the inferior 1982 theatrical cut of Blade Runner – with its studio-mandated happy ending and numerous plot holes/continuity errors – over the vastly superior 2007 'Final Cut' – with its restored missing footage, improved ending and remedial audio/visual modifications that correct all the plot holes/continuity errors? Even though the 'Final Cut' contains the complete story about Deckard being a Replicant and the theatrical cut doesn't?

Films are like books – they often get censored, rewritten and distorted between the time the author creates them and the time they go on sale. Superman II is a textbook example of this thanks to the fiasco that went on behind the scenes during its production. I never blindly accept one particular version of a film because it was released first. There are usually two main factors which help me determine preference:

1) The favoured cut of writer and director. Which version comes closest to their original vision? Was the theatrical version ruined by studio interference? If so, is there a better version that more accurately reflects the film's original potential? Of course sometimes the version preferred by the original creator is inferior to other versions (e.g. George Lucas' special editions of the original Star Wars trilogy). But 99% of the time, the writer and director's original vision has more depth than the homogenised edits favoured by the studio.

2) Overall quality. I like to compare different versions of a text and decide for myself which one is best. Films that have been recut or in some other way altered aren't automatically better than the earlier versions. But if the revised version is superior – or in the case of adaptations, if it's more faithful to the source material – and if I have the option of choosing, then I'll choose the superior version.

It's not people's fault if the final official cut gave them the impression the villains perished. Blame the Salkinds and Richard Lester for cutting out that arctic police scene.

I don't blame people for thinking they died. The scene in the Lester cut is ambiguous at best. But now that we have a wealth of information to clarify what actually happened, it seems odd to cling to an earlier misconception.

They could have re-filmed that scene if they wanted to, or at least show the villains survived.

They couldn't have re-filmed it owing to Hackman's refusal to participate in reshoots. There may have been additional reasons relating to the deconstruction of the Fortress exterior set, which would also explain why they didn't reshoot any of the other scenes that took place in that location. But I'm not 100% certain of that.

The fact they've fallen into the bottom with their voices echoing must mean their chances of survival isn't that good.

I agree that it's ambiguous. Which is why we need to look at all the information available. The Lester cut supports the idea that the criminals could have died. It doesn't support the theory that they incontrovertibly did. Particularly not when all the facts are taken into consideration.

All of the evidence – the script, comments from the filmmakers, all the extended cuts – clarify that they didn't in fact die. And in case any more evidence were needed, here's a direct quote from Christopher Reeve in an interview with Jimmy Carter around the time Superman IV was in production:

"Do you know in a Superman film not one person dies? Not one person dies. Perhaps somebody in part one, but not thereafter."

Obviously he's overlooking the astronauts and White House staff killed by the villains in Superman II. But this quote comes in the context of him defining Superman as "a possible antidote to the Rambos and the Chuck Norrises and the Schwarzeneggers." According to Reeve, his Superman never killed Zod. Reeve says so. Donner says so. The script says so. Every official cut of the film other than the Lester version says so. And even the Lester version doesn't explicitly state that Superman does kill.

That was planned and intended in the original script, but then that was cut out because of pacing and creative issues. If we accept that as canon, then it doesn't make sense since all the Xenomorph victims have been cocooned, and it was the Queen that gave birth to the eggs.

Like I say, I accept deleted scenes provided they don't contradict the finished film. The deleted scenes in Superman II don't contradict anything in any version of the film. In the case of the cocoon scene in Alien, it doesn't contradict anything in Scott's film. It only contradicts Cameron's film. Or does it? I'm honestly not too sure what is happening in that scene. Drone Xenomorphs cocoon people as part of their behavioural instincts. But it does like they're turning into eggs. Or is it just the oval-motif in Giger's production design?

On the subject of the Alien franchise, the extended cut of Aliens (1986) and the workprint version of Alien 3 (1992) are both better than the theatrical versions IMO. Though I do prefer the theatrical cut of Alien over the 2003 version. According to Scott, the theatrical cut is canon and reflects his original vision better than the revised cut.

And I'm pretty sure some people would be inclined to disagree with you.   

I'm sure there were some people who thought Zod died before 2013, but I don't believe it was the dominant consensus as some people are now claiming. Here are several sites reporting the rumour of Jude Law playing Stamp's Zod in Superman Returns. These all date from around 2004, two years before the Donner Cut was released. None of them say anything about Zod having died in Superman II.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Kneel-Before-Jude-Law-3140.html
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2004/11/03/who-might-kneel-before-zod
http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_1723.html
http://www.mania.com/zod-to-lay-down-law-superman_article_96912.html

Here are reports dating from 2006 about Law playing Zod in the follow-up to Superman Returns. Again, no references to Zod being dead.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/superman_movies/superman_returns/news/?a=2914
http://news.moviefone.com/2006/07/18/superman-sequel-with-general-zod/
http://themovieblog.com/2006/jude-law-as-general-zod/
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/08/08/jude_law_could_play_general_zod_in_super
http://www.filmstalker.co.uk/archives/2006/08/jude_law_as_general_zod.html
http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/20754/Jude-Law-For-Superman-Returns-Sequel
http://www.cinemas-online.co.uk/people/jude-zod-a91055.html

Here's a thread on SuperHeroHype from 2006 where fans discuss the rumours of Zod returning. Notice that throughout the thread only one person queries Zod's fate in Superman II, at which point the other site members clarify that Zod is "in prison with no powers." Some of them then discuss ways Zod might regain his powers in Singer's film. It's pretty clear these people took 'Zod lives' to be canon.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=246079

To me, only Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 does the quitting theme any justice. Even the recent TASM2 during the last ten minutes packs a punch, albeit briefly.

I agree that theme was explored best in Spider-Man 2. I re-watched that again recently and had forgotten how good it is. I still think it's the best Marvel film to date.

I'll tell you this though - no matter how much I liked MOS, Richard Donner's 1978 film remains the definitive live-action Superman movie to date in my opinion. It may have its share of plot holes, and Superman turning back time may be illogical, but I have no problem turning a blind eye because of the sheer emotion of Superman's scream and determination to save Lois. It always gets me invested watching that. I don't think any Superman film has come close since. And yes, that includes Superman II.

I agree completely.

If you were only trying to rationalise what Nolan's Batman thought he was doing but not condoning it, then that's fine. It's exactly like me trying to rationalise why Burton's Batman was trying to counter Catwoman's point about the two of them being above the law in Batman Returns.

So do we both agree that, much as we like him, Batman is in fact a massive hypocrite of epic proportions?

But I still don't understand how you can argue that Superman killing Zod is more ambiguous than, for example, Batman planning to kill Ra's al Ghul.

Sorry, do you mean Superman killing Zod in Superman II or Man of Steel?

If Neal Adams is going to complain about Superman killing, then he should apply the same standard to Batman.

Superman's brain moves millions of times quicker than the fastest Earth computer. Any course of action we can consider in a matter of seconds, Superman can consider in a matter of nanoseconds. Therefore it's less excusable when he chooses the wrong option. At the end of the day, Batman's still just a human. A smart and highly trained human, but a human nonetheless. His vulnerability and proneness to error are two of the things that differentiate him from Superman. Superman's a godlike alien that can move faster than light. He's the inspirational hero all other heroes aspire to be like, and he always finds a way, even when it looks like there isn't one. Batman's a dark vigilante who uses intimidation and violence to terrorise criminals. He started his career as a gun-toting killer, and while he's subsequently forsaken guns (until such time as it's convenient to use them), the darkness surrounding his origins is still very much a part of him. In that sense, maybe we do hold Superman to a different standard than Batman. We expect better from Superman because we know he's capable of better.

In the case of Zod at the end of Man of Steel, Superman could have used the lobotomy strategy I outlined. There was a viable alternative to killing, and if I could think of it in a matter of seconds, then Superman should have thought of it in a split-second.

But hey, Zack Snyder sucks and Christopher Nolan is hyped up to be a great director, right?

Pretty much.

Sorry, I was trolling you a bit with that comment. 

He has no other means to escape Earth, the Phantom Zone is closed and sent to god knows where, and he certainly can't fly his way deep into outer space without the Earth's yellow sun.

He can in the comics. There are billions of other solar systems with yellow stars. And blue stars increase Kryptonian powers to even greater levels than yellow stars do. Pulsars, quasars and dwarf stars have also been shown to fuel Kryptonian powers in the comics. So provided he avoided any solar systems with red stars, Zod could theoretically fly anywhere he likes and potentially grow stronger along the way. Kryptonians can store energy within their cells, so even if he did have to travel beyond the range of any yellow stars for a period of time, he could do so at FTL superspeed and reach the next solar system before his strength depleted.

I might have excused this point had it been established that Kryptonians in this universe require spacesuits to travel through space, like in Superman: The Animated Series. But pretty much every other portrayal of Superman on page or screen has bypassed that necessity. And we clearly see Cavill's Superman flying through space – and conducting a conversation with Jor-El in its soundless vacuum (this is meant to be more realistic than the Reeve films?) – and so it becomes clear the Kryptonians in this universe, like most other versions, can indeed fly through space.

And let's not forget that Superman destroyed the scout ship that carried the only remaining Genesis Chamber – where it stored embryos to create new Kryptonian people.

I actually did forget that. It's been a while since I've seen the film, so my memory's hazy. But I'm sure you're right. I concede that point. Even so, there were still surviving members of his race in the Phantom Zone. He could have focused on finding a way to release them. Even with such a small gene pool, the Kryptonians' ability to genetically engineer their offspring could have allowed them to procreate for at least another generation or two, if not more. Surely that would serve his purpose more than a suicidal rampage?

Well, if the continent was made from Kryptonite, how did Superman lift it up without the Kryptonite instantly killing him?

