Disturbing New Theory on Why People Were Unhappy With the Killing of Zod

[DA_Champion]

Yeah but Superman II is a bit dicey. The deleted scenes (that were used in the Donner cut) show the arctic police arresting Zod and the Kryptonians along with Lex Luthor. Lester's cut doesn't show that part. So one could conclude that the crevices were simply just dark and the drop was not too far.

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.

This thread is just a rehash of what we arguing about in the Love it or Hate it thread. god and DA know why were need to go over it again in a separate thread.

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.

Many people have pointed out that the film poorly communicated the idea that Superman was attempting to save individual people during the Battle of Metropolis and his fight with Zod. I'm not the only one to make that assertion.

It would have been better if Snyder had used slow motion.

But we don't see him saving people in the buildings that are collapsing. We don't see him saving people on the street as buildings are collapsing. We don't see him sacrificing his body to stop Zod from hurting individuals during their final battle.

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.

How can you be sure of that?

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.

The difference comes when a filmmaker deliberately chooses to highlight the morality of killing and how it affects characters. There is a huge difference between the "Moore Bonds", where deaths are thrownaway like those groanworthy one-liners, and what happens in from the very beginning in Casino Royale. There, when Bond confronts the duplicitous Dryden in his office, the latter realises Bond murdered his contact, and we see a flashback of how it happened - a nasty, brutal fight in a public toilet. It isn't fun or glamorous, and when Bond holds the man's face underwater in a washbasin until he loses consciousness, we see it is incredibly unsettling - echoing Ian Fleming's line that "cold-blooded murder is a filthy business." Dryden himself says to Bond: "Made you feel it, did he?" However, as he continues "Don't worry. The second is even eas..." Bond calmly shoots him, adding "Yes. Considerably." At which point, we know that Bond has lost a little of his humanity - he can kill without a qualm. The point is reiterated later in the movie, when Vesper witnesses Bond killing a bodyguard who attacked them. Vesper is clearly horrified by the act, and later, Bond finds her sitting, fully clothed, in the shower, still crying, still trembling, muttering about how she can't clean the blood from her hands. Again, we see how Bond, apparently untroubled by his actions, seems to have lost some humanity in becoming a "double-0."

Casino Royale has a clear sense of its characters' morality, so that it can explore the shades of grey, the "necessary evils" that even the "goodies" engage in (something that continues through Quantum of Solace and Skyfall).

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.

Even while rooting for certain characters, the audience is encouraged to question their behaviour. Equally, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight carefully set-up a "through line" that defines the morality of Batman. In particular, it is made clear, from Bruce refusing to take part in a League of Shadows execution to the Joker setting up the "two ferries problem" in order to force a group of people to murder, that killing means succumbing to evil. A killer is tainted by the act of killing, corrupted by it. From a storytelling point of view, what is important is that, as with the "Craig Bonds", the morality of killing, and how it pertains to the characters is established early on, thus allowing the audience to view their actions in that light.

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.

In the case of Man of Steel, the morality of Clark Kent/Superman is barely established prior to the climax. Pa Kent's comments seem muddled and contradictory, born out of fear rather than an innate sense of decency. Meanwhile, Clark/Superman seems so empty-headed most of the time that there seems little sense of considered thought - he just seems to react to events. As to the death itself, Snyder has tried to dress this up in interviews after the movie came out as a major point in establishing Superman's morality, specifically his "no killing" rule. But the movie does not do this. It gives Superman a reason to kill in the shape of the family that Zod would otherwise incinerate, but "the ends justify the means" was invalidated as a moral defence decades ago. He kills Zod, and lets out an anguished yell (unconvincingly acted by Henry Cavill), but the set-up and response do not clearly create the impression that killing was so repugnant to him that he will never kill again. Lois runs to comfort him, but again it never registers as more than "Clark is upset, I must comfort him." To cap it all, the next thing Superman is shown doing is punching a Predator drone out of the sky. At best, Cavill's Superman comes across as someone who does what he does, and doesn't apply too much thought to morality.

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.

[Backward Galaxy]

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.

