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

[Backward Galaxy]

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

Hm. Okay, I have no idea how it's a plot hole then.

[j03superbat]

I disagree. 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.

But when Superman pushes them into the Crevasse of Doom, they are no longer super-powered bad people. In the same way one would wonder if humans are okay after the otherwise-lethal injuries they sustain, one can wonder if the Kryptonians survive whatever hell Superman pushed them into; they're no longer invulnerable.

Or, crevasses are the Kryptonian equivalent of taking a fireman's pole into a prison cell underneath your living room. It could go either way.

[Backward Galaxy]

But when Superman pushes them into the Crevasse of Doom, they are no longer super-powered bad people. In the same way one would wonder if humans are okay after the otherwise-lethal injuries they sustain, one can wonder if the Kryptonians survive whatever hell Superman pushed them into; they're no longer invulnerable.

Or, crevasses are the Kryptonian equivalent of taking a fireman's pole into a prison cell underneath your living room. It could go either way.

Ha!

They're still bad people and he's still Superman, the guy who has been shown to never kill bad guys, in a movie world where no one dies unless LITERALLY the entire planet blows up (and even then people get to come back to life as crystal ghosts).

They're doin' fine. They might be stuck in the basement without cable tv, but they're okay. No one's neck has been snapped. No one's lifeless body is laying there on the floor, not moving.

[j03superbat]

They're still bad people and he's still Superman, the guy who has been shown to never kill bad guys, in a movie world where no one dies unless LITERALLY the entire planet blows up

Or has a heart attack.

[Backward Galaxy]

Or has a heart attack.

Non-conflict related and actually addressed by the plot.

And shut up.

[McFly]

To the plain public watching that movie; The ppl that know very little about SM.. You think they deduce that Zod is in a phantom zone? Some probably just learned what a PZ is from the Donner movie.. U can spin it any way u want. But to Joe Schmoe "know nothing about SM" Zod was killed.. I can see ur side, ur stance, but u seem to not be able to see the forest through the tress with this subject when ppl differ from u..

[Backward Galaxy]

To the plain public watching that movie; The ppl that know very little about SM.. You think they deduce that Zod is in a phantom zone? Some probably just learned what a PZ is from the Donner movie.. U can spin it any way u want. But to Joe Schmoe "know nothing about SM" Zod was killed.. I can see ur side, ur stance, but u seem to not be able to see the forest through the tress with this subject when ppl differ from u..

I study film. I don't expect Joe Schmoe to know what I know. If they think Zod is dead, I believe they're wrong. I can make my case using actual evidence from the film. I believe that I just did. I don't feel any more is necessary. There's no forest, or trees, or pots and kettles hanging from them. There's the movie, what it says, and what it's about.

If we're going for analogies here... sabermetrics and statistics in baseball. I don't care if the average joe thinks the best pitcher in baseball is the guy with the most wins. He's wrong. I know why. And I can prove it because I know more than they do.

[McFly]

Guess I'm just a big believer in Occam's razor.. Especially in popcorn superhero movies..

[SuperheroFan87]

The Superman II thing can only be solved by which version one deems canonical. The Donner version or the Lester version.

[DA_Champion]

I study film. I don't expect Joe Schmoe to know what I know. If they think Zod is dead, I believe they're wrong. I can make my case using actual evidence from the film. I believe that I just did. I don't feel any more is necessary. There's no forest, or trees, or pots and kettles hanging from them. There's the movie, what it says, and what it's about.

If we're going for analogies here... sabermetrics and statistics in baseball. I don't care if the average joe thinks the best pitcher in baseball is the guy with the most wins. He's wrong. I know why. And I can prove it because I know more than they do.

First, your counter-argument, which is based on a sophisticated reading of Superman II, is not thread-relevant as my theory is about audience reactions. The general perception is that Superman killed Zod at the end of Superman II, and the general reaction to the movie was a positive one. People didn't care that Zod died (which he did in their mind), they were just happy to see him dispatched as a villain such that he could never again threaten Clark and Lois. They don't want to hear any more. That, and the success of the Avengers, shows some of what I think general audiences want: hide the destruction that would inevitably result from such a scenario. Snyder and Goyer did not get that, and they paid the price in that the movie is less successful than it could have been.

An alternative ending to the movie would have been for Superman to defeat the ~12 kryptonians easily because they are uncoordinated with superpowers. They do little damage. Due to their own failures, they make an error and cause their phantom drive to go unstable and it turns into a black hole. Superman flicks them into a black hole. He then zaps the black hole with his heat vision, giving it momentum and thus propelling it into space, where it can't hurt Earth. I think audiences would have liked that more, even though Superman murders Zod in this ending, because it's not explicitly acknowledged.

Second, since you brought up your example of pitchers in baseball, my response is that one would need to either be ignorant of baseball, or just plain dumb, or both, to think that wins is the best statistic to evaluate pitchers. There are people who are either not ignorant of Superman, or very knowledgeable about literature, or both, who don't share your interpretation of Superman II.