By burrowing far enough beneath the Earth's crust that there'd be enough rock to shield him. The kryptonite gradually expands through the rock as he's lifting it, which is why he collapses after hurling it into space.

To be honest, I'm not mad on the whole kryptonite continent thing. It would have been better if the landmass was just made from regular ice/crystal like the Fortress of Solitude. Of course that would create the problem of leaving Lex defenceless against Superman. But if I was writing it, I would have had it so the Fortress automatically activated the Eradicator after Superman left Earth. Then when Lex steals the sunstone crystals from the Fortress, he also steals the crystal that controls the Eradicator. The Eradicator then becomes Lex's bodyguard for the remainder of the film, and it's him that Superman has to battle when he goes to arrest Lex. I think that would have been better than simply having Superman get his head kicked in by ordinary goons. I also think the real Superman would have identified the kryptonite in the landmass before landing on it. But I suppose that's what Lex was getting at with his "look before you leap" line.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm not even going to bother spending my time looking at those YouTube comments again. It was bad the first time; if I do it again I'll resort to this.

The Batman TV show and extended cuts of Superman II have never been released on home video due to legally-motivated decisions made my Warner Bros/Fox home video departments. The people who actually made the Batman TV show and Superman II had nothing to do with those decisions. So the two situations are in fact comparable. Businessmen decide what gets released on home video. They don't determine the canonicity of the filmmaker's work after the fact. Not unless the original director personally approves/oversees a new video release (e.g. Ridley Scott's 2007 'Final Cut' of Blade Runner).

In the case of the Superman II extended cuts, I suspect the lack of home release has something to do with DGA regulations concerning director royalties. It's one thing to broadcast something on television, but it's another to sell it for home entertainment purposes. It's the same principle behind licensed music in TV shows. Often songs are replaced with different music when TV shows are released on video/DVD, even though they can still use the original soundtracks in syndicated reruns. The footage of the arrest scene was shot by Donner, hence why it's included on the DVD of the Donner Cut and not Lester's cut. They probably needed Donner's permission to sell that footage, and they didn't get his permission until they allowed him to create his own cut of the film in 2006; a cut which ends with Zod and co definitively alive. I'm open to correction on this point, but I think I'm right. So like the Batman TV series, the most probable reason for the arrest scene not being released for home entertainment before 2006 was legal, not creative..

I don't blame people for thinking they died. The scene in the Lester cut is ambiguous at best. But now that we have a wealth of information to clarify what actually happened, it seems odd to cling to an earlier misconception.

They couldn't have re-filmed it owing to Hackman's refusal to participate in reshoots. There may have been additional reasons relating to the deconstruction of the Fortress exterior set, which would also explain why they didn't reshoot any of the other scenes that took place in that location. But I'm not 100% certain of that.

If Lester couldn't use the arctic police scene, I'm still sure that he and the Salkinds could have found a way to show the villains had survived without needing Gene Hackman. If he and the Salkinds actually bothered.

Once again, the Batman TV show has been broadcasted consistently over the years compared to that cut of Superman II. Granted, Adam West's Batman hasn't been broadcasted on free-to-air TV for about twenty three years in where I come from, but still.

So you would take the 1958 theatrical version of Touch of Evil – the one which Universal took away from Orson Welles in postproduction, cut over 15 minutes of footage from, and hired director Harry Keller to reshoot portions of and reedit in its entirety, all against Welles' express wishes – over the superior 1997 extended cut which has the missing footage restored and which was edited in accordance with the directives outlined by Welles in a 58-page memo he wrote to the studio back in 1957? You would take the inferior 1982 theatrical cut of Blade Runner – with its studio-mandated happy ending and numerous plot holes/continuity errors – over the vastly superior 2007 'Final Cut' – with its restored missing footage, improved ending and remedial audio/visual modifications that correct all the plot holes/continuity errors? Even though the 'Final Cut' contains the complete story about Deckard being a Replicant and the theatrical cut doesn't?

I can't really say because I've never seen Touch of Evil. And I really don't care for Blade Runner. 

I'll this though; I recently saw an edited workprint of Batman Forever that someone by the name of I_Only_Said was working on. You can find it in the Batman Forever sub forum. This unofficial director's cut included almost all of the deleted scenes and fleshed out the plot holes and character inconsistencies that the film had. I have no idea why these scenes were cut. But I won't lie; no matter how much I liked these scenes, I'm not going to count them as canonical. Why should I if it was the filmmakers' and studios' boneheaded decision to remove them? They didn't seem to give a damn, so why should I?

Then again, I can't remember the last time I really liked a film that was deprived of additional footage because of legal disputes. So I can't really relate, to be honest.

1) The favoured cut of writer and director. Which version comes closest to their original vision? Was the theatrical version ruined by studio interference? If so, is there a better version that more accurately reflects the film's original potential? Of course sometimes the version preferred by the original creator is inferior to other versions (e.g. George Lucas' special editions of the original Star Wars trilogy). But 99% of the time, the writer and director's original vision has more depth than the homogenised edits favoured by the studio.

And of course, George Lucas tampering with the original Stars Wars trilogy has ruined the franchise for me. I wasn't really a big fan of it, but his continuous interference just put me off. Especially the forgettable second prequel, and awful third prequel. But I digress.

I agree that it's ambiguous. Which is why we need to look at all the information available. The Lester cut supports the idea that the criminals could have died. It doesn't support the theory that they incontrovertibly did. Particularly not when all the facts are taken into consideration.

All of the evidence – the script, comments from the filmmakers, all the extended cuts – clarify that they didn't in fact die. And in case any more evidence were needed, here's a direct quote from Christopher Reeve in an interview with Jimmy Carter around the time Superman IV was in production:

"Do you know in a Superman film not one person dies? Not one person dies. Perhaps somebody in part one, but not thereafter."

Obviously he's overlooking the astronauts and White House staff killed by the villains in Superman II. But this quote comes in the context of him defining Superman as "a possible antidote to the Rambos and the Chuck Norrises and the Schwarzeneggers." According to Reeve, his Superman never killed Zod. Reeve says so. Donner says so. The script says so. Every official cut of the film other than the Lester version says so. And even the Lester version doesn't explicitly state that Superman does kill.

Reeve wasn't honest about that because Superman III and IV prove otherwise regardless if the evil self was a reflection of consciousness or not. Although to be fair, he was promoting SIV at the time so he couldn't spoil that film. And again, it doesn't matter what Donner says because he didn't get to finish directing the original Superman II. That dispute with him between the Salkinds really made a mess of that movie. The flawed Superman quitting theme, and the whole fiasco behind the scenes, are the reasons why I don't enjoy SII anymore.

My opinion about the villains' outcomes in Superman II reflect the majority of users' posts in this thread on Superhero Hype from seven years ago. It's funny though; the voting majority argue that Zod's death was cut out, but most of the commenters argue that Zod died. It's admittedly a small number of people, but still...Then again, who knows if the votes had been tampered with? Then again, you've already made your mind up about the topic so there's no need to try to argue with you. Don't get me wrong -I don't mean that as having a dig at you, I'm just saying. 

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=278931

Like I say, I accept deleted scenes provided they don't contradict the finished film. The deleted scenes in Superman II don't contradict anything in any version of the film. In the case of the cocoon scene in Alien, it doesn't contradict anything in Scott's film. It only contradicts Cameron's film. Or does it? I'm honestly not too sure what is happening in that scene. Drone Xenomorphs cocoon people as part of their behavioural instincts. But it does like they're turning into eggs. Or is it just the oval-motif in Giger's production design?

Well for what it's worth:

[Dan] O'Bannon had intended the scene to indicate that Brett was becoming an Alien egg while Dallas was held nearby to be implanted by the resulting facehugger. Production Designer Michael Seymour later suggested that Dallas had "become sort of food for the alien creature", while Ivor Powell suggested that "Dallas is found in the ship as an egg, still alive." Scott remarked that "they're morphing, metamorphosing, they are changing into...being consumed, I guess, by whatever the Alien's organism is...into an egg."  The scene was cut partly because it did not look realistic enough and partly because it slowed the pace of the escape sequence.

http://movies.wikia.com/wiki/Alien

I'm sure there were some people who thought Zod died before 2013, but I don't believe it was the dominant consensus as some people are now claiming. Here are several sites reporting the rumour of Jude Law playing Stamp's Zod in Superman Returns. These all date from around 2004, two years before the Donner Cut was released. None of them say anything about Zod having died in Superman II.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=246079

That's the thing though, they're just rumours. Hell, Bryan Singer has come out recently saying that his Superman Returns sequel would've used Darkseid as the main villain "for a world-destroying film". Then again, you can't trust a thing this man says nowadays because he says that he wished that he rebooted the franchise from the beginning.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=93794

Off-topic: there is this particular theory that a fan made on the internet. He argued that The Richard Donner Cut was supposed to be a prequel to Superman Returns. His reasoning is that Superman and Lois' son was conceived while they made love before Superman lost his powers, and that it perfectly ties to how their son Jason is shown to have powers himself. Whereas in the Lester cut, the two went to bed after Superman relinquished his powers.

It's an interesting theory, but the only reason I don't fully buy it is because the Donner cut was released several months after Singer's movie. If it was WB's intention to tie and market the two movies together, then wouldn't it make sense to release the Donner cut before Returns was opened in theatres?

So do we both agree that, much as we like him, Batman is in fact a massive hypocrite of epic proportions?

Absolutely!

It's just that Nolan made Batman an even bigger hypocrite than Burton did. 

Sorry, do you mean Superman killing Zod in Superman II or Man of Steel?

Well, since we disagree with each other about Superman II, I was referring to MOS.