In my original review of MoS, I criticized Amy Adams and Henry Cavill, though largely blamed the material. So, newbaggy is one of two.

[McFly]

"And I've explained many times why I don't think he killed anyone at the end of Superman II."

Plz show me where, cause in Lester's theatrical cut Zod and crew are throw into a white abyss.. Ur under an assumption cause of ur love/knowledge of the comic character. But go poll 100 ppl (none that post here and are just a common movie goer) and i'll lay 10 to 1 odds they say Zod was killed after SM took their powers.. But que Lex for comic relief and cut to DP scene and roll credits.. So for anyone to take what happened further is fan made theory.. Are they in 20 foot holes imprisoned in the FOS? hahaha

[McFly]

How can you be sure of that?

Pot meet kettle..

[Backward Galaxy]

Plz show me where, cause in Lester's theatrical cut Zod and crew are throw into a white abyss.. Ur under an assumption cause of ur love/knowledge of the comic character. But go poll 100 ppl (none that post here and are just a common movie goer) and i'll lay 10 to 1 odds they say Zod was killed after SM took their powers.. But que Lex for comic relief and cut to DP scene and roll credits.. So for anyone to take what happened further is fan made theory.. Are they in 20 foot holes imprisoned in the FOS? hahaha

Pot meet kettle..

First point: I don't care what 100 polled people off the street say. I can think for myself.

Second point: My argument is abbreviated in this thread. I have pointed to many examples in the Lester cut that the world created is completely different from the reality in which we live. They're not dead because Superman doesn't kill in those movies. He faces armed gunman and doesn't kill them. He faces Luthor and doesn't kill him. He faces a jewel thief and doesn't kill him. The Kryptonian villains don't even kill anybody. The idea of violence in Superman II is them blowing a skater backwards down the street. The idea of violence in Superman II is a guy continuing his phone conversation while his telephone booth is blowing down the street. The idea of violence in Superman II is an ordinary human getting thrown through a building and farm truck and only being a little shaken up. A bus full of people gets thrown, nobody dies. A building antenna collapses and falls, nobody dies. And this isn't based on an absence of bodies. We actually see the people moving inside the bus, under the antenna building, and after being thrown through a building and truck. We see them alive and well. The bad guys don't even kill in that movie, let alone Superman. This is the lens through which we must look at the finale.

It's also why this is not in any way a pot/kettle thing. There is no substantive evidence at all to support that the Kryptonians are dead. You have no idea where that pit goes. You have no dead bodies. You're assuming they are dead because they don't show up again and that's pretty much all you have. That's not evidence. I, on the other hand, have everything leading up to that scene showing that people don't die in that movie and certainly aren't killed by Superman. It doesn't happen. That's why they're not dead. It's not some random deleted scene that may or may not be canon. It's that world.

[j03superbat]

Disturbing New Theory on Why People Were Unhappy With the Killing of Zod

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.

At the risk of just dovetailing into further "Well why didn't he...", the Salkinds had to purposefully jettison as much of Donner's material as possible so they wouldn't have to give him a directing credit. As I understand it, Lester filmed the rest of the script that Donner hadn't, as well as reshot some stuff, but only the essentials (the Salkinds were notoriously cheap). It's a patchwork of a movie. They probably didn't care that it would change the movie. All in all, I don't hold Superman II in nearly as high regard as I did when I was a kid.

As an aside, how is Zod surviving a plot hole?

[Sharingan]

"And I've explained many times why I don't think he killed anyone at the end of Superman II."

Plz show me where, cause in Lester's theatrical cut Zod and crew are throw into a white abyss.. Ur under an assumption cause of ur love/knowledge of the comic character. But go poll 100 ppl (none that post here and are just a common movie goer) and i'll lay 10 to 1 odds they say Zod was killed after SM took their powers.. But que Lex for comic relief and cut to DP scene and roll credits.. So for anyone to take what happened further is fan made theory.. Are they in 20 foot holes imprisoned in the FOS? hahaha

By that I can say Ra's Al Ghul might've survived since there was no dead body at the end of Begins. He could've jumped out the train and grabbed onto something he's Liam Neeson!!