The high-level blog screen rant:

http://screenrant.com/man-steel-ending-superman-kills-zod-death-discussion/

Richard Donner’s sequel to Superman: The Movie told a darker tale that centered on Superman wanting giving up his powers in exchange for a normal life with Lois Lane – until evil Kryptonians General Zod, his lieutenant, Ursa, and brute enforcer Non all start using their newfound super powers to wreak havoc on Earth (sound familiar?). The movie ends with the now famous scene of Superman, Lois, Lex Luthor, Zod and his minions all having a Mexican standoff in the Fortress of Solitude. Superman craftily uses his de-powering chamber in reverse, restoring his own powers and stripping the bad guys of theirs. He then proceeds to murder General Zod!

Just so we’re clear: this movie has Superman and taking a man he knows to be weak as your average human, crushes his hand, and throws him into a bottomless pit. That’s not even mentioning Lois Lane also knocking a now-de-powered villain off a cliff. In short: Superman does and has killed the exact same guy on film before – so what’s all the controversy about?

In Man of Steel Supes is clearly tormented by his actions and needs Lois for comfort; in Superman II, Supes and Lois smile through their double homicide and crack wise. Is the latter okay because it’s more of a fantasy world with a John Williams theme song playing when Superman does his dirty deed? Is Man of Steel‘s treatment of death and destruction more unpalatable than cheers for a re-powered Superman crushing a man’s hand and Lois Lane cracking one-liners before killing someone? I don’t get it.

The Superman Wiki
http://superman.*****.com/wiki/Superman_II

Superman feigns weakness and then crushes Zod's hand after seemingly accepting it in submission, then throws him away. Lois easily dispatches the now-powerless Ursa, and Non leaps towards Superman, only to find he can no longer fly. All three villains fall into the depths of Superman's fortress, apparently to their dooms.

Revered Superman writer Mark Waid acknowledges that Superman killed Zod in the Superman II theatrical release, here's two posts from him (I added the bold),

http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/comment-page-2/#comments

Fair warning: from here on out, any responses that amount to “but John Byrne had Superman murder Zod, so it’s okay!” are going to be deleted (a) for redundance and (b) because by that logic, Superman should also be in a porno film, something else Byrne had Superman do.

Also, once more: Using Superman II as a defense is a fail because (1) I made the same argument then, in the summer of 1980, and (2) Donner shot (admittedly lame) footage that showed Zod arrested, which was left out by the director who replaced him, so even Donner got that Superman doesn’t kill.

[DA_Champion]

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?

If they come out of that cliff fall unscathed in spite of being ordinary humans, then that's a little bizarre. I guess if they had shown Zod surviving, then we could assume, and would assume, he fell into a pool of water, or something else broke his fall. But, plot hole, I guess, only applies if they don't show him surviving and we're supposed to assume they do.

You say that Zod would not have been addressed by Donner in Superman III, but do we know this? Maybe he wanted the option to bring back Zod as a villain.

[CKent/KalEl]

Zod never died in my mind and I've watched Lester's version of Superman II about 1000 times. As a kid I thought Superman threw them in some kind of a prison under the FOS. But hey that is just me, you are welcome to believe what you want.

[Backward Galaxy]

Second, since you brought up your example of pitchers in baseball, my response is that one would need to either be ignorant of baseball, or just plain dumb, or both, to think that wins is the best statistic to evaluate pitchers.

I have met MANY people who think wins are very important. For years, if you were a starting pitcher and didn't win 300 games in your career, you were automatically not voted into the Hall of Fame. You're calling a LOT of very smart people ignorant/stupid.

If they come out of that cliff fall unscathed in spite of being ordinary humans, then that's a little bizarre.

Once again, Ursa threw her arm wrestling opponent through a building and then through a truck. He lived and was relatively fine. Was that bizarre?

There are people who are either not ignorant of Superman, or very knowledgeable about literature, or both, who don't share your interpretation of Superman II.

And intelligent people once thought the Earth was flat and that it was okay to own slaves. Good for them. Doesn't make them right. I have made my argument.

As for your theory with respect to the audience... I don't agree with it and I've stated why. I guess I'll back out of the conversation for now, since I have nothing more to add.

[BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow]

Here's another way to look at all of this:
Using Donner's Superman as a precedent for the character killing is like using Batman & Robin as a precedent for Bat-nipples.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[DA_Champion]

Here's another way to look at all of this:
Using Donner's Superman as a precedent for the character killing is like using Batman & Robin as a precedent for Bat-nipples.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

That's not relevant to my post.

I'm not arguing whether or not it's ok for Superman to kill. That's a debate we've had. I think the consensus is that it would be ok in principal, but it would have to be done in a diligent manner, and the treatment in MoS was incomplete.

In this thread, I'm pondering why people reacted negatively in one instance, and did not care in many, many other instances where they saw the same thing. I have come up with a sound theory: that it's not the killing that bothers people, but the consequences and reactions thereof. They want the hero to crush his enemies, and they don't want to feel bad about it. I also point out that it's an excellent metaphor for our foreign policy.

Newbaggy, Backward Galaxy, and CKent/KalEl have contributed an addition, that people who don't want to see Superman kill were allowed to believe he didn't kill in Superman II. Aside from the fact that this isn't inconsistent with my theory, it is a defective counter-argument in that it only explains Superman II, and not the many other examples.