Superman's brain moves millions of times quicker than the fastest Earth computer. Any course of action we can consider in a matter of seconds, Superman can consider in a matter of nanoseconds. Therefore it's less excusable when he chooses the wrong option. At the end of the day, Batman's still just a human. A smart and highly trained human, but a human nonetheless. His vulnerability and proneness to error are two of the things that differentiate him from Superman. Superman's a godlike alien that can move faster than light. He's the inspirational hero all other heroes aspire to be like, and he always finds a way, even when it looks like there isn't one. Batman's a dark vigilante who uses intimidation and violence to terrorise criminals. He started his career as a gun-toting killer, and while he's subsequently forsaken guns (until such time as it's convenient to use them), the darkness surrounding his origins is still very much a part of him. In that sense, maybe we do hold Superman to a different standard than Batman. We expect better from Superman because we know he's capable of better.

In the case of Zod at the end of Man of Steel, Superman could have used the lobotomy strategy I outlined. There was a viable alternative to killing, and if I could think of it in a matter of seconds, then Superman should have thought of it in a split-second.

If you're going to argue that Superman should've lobotomised Zod, then you might as well as argue that Batman should've thrown a Batarang to disarm Two-Face in TDK, or shoot the tires of Talia's truck instead firing directly at the driver in TDKR. If you're going to argue that Batman's main intention was to save Gordon's son and didn't mean to kill Two-Face, or he didn't mean to kill  then you might as well argue that Superman's main concern was to save that family and didn't mean to kill Zod either. Neither character wanted to kill, but were forced to.

Nolan, like Snyder, wrote a situation where the main character was forced to kill. It was just too bad Nolan was very inconsistent with Batman's actions throughout his trilogy.

The reason why I bought the idea behind Zod's death in MOS was because Superman struggled to fight and contain a genocidal maniac. And let's face it; we're introduced to a Superman who is fallible and isn't godlike at all, especially one who is uncertain about his place in the world and on his first day out as a superhero where his first task was to save the entire planet from genocide. He is bound to make costly mistakes (some because of the writers' called for it i.e. Pa Kent's death).

Superman was coming second best in that fight with Zod, and his lack of experience in dealing with a dire situation like that made his rash decision believable. If people are going to rationalise that Nolan's Batman was set in a realistic situation where he was forced to do things and made mistakes in the heat of the moment, then I think it's fair to apply the same standard for Superman.

It also bodes well for further potential character development in the sequel. But then again, there's always the possibility that Dawn of Justice could pull a Dark Knight on us by focusing all their attention on supporting characters i.e. Batman, Lex and even Wonder Woman; overshadowing Superman's character development and forget about the Zod incident altogether (like TDK encouraged us to forget about Ra's). Who knows? We'll have to wait and see.

Pretty much.

Sorry, I was trolling you a bit with that comment. 

Figured you might.

He can in the comics. There are billions of other solar systems with yellow stars. And blue stars increase Kryptonian powers to even greater levels than yellow stars do. Pulsars, quasars and dwarf stars have also been shown to fuel Kryptonian powers in the comics. So provided he avoided any solar systems with red stars, Zod could theoretically fly anywhere he likes and potentially grow stronger along the way. Kryptonians can store energy within their cells, so even if he did have to travel beyond the range of any yellow stars for a period of time, he could do so at FTL superspeed and reach the next solar system before his strength depleted.

I might have excused this point had it been established that Kryptonians in this universe require spacesuits to travel through space, like in Superman: The Animated Series. But pretty much every other portrayal of Superman on page or screen has bypassed that necessity. And we clearly see Cavill's Superman flying through space – and conducting a conversation with Jor-El in its soundless vacuum (this is meant to be more realistic than the Reeve films?) – and so it becomes clear the Kryptonians in this universe, like most other versions, can indeed fly through space. 

I said that Zod couldn't have travelled deeply into outer space because he had to wear a spacesuit while searching for colonial outposts earlier in the film.



Granted, Zod and Superman could fly out of orbit for a little bit, but I was always under the impression it was because they were nearby the Earth's yellow sun. The film never clarified how farther they could fly deeper into outer space.

I actually did forget that. It's been a while since I've seen the film, so my memory's hazy. But I'm sure you're right. I concede that point. Even so, there were still surviving members of his race in the Phantom Zone. He could have focused on finding a way to release them. Even with such a small gene pool, the Kryptonians' ability to genetically engineer their offspring could have allowed them to procreate for at least another generation or two, if not more. Surely that would serve his purpose more than a suicidal rampage?

Let's also not forget that Zod did cry out "If you destroy this ship, you destroy Krypton!" which to me, more than implies that Zod's attempt to restore his race was his only chance. Without a Genesis Chamber where he can store the Codex to create Kryptonian people, all hope is lost.

Off-topic: WTF is Superman doing standing inside that scout ship after he destroyed it? I can't understand how it never occurred to the filmmakers that Superman should've immediately flown out of that ship and use all his strength to send it away from the city and drop it into the ocean.

Anyway, have you heard that there are rumours that Supergirl's origins will be changed for the new TV show? It doesn't give any examples though.

Source: http://screenrant.com/supergirl-tv-show-origin-story-changes/

[Silver Nemesis]

If Lester couldn't use the arctic police scene, I'm still sure that he and the Salkinds could have found a way to show the villains had survived without needing Gene Hackman. If he and the Salkinds actually bothered.

It would have been tough to rework the ending at that stage. And as you say, they probably couldn't be bothered. The Salkinds' priority at that point was to get the film finished and released without losing any more money. The Fortress exterior scenes were shot by Donner in 1977. The reshoots by Lester were conducted in 1979. By that point filming had run over schedule and over budget. The Salkinds were only funding the minimum amount of reshoots necessary to satisfy DGA regulations. Since all the Fortress exterior scenes had been shot by that point, it's highly likely the set itself – which was huge and involved a lot of standing water – would have been dismantled to make room at Shepperton. They kept the Fortress interior set because they knew they'd need it when Donner resumed filming on Superman II. Which of course never happened. But it's very unlikely they'd have left the exterior set standing in the studio, unused, for two years. Not when they didn't think they'd need it again. And they couldn't have rebuilt it in '79. Partly because of the expense, but also because production designer John Barry had passed away during the hiatus between the Donner shoot and the Lester reshoots. Cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth also died in that same time period, which meant any new footage wouldn't have matched the earlier footage of the Fortress exterior. Add to this the fact that Luthor was present for the entire finale, making it difficult if not impossible to write additional Fortress scenes that didn't include him, and it was probably just too much bother for Lester and the Salkinds. Particularly since they were already over budget and behind schedule. They were lucky to get the extra footage they did shoot.

Once again, the Batman TV show has been broadcasted consistently over the years compared to that cut of Superman II. Granted, Adam West's Batman hasn't been broadcasted on free-to-air TV for about twenty three years in where I come from, but still.

Why does it matter which version's been shown more frequently than others? Here in the UK, the version of Batman Returns that's shown on TV has always been the edited 12-certificate cut. The BBFC passed the uncut version on Blu-ray back in 2008, but I saw Batman Returns on TV a couple of months ago, and they're still showing the edited version. Does that mean the abridged version of Batman Returns – which is the version most shown on TV in the UK and was the only version available to buy on video/DVD until 2008 – is the definitive version? I don't think TV broadcasts determine canonicity any more than video releases do.

I can't really say because I've never seen Touch of Evil.

It's classic film noir at its best. You should watch it. Orson Welles is one of my favourite filmmakers, but sadly his original director's cut no longer exists. The 1998 extended version is meant to be closest to his original edit. And if you're curious to see where William Hootkins got the inspiration for his performance as Eckhardt in Batman, look no further than Welles' portrayal of the corrupt Captain Quinlan.

And I really don't care for Blade Runner.

You don't like Blade Runner?

I'll this though; I recently saw an edited workprint of Batman Forever that someone by the name of I_Only_Said was working on. You can find it in the Batman Forever sub forum.

I watched it back in May. It's a very good edit. It's just missing the close-up shot of Thomas Wayne's journal when Bruce reads it as a child. That shot's necessary to understand why Bruce feels guilt over his parents' deaths. But since WB has never released that footage, it can't be helped.

But I won't lie; no matter how much I liked these scenes, I'm not going to count them as canonical. Why should I if it was the filmmakers' and studios' boneheaded decision to remove them?

The Batman Forever deleted scenes have never been restored to any extended version of the film released with Warner Bros' approval. The deleted scenes in Superman II have been. And even if they haven't been restored, why shouldn't the Batman Forever deleted scenes be canon? They don't contradict anything in the finished film. All they do is clarify what's already there, giving us the full story. There's no reason whatsoever not to take them as canon.

They didn't seem to give a damn, so why should I?

Aren't you a fan of the character and mythology? If we fans cared as little as the studio bosses then we'd happily accept movies like Catwoman (2004). It's because we do care that we demand better.

And of course, George Lucas tampering with the original Stars Wars trilogy has ruined the franchise for me. I wasn't really a big fan of it

Jeez, you don't like Star Wars either?

Especially the forgettable second prequel, and awful third prequel.

I'm a huge Star Wars fan and I thought Revenge of the Sith was by far the best of the prequel trilogy. Some flaws carried over from the previous two films – most notably the overuse of CG effects, digital film, clumsy romantic dialogue, occasional wooden acting (though the acting was generally much better than in the preceding movie; particularly McDiarmid's performance) – but overall it was a solid film. Attack of the Clones was easily the worst of the prequels IMO.

Reeve wasn't honest about that because Superman III and IV prove otherwise regardless if the evil self was a reflection of consciousness or not.

