The deleted scene is irrelevant. It's a deleted scene, it wasn't shown in the theatrical version. At best it absolves Donner, but not Lester, and not Superman. However, Donner isn't really absolved, as Zod surviving is a plot hole which is its own problem.
Then don't post.
For me it's not a rehash. I was wondering about this for a while. I'm happy to finally have an adequate understanding of why the killing scene bothered people. If you're not learning anything new then fine, but I've learned something new.
It kind of reflects out attitudes to foreign policy in a way. The public is by and large fine with the military killing innocents, as long as they don't hear about it.
It would have been better if Snyder had used slow motion.
He saved a lot of people in the movie. However, I'm sure they could have added another 30 minutes of footage showing him saving even more people. Would it have been enough? I doubt it.
Lester chose to cut the scenes where Zod is being taken prisoner, to make them non-canonical. I'm assuming he realised that such a change would transform the story.
I can't really comment, as the Daniel Craig Bond films have been too boring for me and I can't recall the plotlines in spite of having seen the films. I miss Pierce Brosnan.
So when is Batman tainted for killing Two-Face?
He is never tainted, which supports my point. Notice how the killing of two-face was semi-ambiguous in TDK, which also supports my theory. If they had added a trivial scene where Batman says "damnit" after killing two-face... it would have damaged the movie for a lot of people. The scene as is works because Batman doesn't care that his old friend Harvey Dent is dead, because it's not acknowledged by the story.
The plotline of TDK doesn't "build up" to Batman killing Harvey Deny, based on analysis, the plotline builds up to Batman not killing the Joker.
You go much further than most critics of the movie. You are the only one I've seen who actually thought the acting was bad. You're obviously very frustrated. I hope you'll get more fun out of future DC movies.
Then don't post.
For me it's not a rehash. I was wondering about this for a while. I'm happy to finally have an adequate understanding of why the killing scene bothered people. If you're not learning anything new then fine, but I've learned something new.
It kind of reflects out attitudes to foreign policy in a way. The public is by and large fine with the military killing innocents, as long as they don't hear about it.
It would have been better if Snyder had used slow motion.
He saved a lot of people in the movie. However, I'm sure they could have added another 30 minutes of footage showing him saving even more people. Would it have been enough? I doubt it.
Lester chose to cut the scenes where Zod is being taken prisoner, to make them non-canonical. I'm assuming he realised that such a change would transform the story.
I can't really comment, as the Daniel Craig Bond films have been too boring for me and I can't recall the plotlines in spite of having seen the films. I miss Pierce Brosnan.
So when is Batman tainted for killing Two-Face?
He is never tainted, which supports my point. Notice how the killing of two-face was semi-ambiguous in TDK, which also supports my theory. If they had added a trivial scene where Batman says "damnit" after killing two-face... it would have damaged the movie for a lot of people. The scene as is works because Batman doesn't care that his old friend Harvey Dent is dead, because it's not acknowledged by the story.
The plotline of TDK doesn't "build up" to Batman killing Harvey Deny, based on analysis, the plotline builds up to Batman not killing the Joker.
You go much further than most critics of the movie. You are the only one I've seen who actually thought the acting was bad. You're obviously very frustrated. I hope you'll get more fun out of future DC movies.
Comment