I watched Superman II when I was very young and I was like "awesome Superman killed the bad guys."

[SuperheroFan87]

Wow, those scenes sound horrible....so Superman flew down to the bottoms of the Fortress to pick up Zod after he pushed him down there? And Zod even SURVIVED that fall? Lol.

And those crevices had to be deep...look how tall the Fortress of Solitude is.

Lol if he flew down to pick them up it was not shown. It just showed Zod and his minions de-powered and being arrested with Lex.

[Backward Galaxy]

As an aside, how is Zod surviving a plot hole?

Well, if we're going to interpret it from a "real world" scenario, turning over alien lifeforms to the government would have some major implications. Would they experiment on them? Maybe dissect Non? Would they analyze their genetics to try and engineer powers in humans? What about Zod knowing the location of the Fortress? What about Zod knowing that Superman has a thing for Lois Lane? Superman III then becomes an even greater crapshoot because it doesn't deal with these consequences.

[Backward Galaxy]

By that I can say Ra's Al Ghul might've survived since there was no dead body at the end of Begins. He could've jumped out the train and grabbed onto something he's Liam Neeson!!

Another completely different scenario. People do die in that movie. We see the faux-Ra's die. We see the Waynes die. The issue of killing is also a major plot point in that story because Bruce refuses to kill. It is what sets him apart. It is irrelevant in Superman II, because it never happens, is not a plot point, and is never brought up. In fact, Superman II goes out of its way to show you that people don't die (ie - people in the bus, guy who gets thrown through the building, people blown down the street, etc..).

[j03superbat]

Disturbing New Theory on Why People Were Unhappy With the Killing of Zod

Well, if we're going to interpret it from a "real world" scenario, turning over alien lifeforms to the government would have some major implications. Would they experiment on them? Maybe dissect Non? Would they analyze their genetics to try and engineer powers in humans? What about Zod knowing the location of the Fortress? What about Zod knowing that Superman has a thing for Lois Lane? Superman III then becomes an even greater crapshoot because it doesn't deal with these consequences.

I don't think so at all, because Superman III continues from the theatrical version of Superman II. It doesn't retroactively become a plot hole.

Admittedly, even if Donner hadn't been fired and his version had been released, I don't think they would've addressed it in sequels.

[Backward Galaxy]

I don't think so at all, because Superman III continues from the theatrical version of Superman II. It doesn't retroactively become a plot hole.

Admittedly, even if Donner hadn't been fired and his version had been released, I don't think they would've addressed it in sequels.

Was he saying plot hole? Or just that it transforms the story if they're turned over to the police or not?

[j03superbat]

In fact, Superman II goes out of its way to show you that people don't die (ie - people in the bus, guy who gets thrown through the building, people blown down the street, etc..).

I agree with you.

But to play devil's advocate, the movie doesn't go out of its way to show exactly what happens to the Kryptonians. That they're not given that treatment, I think, justifies an argument that they were killed.

On the other hand, the Fortress of Solitude clearly doesn't function like any kind of Earth architecture. Falling into a crevasse could've meant being slipped into a temporary Phantom Zone; one that doesn't fly into space like a record.

[j03superbat]

Was he saying plot hole? Or just that it transforms the story if they're turned over to the police or not?

He said:

However, Donner isn't really absolved, as Zod surviving is a plot hole which is its own problem.

[Backward Galaxy]

But to play devil's advocate, the movie doesn't go out of its way to show exactly what happens to the Kryptonians. That they're not given that treatment, I think, justifies an argument that they were killed.

On the other hand, the Fortress of Solitude clearly doesn't function like any kind of Earth architecture. Falling into a crevasse could've meant being slipped into a temporary Phantom Zone; one that doesn't fly into space like a record.

The examples I listed were humans victimized by the super powered villains. It was important to show that the humans were okay in the bus after being a victim of bad people. It's not important to show what happens to bad people, and it can be assumed that Superman doesn't kill. Ergo, they don't have to show it.