So by that logic, if someone overcomes greed, addiction, anger or any other form of internal conflict, they've killed another person? The dark Superman in the junk yard fight was no more a separate being than the good Clark was. Superman was undergoing a form of corporeal dissociative disorder. The two halves of his personality remerging is not the same as him killing somebody.

From the original script:

EFFECTS: An amazing sight. Slowly, the figure of EVIL SUPERMAN begins to grow
less 'real,' fading in density, beginning to become opaque, then translucent.
Then the amorphous figure begins to be drawn and absorbed into the CLARK KENT
figure until  at last there is no EVIL SUPERMAN beneath CLARK'S hands, but a
strong, victorious CLARK who now stands up. NOW he walks TOWARD CAMERA as he
opens his shirt buttons. We SEE the true "S" underneath, in noble red and gold.
IT FILLS FRAME.

ANGLE UP -- once again strong and handsome and good, SUPERMAN flies off.

And from the comic book adaptation.

Reeve wasn't being dishonest. His Superman didn't kill anyone in Superman, Superman II or Superman III.

At most he killed Nuclear Man in Superman IV. And even that's debateable, since Nuclear Man was a Frankenstein's monster powered by the sun rather than a fully fledged sentient life form. He certainly wasn't a person in the sense that Zod or Luthor were. He had more in common with the computer at the end of Superman III, and he effectively "died" whenever he wasn't in direct sunlight anyway. He was a soulless nuclear weapon built by Lex out of solar energy and Superman's cloned DNA. And in the end, Superman converts him back to his original form of nuclear energy by dropping him into the reactor. I don't particularly like Superman IV, and I don't feel any compulsion to defend it. I do however feel compelled to defend Reeve, and if he said Nuclear Man's demise wasn't a killing act, then that's good enough for me. There's enough ambiguity concerning the exact nature of Nuclear Man's existence to shed doubt on the matter.

And again, it doesn't matter what Donner says because he didn't get to finish directing the original Superman II.

Of course Donner's opinion matters. It was his film. He planned it out at the same time he was planning the first film. He chose the actors, he approved the script and storyline, he shot over 80% of the film. All the ideas in that movie came from him and the writers, not Richard Lester. Lester was merely there to salvage the project. He didn't approve the storyline, the script or any of the casting decisions. Lester didn't plan out the ending of the film. Donner did. Lester didn't shoot the final confrontation between Superman and Zod. Donner did. It was originally Donner's film, and it's from him we should seek clarification regarding any ambiguity. If his opinion didn't matter, Warner Bros wouldn't have brought him back for the Donner Cut in 2006.

The flawed Superman quitting theme, and the whole fiasco behind the scenes, are the reasons why I don't enjoy SII anymore.

You don't like Superman II either?  As a matter of interest, could you perhaps list a few films that you do like? I'm just curious.

My opinion about the villains' outcomes in Superman II reflect the majority of users' posts in this thread on Superhero Hype from seven years ago. It's funny though; the voting majority argue that Zod's death was cut out, but most of the commenters argue that Zod died. It's admittedly a small number of people, but still...Then again, who knows if the votes had been tampered with? Then again, you've already made your mind up about the topic so there's no need to try to argue with you. Don't get me wrong -I don't mean that as having a dig at you, I'm just saying.   

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=278931

As I've said, I'm sure that were people who thought Zod died before 2013. But that interpretation was not the dominant consensus. Most people never had a problem accepting Zod lived, especially those who'd seen the extended cuts and deleted scenes. The vote results in the link you provided prove this. Most informed people who were familiar with the film's troubled production accepted that Zod lived, or at least that his fate was ambiguous.

The situation boils down to this – there are three possible interpretations of the ending of Superman II:

1) Superman does not kill Zod.
2) Superman defeats Zod, but the ambiguous off-screen nature of the latter's fate means he could have lived or died.
3) Superman definitely kills Zod.

The first interpretation, that Superman does not kill Zod, is not explicitly contradicted by anything in the Lester cut, and is perfectly consistent with the characterisation of Superman in the comics and elsewhere in the Donner films. It's also supported as canon by numerous sources:

•   The original director, Richard Donner
•   The original script by Mario Puzo and Tom Tom Mankiewicz
•   Lead actor Christopher Reeve
•   Deleted scenes shot by original director Richard Donner
•   The European-Australian extended TV cut
•   The ABC –TV cut
•   The CBC-TV cut
•   The Donner Cut
•   Warner Bros' plans to reuse Zod in the Singer Superman films
•   Numerous fan edits
•   A majority audience consensus prior to 2013, particularly after the Donner Cut was released

The second interpretation, that the ending is ambiguous, is supported by:

•   Richard Lester's cut
•   Some fans thinking Zod might have died prior to 2013

The third interpretation, that Superman definitely killed Zod, is supported as canon by:

•   Nothing
•   Zach Snyder fans seeking to validate the ending of Man of Steel by drawing parallels with Richard Donner, and selectively repudiating all evidence to the contrary

So yes, I believe the first interpretation – the one supported by all the evidence and which makes sense in relation to Superman's moral code – is more likely to be canon than the third option – which is not consistent with Superman's moral code and which has no evidence to support it. But if the third interpretation helps people to enjoy Man of Steel, then more power to them.

That's the thing though, they're just rumours. Hell, Bryan Singer has come out recently saying that his Superman Returns sequel would've used Darkseid as the main villain "for a world-destroying film". Then again, you can't trust a thing this man says nowadays because he says that he wished that he rebooted the franchise from the beginning.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=93794

The point isn't whether Singer actually would have used Zod or not. The point is that when the rumours arose, nobody objected on the grounds that Zod was dead. Singer may be all over the place regarding what might have been, but screenwriter Michael Dougherty confirmed they were considering using Zod back in 2006:

Everyone misses General Zod [...] But, in terms of Zod, or other Kryptonians, if we were going to follow that path of other Kryptonians showing up, maybe, possibly, I don't know, I doubt they'll be showing up in black jump suits and knee high leather boots blowing up small towns. (laughter)

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/movies.php?topic=pj-dan-mike

And nobody said, "But isn't Zod dead?"

Well, since we disagree with each other about Superman II, I was referring to MOS.

I don't think there's anything ambiguous about Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel. He didn't have to kill him, but he did it anyway. Batman didn't have to kill Ra's in Batman Begins, but he did it anyway. When it comes to Dent and Talia, I think their deaths were an unfortunate consequence of him trying to save lives. And I'm not sure there was an alternative in either scenario. I don't believe for one second that when Batman tackled Dent at the end of TDK he was secretly thinking, "That's it, Dent – you had your chance to come quietly, and now you have to die! Your death is now my ultimate goal in life and I won't rest until you're six feet under!"

If you're going to argue that Superman should've lobotomised Zod, then you might as well as argue that Batman should've thrown a Batarang to disarm Two-Face in TDK,

He was lying on the floor injured. We don't see what condition he was in immediately before he lunged at Dent. But everything in the scene points to his actions being desperate and uncoordinated. So I doubt he would have had the time to precisely aim a projectile at Dent and throw it. At least not without Dent seeing what he was up to and shooting him a second time.

or shoot the tires of Talia's truck instead firing directly at the driver in TDKR.

He tried shooting the tires. It didn't work.

The armoured truck in question was a Logistics Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR), which is specially designed to withstand mine blasts and other explosive attacks.

If you're going to argue that Batman's main intention was to save Gordon's son and didn't mean to kill Two-Face, or he didn't mean to kill  then you might as well argue that Superman's main concern was to save that family and didn't mean to kill Zod either.

Batman chose to try and wrest Gordon's son from Dent's grip. Superman chose to snap Zod's neck. One of them chose to pursue a tactic that would definitely end his opponent's life, the other didn't.

Neither character wanted to kill, but were forced to.

I thought you were convinced Batman did want to kill Dent in TDK?

In Superman's case, I don't think he was forced to kill. He could have lobotomised Zod. He chose to kill him instead.

Superman was coming second best in that fight with Zod, and his lack of experience in dealing with a dire situation like that made his rash decision believable. If people are going to rationalise that Nolan's Batman was set in a realistic situation where he was forced to do things and made mistakes in the heat of the moment, then I think it's fair to apply the same standard for Superman.

Superman can move faster than the speed of light. Batman can't. Superman is impervious to everything except kryptonite. Batman isn't. Superman's brain moves faster than the most advanced Earth computers. Batman's doesn't. Superman can't live with the idea of killing someone and has vowed to give up his powers and/or leave the Earth in self-exile if he ever does. Batman doesn't like killing, but he'll do it when he has to. Superman's aversion to killing is much more deeply ingrained than Batman's.

Yes, Superman has emotional vulnerabilities. But when it comes to his physical prowess, he's nowhere near as vulnerable/fallible as Batman. Not by a long shot.

But then again, there's always the possibility that Dawn of Justice could pull a Dark Knight on us by focusing all their attention on supporting characters i.e. Batman, Lex and even Wonder Woman; overshadowing Superman's character development and forget about the Zod incident altogether (like TDK encouraged us to forget about Ra's).

And yet The Dark Knight placed a greater emphasis on Bruce Wayne, and his emotional and moral struggles, than either of the Burton films did.

I said that Zod couldn't have travelled deeply into outer space because he had to wear a spacesuit while searching for colonial outposts earlier in the film.

But wasn't that before he was exposed to yellow sunlight? Zod and the other Kryptonians remained shielded by artificial atmospherics – either aboard their ship or inside their protective suits – until they arrived on Earth. Once they'd absorbed some energy from our yellow sun, things would have been very different.

The film never clarified how farther they could fly deeper into outer space.

True. My suggestions are based on the assumption they're as powerful as the comic book Kryptonians.

[The Laughing Fish]

It's classic film noir at its best. You should watch it. Orson Welles is one of my favourite filmmakers, but sadly his original director's cut no longer exists. The 1998 extended version is meant to be closest to his original edit. And if you're curious to see where William Hootkins got the inspiration for his performance as Eckhardt in Batman, look no further than Welles' portrayal of the corrupt Captain Quinlan.

Fair enough, I'll take this suggestion into account.

You don't like Blade Runner?

No, I don't. I don't find it anything special at all, in my opinion.

Jeez, you don't like Star Wars either?

That's not what I said. I may have said that I wasn't a huge fan of the series, but that doesn't mean I hated it. In fact, I used to enjoy it quite a bit. I still do in some respects.

The Batman Forever deleted scenes have never been restored to any extended version of the film released with Warner Bros' approval. The deleted scenes in Superman II have been. And even if they haven't been restored, why shouldn't the Batman Forever deleted scenes be canon? They don't contradict anything in the finished film. All they do is clarify what's already there, giving us the full story. There's no reason whatsoever not to take them as canon.

As I've already explained to you, if you're going to count deleted scenes as canonical, then you must take the good and the bad. I can't hypocritically choose which is canon and which isn't to suit my own my liking. Both films had some deleted scenes that were good and shouldn't have been cut...but they also had some that were cut for a good reason.

Hence, if it's not in the final cut, then it didn't happen. At least you got to admire my consistency.

Aren't you a fan of the character and mythology? If we fans cared as little as the studio bosses then we'd happily accept movies like Catwoman (2004). It's because we do care that we demand better.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Of course I'm a fan of the character, but I don't see how not counting deleted scenes as canon means I'd happily accept Halle Berry's Catwoman either. I find that a rather absurd thing to say to be honest.

Even though I wished many of those scenes in BF weren't deleted, at the end of the day I still wouldn't care for the film too much because of flaws that can't be fixed (i.e. overacting, poor humour, distracting neon lighting etc).

You don't like Superman II either?  As a matter of interest, could you perhaps list a few films that you do like? I'm just curious.

I've often said here that I'm not a big fan of Superman II anymore. And frankly, I find that other question to be rather irritating and very rude. If you want to disagree with me about deleted scenes, fine. But do you often argue with people who don't share your opinion on films or something? I've met plenty of people who have different tastes and don't like the same movies as I do, but I respectfully accept it as "to each their own".

It's just bad luck that you found someone who disagreed.

The situation boils down to this – there are three possible interpretations of the ending of Superman II:

1) Superman does not kill Zod.
2) Superman defeats Zod, but the ambiguous off-screen nature of the latter's fate means he could have lived or died.
3) Superman definitely kills Zod.

The first interpretation, that Superman does not kill Zod, is not explicitly contradicted by anything in the Lester cut, and is perfectly consistent with the characterisation of Superman in the comics and elsewhere in the Donner films. It's also supported as canon by numerous sources:

•   The original director, Richard Donner
•   The original script by Mario Puzo and Tom Tom Mankiewicz
•   Lead actor Christopher Reeve
•   Deleted scenes shot by original director Richard Donner
•   The European-Australian extended TV cut
•   The ABC –TV cut
•   The CBC-TV cut
•   The Donner Cut
•   Warner Bros' plans to reuse Zod in the Singer Superman films
•   Numerous fan edits
•   A majority audience consensus prior to 2013, particularly after the Donner Cut was released

The second interpretation, that the ending is ambiguous, is supported by:

•   Richard Lester's cut
•   Some fans thinking Zod might have died prior to 2013

The third interpretation, that Superman definitely killed Zod, is supported as canon by:

•   Nothing
•   Zach Snyder fans seeking to validate the ending of Man of Steel by drawing parallels with Richard Donner, and selectively repudiating all evidence to the contrary

So yes, I believe the first interpretation – the one supported by all the evidence and which makes sense in relation to Superman's moral code – is more likely to be canon than the third option – which is not consistent with Superman's moral code and which has no evidence to support it. But if the third interpretation helps people to enjoy Man of Steel, then more power to them.

What's with the condescending attitude? That's absolutely no need for that. Hell, Batman kills in the movies, but that didn't offend you, didn't it? Hell, at least Superman's actions weren't due to self-righteous cop-outs or anything.

And second of all, I don't give a damn how many versions of Superman II there are because to me, Lester's cut is canonical. And the script could've had the entire cast dancing to Saturday Night Live for all I care, it doesn't change the fact that to me, Lester's version is the real Superman II. You gotta choose which one is in continuity, and to me, Lester's version is the one. What am I supposed to do, finish watching that Lester's version and watch all the deleted scenes where I'd have to accept the good stuff and the bad stuff?

Of course Donner's opinion matters. It was his film. He planned it out at the same time he was planning the first film. He chose the actors, he approved the script and storyline, he shot over 80% of the film. All the ideas in that movie came from him and the writers, not Richard Lester. Lester was merely there to salvage the project. He didn't approve the storyline, the script or any of the casting decisions. Lester didn't plan out the ending of the film. Donner did. Lester didn't shoot the final confrontation between Superman and Zod. Donner did. It was originally Donner's film, and it's from him we should seek clarification regarding any ambiguity. If his opinion didn't matter, Warner Bros wouldn't have brought him back for the Donner Cut in 2006.

That's not the point I was making. Donner did shoot the majority of the film...but it doesn't matter, he still didn't get to finish it in the end. I thought that Donner didn't have the ending prepared yet? Although I won't lie one thing I'm disappointed about Donner is that his cut made me realise that Superman II as a story is flawed and doesn't compare to the original, in my opinion.

And I was under the impression that WB released the Donner Cut to satisfy fans after the bootlegs that were being made by fans back 2005?

So by that logic, if someone overcomes greed, addiction, anger or any other form of internal conflict, they've killed another person? The dark Superman in the junk yard fight was no more a separate being than the good Clark was. Superman was undergoing a form of corporeal dissociative disorder. The two halves of his personality remerging is not the same as him killing somebody.

If you're going to argue that Evil Superman was clone, then, as you admit, so is Nuclear Man. To me though, it doesn't matter. Superman got rid of them with lethal force.

And Reeve could say whatever he wanted, but that bloody Lester cut didn't show the villains come out of the whole thing unscathed. It's not my fault, I'm going by what I saw on in original cut.

I'll concede this though: it looks like reaction to Zod's aftermath wasn't as clear cut as I thought. However, I do share the contingent of fans who thought he did die in SII as well.

As for Michael Dougherty: people like him and Singer could say whatever they wanted. Neither looked like they knew what they were doing. I don't hate SR, but let's face it, nobody wants to watch a Superman movie where the hero struggles with fatherhood issues and try to force it to fit with the Reeve movies.

I'm still unconvinced that bringing Zod back was anything but a rumour. And if it wasn't, then maybe they were going to try to tie it with the Donner cut. Who knows?

I don't think there's anything ambiguous about Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel. He didn't have to kill him, but he did it anyway. Batman didn't have to kill Ra's in Batman Begins, but he did it anyway.

Too bad Nolan that never fully acknowledged it or tried to remedy that mistake. And please don't blame anyone for calling out this inconsistency in the series. It's up to the filmmakers' to address their characters' actions. I'm not going to turn a blind eye and think that Ra's deserved what he got, but then think killing off Joker would've been an 'execution'.

When it comes to Dent and Talia, I think their deaths were an unfortunate consequence of him trying to save lives. And I'm not sure there was an alternative in either scenario.

I don't buy it. This Batman could suddenly have the presence in mind to prevent the Joker falling to his death with his grapple gun despite being in bad shape. But he can't find another way to stop Two-Face?

Hell, I'm still not even completely convinced that Batman was trying to shoot the tires. Off-topic: I like how he fakes his death by running away with Catwoman, who is another murderer. Yeah, very heroic and moral of Batman. 

I don't believe for one second that when Batman tackled Dent at the end of TDK he was secretly thinking, "That's it, Dent – you had your chance to come quietly, and now you have to die! Your death is now my ultimate goal in life and I won't rest until you're six feet under!"

And I don't believe for a second Superman wanted to kill Zod, but he panicked when people's lives were in danger. Superman's actions came across as natural for someone who was inexperienced in that situation. Hell, he could barely keep that situation under control. In fact, he was getting creamed by Zod till that stage.

Can you honestly say the same thing about Batman? That guy had seven years to learn how criminals ticked, and years of training...and failed when the time called for it (i.e. Ra's, Joker, Bane, Two-Face). What experience did Superman have in comparison? Not even a day. And So I'm willing to cut him some slack for killing of Zod.

I thought you were convinced Batman did want to kill Dent in TDK?

I was trying to argue that if you were going rationalise that Batman was forced to kill, then so was Superman.

Maybe it's my fault for not making myself clear re: Two-Face's death. The reason I kept complaining about that scene is because of Batman's contradictory actions throughout the series. After killing off who knows how many in the temple and Ra's, we see NO change in him as a person. Ra's is especially swept under the carpet till the third film, but in-between that time, Batman suddenly won't kill the more sinister Joker for no reason. No matter how many people are in danger. If you're trying to rationalise that doing so would've made Batman an executioner, then he shouldn't killed those people (especially Ra's) back in BB. Joker didn't need to taint Batman because he was already tainted by the end of the first movie. The point I've tried to make is the films DON'T address these inconsistencies. We're only encouraged to turn a blind eye. My argument has always been if Batman was prepared to use lethal force and justify doing it to save lives (i.e. Gordon's son, and how he justified to Talia for killing her father in TDKR) then he should've killed Joker as well. You can't have it both ways.

You can't blame anyone for calling out the filmmakers for not trying to make sense of the characters' actions. If we're going to criticise Burton's Batman for behaving the way he did in the last moments of BR, then surely we should have no problem calling out Nolan's flaws. In Burton's defence, that flaw only happened once. In Nolan's case, it's continuous.

In Superman's case, I don't think he was forced to kill. He could have lobotomised Zod. He chose to kill him instead.

And yet you're convinced that Batman couldn't have found another way to stop Dent? It doesn't make any sense to me. And honestly, I still find it a double standard. You should be demanding that Batman could have stopped Two-Face with a Batarang (hell, I'd preferred that he did that because it would've made sense why he spared the Joker).

And yet The Dark Knight placed a greater emphasis on Bruce Wayne, and his emotional and moral struggles, than either of the Burton films did.

No it didn't. If it did, then Batman would've been carrying the guilt of what he had done in the first film (the temple and Ra's) and it would've made his refusal to kill the Joker a lot more sense. But that didn't happen. We don't see any change in Bruce after the events of BB - in fact, everything in that film was swept completely under the rug. Where are the scenes of Bruce feeling any kind of guilt for Ra's? There aren't any. The only guilt he feels is the Joker's carnage and wants to turn himself in because of it...even though Bruce is the only person in Gotham who is effective enough in stopping him.

Bruce considers looking for a way out because of the supposed rise and fall of Harvey Dent - the guy we're constantly told he's the best thing since slice bread without showing us why. Not to mention that regardless how Bruce felt, it never makes sense how he thought he could stop being Batman because the film shows he can't if he has to save Dent and stop Joker! In fact, Dent's case against the mob wouldn't have gone anywhere if Batman didn't agree to go get Lau back. And Batman's inadequacy in stopping the Joker goes to show that he learned absolutely NOTHING from his seven year trip in Asia during BB, despite his reason of going there in the first place was to learn how the criminal mind worked. His training with the League of Shadows didn't seem to do him much good either.

The whole purpose of Batman was to take the fall for Two-Face at all costs, regardless how nonsensical it was. And his decision to take the fall in the end contradicts Batman's argument that people are inherently good, because he and Gordon apparently don't believe people are capable of understanding that Dent became insane because of the Joker's actions. That, I don't believe that the city would lose faith in humanity because of some cocky lawyer died, but I digress.

The Dark Knight would have been far much better to me if the story was about Batman being forced to come to terms with his actions in the first film and needed to reach a conclusion how he wants to stop the Joker; either fulfiling his intention to become the idealistic symbol i.e. sparing the Joker, or becoming more practical by whatever means necessary i.e. killing the Joker to save lives - even it means he becomes an outlaw. If it's the latter, then it would've been a perfect contrast to Burton's Batman, and it definitely would've been more realistic. Instead, we get a pretentious movie that tries to cram two films into one without fleshing out any characters, too many unnecessary subplots, too much expository, pseudo-intellectual dialogue and unrealistic and contradictory attempts at human nature. And the ending is the one of the worst I've ever seen.

But wasn't that before he was exposed to yellow sunlight? Zod and the other Kryptonians remained shielded by artificial atmospherics – either aboard their ship or inside their protective suits – until they arrived on Earth. Once they'd absorbed some energy from our yellow sun, things would have been very different.

Like I said - we don't know. For all we know, they could lose their powers if they fly out deeper into orbit. Like it or not, Zod felt there was no going back.

[Silver Nemesis]

That's not what I said. I may have said that I wasn't a huge fan of the series, but that doesn't mean I hated it. In fact, I used to enjoy it quite a bit. I still do in some respects.

OK, thanks for clarifying. It's just your previous comment about the franchise being "ruined" for you could be misconstrued as negativity.

As I've already explained to you, if you're going to count deleted scenes as canonical, then you must take the good and the bad. I can't hypocritically choose which is canon and which isn't to suit my own my liking. Both films had some deleted scenes that were good and shouldn't have been cut...but they also had some that were cut for a good reason.

I never said you had to accept 100% of deleted scenes. Particularly not if they contradict something in the finished film. But if you have a sequence in the finished film that is lacking one crucial element, and without that element the entire scene is rendered ambiguous or nonsensical (e.g. Bruce reading something in his father's journal, then suddenly running into the night in a state of emotional distress without us being informed what it was he read) then it makes sense to seek clarification from the script and deleted scenes. These explain that his parents hadn't wanted to go to the cinema that night. And once we know that, his emotional reaction to the journal starts to make sense. I can't see any reason not to take that explanation as canon. If there was some alternative explanation for his reaction to the journal, then there might be reason to question the deleted scene. Or if they cut the entire red book subplot, then yeah, it wouldn't be important. But it's there in the finished film. And in its incomplete state, it doesn't make sense. Choosing to ignore the explanation is tantamount to wilful ignorance in the face of enlightenment. You don't have to blindly accept all deleted scenes as canon any more than you have to blindly reject them all as apocryphal. I use common sense when assimilating any form of information. That's not intellectual inconsistency; it's thinking for oneself.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Of course I'm a fan of the character, but I don't see how not counting deleted scenes as canon means I'd happily accept Halle Berry's Catwoman either. I find that a rather absurd thing to say to be honest.

You asked why you should care when the studio clearly didn't. The 2004 Catwoman film was made by the same studio as Batman Forever. It's clear that they didn't care about the Batman mythology when they made the Catwoman film, therefore someone who cares as little as they do should have no trouble appreciating it. Put another way, if a chef serves you a terrible meal and you say, "If the chef doesn't care, why should I?" then what right do you have to complain when he serves you an equally terrible meal the following evening?

And frankly, I find that other question to be rather irritating and very rude.

I was asking an earnest question. It wasn't intended to be rude, but I'm sorry if you took it that way. It seems as though the majority of your posts on this site have been complaints about Christopher Nolan. You've dismissed his entire filmography, with the exception of Memento and The Prestige. And you've also posted negative things about Blade Runner, RoboCop, the Star Wars prequel trilogy and several other films. The only time I recall you writing anything positive was in reference to Superman: The Movie (1978) and the Burton Batman films. I was just trying to get a better understanding of your taste in movies. But if I offended you, I apologise. I'd have hoped it was clear from my posting history that I don't resort to ad hominem attacks.

If you want to disagree with me about deleted scenes, fine. But do you often argue with people who don't share your opinion on films or something? I've met plenty of people who have different tastes and don't like the same movies as I do, but I respectfully accept it as "to each their own".

Excuse me, but when have I ever argued with you? I thought we were having a friendly discussion. When have I ever said that you must accept my opinion over your own? This thread was meant to be about the upcoming Supergirl TV series. It was you who brought up these other topics. I assumed you wanted to discuss them and I responded accordingly. You post your opinions, then I post mine. That's the nature of discussion. It's nothing to get upset about. No one's attacking you here. But if you don't want me to respond to your future posts then just say so and I'll oblige.

It's just bad luck that you found someone who disagreed.

Why's it bad luck? If I wanted to post my thoughts without hearing anyone else's, I'd get a blog. The whole purpose of a message board is for the free exchange of different views. But I've never once said my views were more important than anyone else's.

What's with the condescending attitude? That's absolutely no need for that. Hell, Batman kills in the movies, but that didn't offend you, didn't it? Hell, at least Superman's actions weren't due to self-righteous cop-outs or anything.

Again, no condescension intended. I'm just saying people are entitled to whatever view makes them happy. These are films we're discussing. Not politics, religion or matters of health. Just stories. I don't get upset over stories. And I don't begrudge other people having their own tastes.

Lester's version is the real Superman II.

In your opinion. Which you're entitled to. And I'm entitled to mine. I was merely trying to back my opinion up with reason. Once again, I'm sorry if that offended you.
   

I thought that Donner didn't have the ending prepared yet?

Donner wasn't satisfied with the time reversal ending and has said they would have come up with something better before the theatrical release. But he did plan and shoot the Fortress of Solitude finale in its entirety. That was finished and in the can. But the Salkinds could only use portions of it owing to DGA rules.

And I was under the impression that WB released the Donner Cut to satisfy fans after the bootlegs that were being made by fans back 2005?

For me, the opinions of the fans who love and understand the mythology will always take priority over the opinions of the suits at WB. The fans want the best version of the film possible because they care about the character and the way he's represented. The suits just want to make money.

As for why the Donner Cut came out in 2006, I'd imagine it was more to capitalise on the release of Superman Returns. There were bootleg copies of the extended cuts available before 2005. Certainly copies of the international TV cuts had been doing the rounds on VHS since the eighties.

If you're going to argue that Evil Superman was clone, then, as you admit, so is Nuclear Man. To me though, it doesn't matter. Superman got rid of them with lethal force.

The evil Superman wasn't a clone. I never said that. He was half of Superman. Clark was half of Superman. They were the same person. The script, comic book adaptation and the original red kryptonite storyline it was adapted from all substantiate this.

I'll concede this though: it looks like reaction to Zod's aftermath wasn't as clear cut as I thought. However, I do share the contingent of fans who thought he did die in SII as well.

OK, that's fine. I'm not saying you're opinion's wrong. I just hold a different opinion, and I wanted to explain why.

I don't buy it. This Batman could suddenly have the presence in mind to prevent the Joker falling to his death with his grapple gun despite being in bad shape. But he can't find another way to stop Two-Face?

If he'd been holding a kid in one arm and using the other to hang on for his life, I doubt he would have been able to save the Joker either.

And I don't believe for a second Superman wanted to kill Zod, but he panicked when people's lives were in danger. Superman's actions came across as natural for someone who was inexperienced in that situation.

You see, I thought his actions came across as natural for a human in his situation. But Superman's not human, and 75 years of the character's adventures have conditioned me to expect more from him. I'm used to seeing Batman kill people in the comics and movies, but not Superman. And it's not the direction I want to see the character go in. It's just my preference and I'm not saying anyone else has to adopt it as their own.

Also, Batman was 29/30 in Batman Begins and 31 in The Dark Knight. He was still relatively inexperienced himself. And he was a physical wreck in TDKR. Superman was 33 in Man of Steel. And although he hadn't been wearing the costume for very long, he did have experience using his powers and rescuing people in life or death situations. He'd had 33 years to come to terms with his abilities. If they'd shown him acquiring special Kryptonian combat skills immediately before the other Kryptonians arrived, then unfamiliarity with his powers might be an acceptable excuse. But these were the same powers he'd had since adolescence. No other version of Superman ever had to resort to murder in his first adventure. He always found another way.

Ultimately it's Zack Snyder's fault. He chose to rewrite the ending for the express purpose of including that scene. I'll never forget this one quote I read from Snyder back when he was promoting Watchmen. It reveals everything you need to know about his attitude to comic book heroes:

My mother saw I was into this comic called Heavy Metal magazine, so she got me a subscription. You could call it ''high-brow'' comics, but to me, that comic book was just pretty sexy! I had a buddy who tried getting me into ''normal'' comic books, but I was all like, ''No one is having sex or killing each other. This isn't really doing it for me.''

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20213257,00.html

When it was announced that he'd be directing the new Superman film, this quote was the first thing to go through my mind. I heard him repeat it in more than one interview. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt because I badly wanted to like the film.

That guy had seven years to learn how criminals ticked, and years of training...and failed when the time called for it (i.e. Ra's, Joker, Bane, Two-Face).

He defeated all of those villains and saved the city multiple times. Cavill's Superman allowed Metropolis to be destroyed in his first movie.

And yet you're convinced that Batman couldn't have found another way to stop Dent? It doesn't make any sense to me. And honestly, I still find it a double standard. You should be demanding that Batman could have stopped Two-Face with a Batarang (hell, I'd preferred that he did that because it would've made sense why he spared the Joker).

I believe Superman could have found another way because I know of an alternative that was perfectly viable and would almost certainly have worked. In the case of Batman in The Dark Knight, throwing a batarang was not a sure-fire alternative. Even if he had managed to get up and hurl a batarang without Dent seeing him, what then? Dent was standing on a precipice holding Gordon's son. If the batarang had hit him it would likely have knocked him over the edge, taking Gordon's son with him. That's if the batarang didn't hit the kid.

If Batman had not tried reasoning with Dent, but had instead dropped down behind him from the floor above and incapacitated him at the beginning of the scene, then he might have been able to resolve the crisis without killing anyone. But he didn't do that. He chose to try talking to him instead. And once he'd made that decision, and had placed himself in a vulnerable position, the predicament became much direr.

No it didn't.

Yes it did. In Batman 89 Bruce Wayne/Batman's character arc involves:

•   Relationship with Alfred
•   Romance with Vicki Vale/temptation towards a normal life
•   Mystery of his origins/pain over his parents' deaths
•   Introducing himself to Gotham as Batman
•   Breaking the Smilex code
•   Rivalry with the Joker/avenging his parents

In Batman Returns it involves:

•   Reacting to the Penguin and Red Triangle Gang attacks
•   Opposing Shreck's power plant (one scene)
•   Being framed
•   Romance with Selina (only comes into play in the second half of the film)/trying to save Selina

In The Dark Knight it involves:

•   Romance with Rachel/temptation towards a normal life
•   Concern over Batman's public image/copycat vigilantes
•   Rivalry with Dent/campaigning on Dent's behalf
•   Relationship with Alfred
•   Maintaining his public playboy persona (the restaurant scene/absconding with the ballerinas to Hong Kong/the fundraiser/crashing his Lamborghini, etc)
•   Rivalry with the Joker
•   Alliance with Gordon
•   Emotional torment over Rachel's death
•   Moral conflict over whether or not to kill the Joker
•   Moral conflict over whether or not to reveal his identity to the public, or allow others to die
•   Relationship with Lucius/moral disagreement with Lucius over surveillance device
•   Trying to save Two-Face

Almost everything in The Dark Knight revolves around Batman/Bruce Wayne. His decisions drive most of the plot, and every character is in some way connected to him.

•   The Joker's actions are motivated by his fascination with Batman. The mob bosses reach out to the Joker in the first place because they want him to eliminate Batman. The Joker's actions in the final act are all geared towards undermining Batman's moral constitution.
•   It's Batman's actions that inspire the copycat vigilantes.
•   Dent and Rachel's relationship is contingent upon Bruce's career as Batman. He therefore has a personal stake in ensuring Dent's campaign success in the hopes he himself can retire and have a normal life with Rachel.
•   Batman saving Dent's life results in the latter becoming Two-Face. Two-Face then holds Batman to account for his misfortune, adding a personal dimension to their final confrontation.
•   It's Batman who captures Lau and brings him back to Gotham, which in turn results in the whole 'Joker arrest' ploy in which Batman plays a central role.

Bruce Wayne/Batman is the central character in The Dark Knight. Bale's performance was overshadowed by Ledger's, but it's still Batman's movie. As for his internal conflict in the film, that includes:

•   Concern over the copycat vigilantes
•   Torn between serving Gotham and wanting an ordinary life with Rachel
•   Torment over Rachel's death/guilt over Harvey's fate
•   Conflict over whether or not to come forward when the Joker demands he unmask himself
•   Moral conflict over whether or not to kill the Joker
•   Moral conflict over the methods he'll have to use to defeat the Joker (the cell phone surveillance device)

If Michael Keaton had been offered such a rich character arc, he'd never have abandoned the franchise back in the nineties. As he said himself:

"I never saw the other ones [in the 1990s] but I saw most of the one that starred Heath Ledger which, if you me, is off-the-charts. Amazing stuff. The whole thing was great, everyone involved is great. That approach and that tone is exactly what I wanted to do with the third film when we first talked about it.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/batman-michael-keaton-on-the-dark-knight-and-a-lost-scene-from-1989-film/

[The Laughing Fish]

Choosing to ignore the explanation is tantamount to wilful ignorance in the face of enlightenment. You don't have to blindly accept all deleted scenes as canon any more than you have to blindly reject them all as apocryphal. I use common sense when assimilating any form of information. That's not intellectual inconsistency; it's thinking for oneself.

I honestly still don't know about that. There are lots of deleted scenes that I didn't like that doesn't contradict anything. For example, Non murdering the kid in SII. That was even more darker and depressing than anything in MOS in my opinion.

You asked why you should care when the studio clearly didn't. The 2004 Catwoman film was made by the same studio as Batman Forever. It's clear that they didn't care about the Batman mythology when they made the Catwoman film, therefore someone who cares as little as they do should have no trouble appreciating it. Put another way, if a chef serves you a terrible meal and you say, "If the chef doesn't care, why should I?" then what right do you have to complain when he serves you an equally terrible meal the following evening?

Alright, now I understand. I didn't express my comment as best as I thought. Admittedly, I was biased towards Batman Forever's inherent flaws that couldn't be edited out.

I was asking an earnest question. It wasn't intended to be rude, but I'm sorry if you took it that way.

Okay, but the problem is it wasn't the first time you wrote something that came across as rude to me. Looking back, your last few posts back in the Jack on Heath thread to be rather rude as well i.e. your comment on my supposed "locked mindset" to hate on TDK like I am compelling myself to hate the film on purpose, and your comment about "bad luck" for me for not agreeing with the majority of people liking the film which I can't help but feel it came across a backhanded dig. I didn't understand it because a few pages earlier you said that you respected my views, but those comments did come across as antagonistic to me. Looking back, I should've asked what that was about.

You've dismissed his entire filmography, with the exception of Memento and The Prestige.

I will admit that I complain about Nolan a lot when I post here. The reason I do that is because I'm actually glad that this place doesn't turn a blind eye at the glaring flaws on display in Nolan's films. Unlike everyone else on the internet. All I was trying to do is offer the conversation that these three movies of his were far from perfect, and I've always justified why. Perhaps my constant criticism might have come across obsessive at times. I didn't mean to do that. But if that's the case, it's because I'm sick and tired that people are always easy to point out all the problems in other movies while completely ignoring the tons of problems that these three movies suffer from. I'm also fed up with those crazy fans who get upset at anyone who dare say anything critical about those films. That, and I'm frustrated with people who didn't like these films tend to suck at articulating what's exactly wrong with them.

It's bizarre. We live in a fanboy-driven internet culture nowadays, but the fans of this trilogy take it to an extreme level e.g. death threats, cyber bullying, harassment etc. As if genuine disappointment in the films wasn't bad enough, people have to tolerate those lunatics.

And you've also posted negative things about Blade Runner, RoboCop, the Star Wars prequel trilogy and several other films. The only time I recall you writing anything positive was in reference to Superman: The Movie (1978) and the Burton Batman films. I was just trying to get a better understanding of your taste in movies.

Okay. To answer your question, I like my share of crime films i.e. Goodfellas, Heat, Donnie Brasco (underrated) and Italian films i.e. Fellini's Amarcord (although admittedly I tend to enjoy 80s sexy commedia all'italiana more  ). Dramatic films such as Network and House of Sand of Fog with Ben Kingsley are great. Comic-based include Marvel Cinematic Universe and Spider-Man. I also have an appreciation for Schwarzenegger and Stallone like most people growing up in the early '90s.

Excuse me, but when have I ever argued with you? I thought we were having a friendly discussion. When have I ever said that you must accept my opinion over your own? This thread was meant to be about the upcoming Supergirl TV series. It was you who brought up these other topics.

Yes, I'll take responsibility for that. Maybe I should ask Ral to move the last two pages of our posts into another thread?

But if you don't want me to respond to your future posts then just say so and I'll oblige.

On the contrary. I tend to enjoy our discussions and debates. I just got confused at a few posts you've made to me recently.

Why's it bad luck? If I wanted to post my thoughts without hearing anyone else's, I'd get a blog. The whole purpose of a message board is for the free exchange of different views. But I've never once said my views were more important than anyone else's.

Again, no condescension intended. I'm just saying people are entitled to whatever view makes them happy. These are films we're discussing. Not politics, religion or matters of health. Just stories. I don't get upset over stories. And I don't begrudge other people having their own tastes.

So how come you wrote this comment in reaction me personally finding TDK to be boring?

When someone labels a movie 'boring', that's as likely to reveal something about the attitude of the viewer as it is the film itself. You could call anything boring. The only way to gauge the degree of boredom something elicits is to look at how people respond to it. And the vast majority of people thought Nolan's films weren't boring. If 96% of people were excited by it, and 4% of people weren't, then he clearly got it right. What that 4% find exciting might be what the other 96% would find boring. I'm fairly sure the placement of action scenes in Nolan's films, relative to runtime, is more or less the same as in the Burton-Schumacher films. And the scenes connecting the action sequences contain conflict, mystery, romance, and all the other dramatic devices that conventionally arouse viewer interest. All the pieces are there for an interesting film. It's just bad luck if you happen to be one of the few people who finds it dull.

That's like someone telling you off for not liking Michael Bay's movies because he must doing something right if his dumb Transformers movies still attracts people to go to see them and gross billions at the box office. If you're going to apply that directors must be doing something right because of the majority, then you might as well apply the same standard to Bay (or whoever else you might not be a fan of). What I'm saying is if you really do respect people's opinions, then you wouldn't be posting something like that in the first place. I'm not trying to start trouble here, I'm just curious and I'd like to clarify and get down to the bottom of this.

In your opinion. Which you're entitled to. And I'm entitled to mine. I was merely trying to back my opinion up with reason.

Fair enough. I can't argue with that.

OK, that's fine. I'm not saying you're opinion's wrong. I just hold a different opinion, and I wanted to explain why.

Once again, fair enough.

Once again, I'm sorry if that offended you.

Okay then. As long we both respect each other for having different opinions.
   

If he'd been holding a kid in one arm and using the other to hang on for his life, I doubt he would have been able to save the Joker either.

I still find that hard to believe because these films show us Batman having supernatural abilities to disappear into thin air, survive by crashing on top of cars after jumping off from skyscrapers, and recover from a broken back with one punch. Never mind the fact that he could mysteriously get back to a landlocked Gotham without no money or any other means to escape from whatever country he was imprisoned in.

If Nolan wanted realism, fine, but he needed to apply more consistency to his approach. If he can't do it, then he doesn't get to fall back on the excuse that "it's a comic book movie" because he doesn't have the talent to tell a realistic story. It's up to him to help enable suspension of disbelief, not to demand the audience to do it for him.

You see, I thought his actions came across as natural for a human in his situation. But Superman's not human, and 75 years of the character's adventures have conditioned me to expect more from him. I'm used to seeing Batman kill people in the comics and movies, but not Superman. And it's not the direction I want to see the character go in. It's just my preference and I'm not saying anyone else has to adopt it as their own.

Also, Batman was 29/30 in Batman Begins and 31 in The Dark Knight. He was still relatively inexperienced himself. And he was a physical wreck in TDKR. Superman was 33 in Man of Steel. And although he hadn't been wearing the costume for very long, he did have experience using his powers and rescuing people in life or death situations. He'd had 33 years to come to terms with his abilities. If they'd shown him acquiring special Kryptonian combat skills immediately before the other Kryptonians arrived, then unfamiliarity with his powers might be an acceptable excuse. But these were the same powers he'd had since adolescence. No other version of Superman ever had to resort to murder in his first adventure. He always found another way.

Superman might not be from Earth, but this film shows that he was raised as a human being. You can argue it's the same in the comics, but this movie showed him with having flaws, doubts, insecurities and making big mistakes than usual i.e. Pa Kent's death, his emotion did get the better of him when Zod threatened Ma Kent. I'm not saying I like these two instances, I'm just giving examples. He isn't a god, despite his powers. Let's not forget that Superman in MOS did live in trepidation throughout his whole life too. He wasn't even sure what he wanted to do, and even doubted that people could be trusted at one stage. He decides to save the world once he learns of Zod's intentions.

I blame him for starting the destruction in Smallville. But I'm not totally convinced about Metropolis. Not only because Zod started the destruction, but even if Superman tried to take it elsewhere, Zod was getting the better of him.

About the lobotomy suggestion? I don't know. This Superman was possibly the weakest version on film to date, who could barely hold an oil rig, let alone contain the likes of Zod and Faora. Compare that to Reeve, who could pick up a helicopter with one hand. For all we know, the lobotomizing might not have even worked.  What if it had somehow killed him too i.e. Shazam in Injustice? Then again, the film never clarifies how deadly or effective heat vision since Faora had to brush away, but the heat vision struck the giant with very little damage.

Yes, he had powers, but he was not very well read either since he barely held his own against Faora and Zod. The scene was played out that Superman struggled in the heat of the moment. No matter how much he learned what he could do, it doesn't change the fact that Superman was ill-prepared to do with Zod.

Batman may have a bigger kill count than Superman, but it still doesn't change the fact that Batman generally doesn't kill in the comics either. He is defiant about it in Arkham City against Ra's (although one could technically argue he did kill off Grundy...let's not go there).

Again, if you can tolerate and rationalise Batman's actions in the films, then I don't think Superman killing a genocidal maniac should be a big deal to you. What we should be upset about,  however, is the contrived way the script killed off Jonathan Kent.

He defeated all of those villains and saved the city multiple times. Cavill's Superman allowed Metropolis to be destroyed in his first movie.

And Batman allowed the Joker to get away with killing so many people than he should've by refusing to kill him earlier. And like Superman, he was careless about people's safety when driving the Tumbler and Batpod. It still doesn't make sense how he goes from executing an already defeated Ra's al Ghul in the first movie, to suddenly prove how 'incorruptible' he is to the Joker. If anything, his actions against Joker, and taking the blame in the end, made the situation in Gotham a lot worse. It doesn't make him look favourable at all. I find that far more reprehensible than what Superman did to Zod.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm still not convinced of rationalizing Batman as a soldier.

RE: Batman's supposed character arc. With all due respect, you seem to miss the point about the inconsistencies again.

The truth is it didn't bother me that Batman went against his word in BB at first . At the time, I thought "yeah, he's a hypocrite, but at least he saved Gotham in the end". But in TDK, he suddenly upholds his code for the majority of the film against the Joker, without any acknowledgment about his actions in the first film whatsoever. If anything, Batman's treatment of Ra's in the first film should've been the main thing that influences how he stops the Joker. But it gets forgotten instead. And as a result, his hesitance to stop Joker indirectly gets people killed and allows more chaos to happen.

This, as well as the unconvincing plotline of Batman thinking of retirement and the boneheaded decision to set up Batman taking the blame in the end completely ruins any attempts at character development. How can it be rich if Nolan doesn't bother to address any of these inconsistencies? I always got the impression that Nolan expects the audience to have short term memories of what happens in his stories. And it clearly worked because you have so many apologists trying to make excuses for these flaws. His half-assed acknowledgment in that screenplays book on Google reaffirmed what I though. It's because of this that I had no emotional investment in Batman throughout these movies.

There are other problems as well. The moral disagreement about the sonar issue didn't ring true at all. Lucius Fox is okay with inventing all of this dangerous equipment and giving it to a dangerous vigilante who causes collateral damage that also endangers bystanders and hurt people. But he thinks using sonar technology to desperately go after a maniac is taking a step too far? I might have bought the scene if were given an insight of how Lucius feels for co-creating Batman, or even if Batman put Lucius in his place about his misguided outrage. But it didn't happen.

And then of course, the underdeveloped relationship between Bruce and Rachel. Bruce isn't given enough time to react with grief over her death because the day later it's largely forgotten (he even cracks a joke with Alfred) until the final scene with Two-Face. That, and their underdeveloped relationship is worse than even the flimsiest of every comic book film ever made. I think it's because of this people had a hard time believing Bruce became depressed over her death at the start of the TDKR. And finally, he argues people are inherently good, but that's contradicted because he takes the fall for Dent because he's afraid the truth would cause people stop doing the right thing.

I'm not asking you to not enjoy the films. I'm just trying to explain why I didn't care for this Batman, and it's not because of blind hatred. I blame Nolan for depicting Batman this way, like you blame Snyder for his depiction of Superman.

"I never saw the other ones [in the 1990s] but I saw most of the one that starred Heath Ledger which, if you me, is off-the-charts. Amazing stuff. The whole thing was great, everyone involved is great. That approach and that tone is exactly what I wanted to do with the third film when we first talked about it.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/batman-michael-keaton-on-the-dark-knight-and-a-lost-scene-from-1989-film/
[/quote]

As good as Keaton is as an actor, he doesn't seem like a good judge in movies. I found a tweet from him saying that he enjoyed Bridesmaids. 

Anyway, back on-topic to the Supergirl thread. I posted this before: there are rumours that Supergirl's origins will be changed for the new TV show? It doesn't give any examples though.

Source: http://screenrant.com/supergirl-tv-show-origin-story-changes/

Will they go for a more angsty MOS feel, or be it like CW's Flash I wonder?

[The Laughing Fish]

Supergirl has been officially cast.

Source: http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/supergirl-tv-show-casts-melissa-benoist-of-glee-in-lead-2015221

I've heard rumours that this show could be linked to Arrow and The Flash since Greg Berlanti is involved, but as far as I know this hasn't been confirmed.