Superman II: Death of the Phantom Zone Criminals or Capture?

[Mbast1]

There was no projection on my part because I didn't fill in the blanks with assumptions to make sense of what I observed.

My assumption about what happened after they fell is reasonable. Everything else is a huge stretch.

This sort of makes my point. You claimed not to have made an assumption, then admit you did. I ALSO make an assumption (that they didn't die), but I admit it. Neither of us can know from the theatrical release, ANYTHING else is an assumption.

[Mbast1]

Except that what was originally meant to be part of the film, is irrelevant. All that matters is what made the final cut.

Generally speaking, this is true. However, in an instance where there isn't enough information to know for sure, having the authorial intent is (IMO) really important.

[ABH]

Except that what was originally meant to be part of the film, is irrelevant. All that matters is what made the final cut.

I think the film-makers' intent should still be considered... especially since the "final cut" still leaves this argument open.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

What are you talking about? Un-killing them or watching them get carted off by UN police?

Police. That's not part of Lester's cut, so there's no real reason to assume they're there, but they're definitely part of Donner's.

Tell that to Seal Team Six.

The people shooting at them in there were neither unarmed nor neutralized.

[Kurosawa]

Tell that to Seal Team Six.

What part of "depowered, unarmed and neutralized" did you not understand?

[Clark_Kent]

Scripts and deleted scenes do not matter. No matter how much you wish they might, they just don't. The only thing that matters is what is on screen in the THEATRICAL cut of the film. The cut that gets decided upon, and the studio signs off on, and that people pay money to see. And the facts are thus:

• Superman tricks them and removes their powers.
• Superman tosses Zod into a 'pit'; Lois punches Ursa into a pit; Non falls into a pit attempting to fly.

AND WE NEVER SEE OR HEAR OF THEM AGAIN. The last thing we see or hear is the fall, and Zod's voice trailing off (indicating quite a fall). They were not arrested by "arctic police" (this idea is so stupid), and not sent back to the zone.

Then we have to take into account the time period in which this film was made and the many people involved in writing it. When SII came out, there wasn't really a "geek culture" like there is today. People didn't cry for fair trials back then, they just went to the movies to see the hero win. And Superman did, because he's Superman & he always does. And people loved it. The hero won, the villians were vanquished, a sequel announced. I do believe it was "intended" that they died, although it wasn't shown (this was a family film after all). But you have to take into account how often the trope of "villian falls to his/her death at the end" was used back then. Especially in family fridndly films, where the bad guy got their cumoppence (sp) without being graphic.

[The Beast]

Scripts and deleted scenes do not matter. No matter how much you wish they might, they just don't. The only thing that matters is what is on screen in the THEATRICAL cut of the film. The cut that gets decided upon, and the studio signs off on, and that people pay money to see. And the facts are thus:

• Superman tricks them and removes their powers.
• Superman tosses Zod into a 'pit'; Lois punches Ursa into a pit; Non falls into a pit attempting to fly.

AND WE NEVER SEE OR HEAR OF THEM AGAIN. The last thing we see or hear is the fall, and Zod's voice trailing off (indicating quite a fall). They were not arrested by "arctic police" (this idea is so stupid), and not sent back to the zone.

Then we have to take into account the time period in which this film was made and the many people involved in writing it. When SII came out, there wasn't really a "geek culture" like there is today. People didn't cry for fair trials back then, they just went to the movies to see the hero win. And Superman did, because he's Superman & he always does. And people loved it. The hero won, the villians were vanquished, a sequel announced. I do believe it was "intended" that they died, although it wasn't shown (this was a family film after all). But you have to take into account how often the trope of "villian falls to his/her death at the end" was used back then. Especially in family fridndly films, where the bad guy got their cumoppence (sp) without being graphic.

Well said, sir!

I was going to bother responding to some of these posts but now I can save myself the time and energy and simply quote you for truth.

[Mbast1]

Scripts and deleted scenes do not matter. No matter how much you wish they might, they just don't. The only thing that matters is what is on screen in the THEATRICAL cut of the film.

Says who, exactly? This really isn't an issue in which there is an authority handing out rules.

• Superman tosses Zod into a 'pit'; Lois punches Ursa into a pit; Non falls into a pit attempting to fly.

AND WE NEVER SEE OR HEAR OF THEM AGAIN.

The point I don't see addressed is that this is a superhero movie, from the early 80s. It's not going to have the hero casually kill the villains. I really had never met a single person who thought they'd died until MoS, and now they seem to be out everywhere. Not saying they didn't exist, but it seems odd that this issue only started being a problem when people wanted to say that Superman had already killed. But, that just doesn't fit with the times.
Of course we never see or hear of them again, there were only two more movies, with their OWN plots. I have seen a LOT of Bond movies, and rarely does he bring up past villains. Movies usually focus on the stories they're telling at the time.

hey just went to the movies to see the hero win. And Superman did, because he's Superman & he always does. And people loved it. The hero won, the villians were vanquished, a sequel announced.

I've seen tons of movies from that time and earlier where the heroes won, but didn't kill the villains.

I do believe it was "intended" that they died, although it wasn't shown

So intention matters when you think it's on your side, otherwise it doesn't?

Especially in family fridndly films, where the bad guy got their cumoppence (sp) without being graphic.

Or didn't die at all. If, as you say, it WAS a family film, I say it's MORE likely they weren't intended to die.

[The Beast]

Says who, exactly? This really isn't an issue in which there is an authority handing out rules.

It's because the final cut of the theatrical release is the only version that the vast majority of the general audience is going to see, especially in 1980.

The point I don't see addressed is that this is a superhero movie, from the early 80s. It's not going to have the hero casually kill the villains.

It was the second superhero movie ever made, there were no standards yet. Even then, he'd kill Nuclear Man in '87 and Batman would kill Joker and others in '89 because movie audiences expect bad guys to die.

I really had never met a single person who thought they'd died until MoS, and now they seem to be out everywhere. Not saying they didn't exist, but it seems odd that this issue only started being a problem when people wanted to say that Superman had already killed. But, that just doesn't fit with the times.

I had the exact same experience but completely opposite. I never met anyone who thought they hadn't died before MoS. I find it odd that people deny the use of lethal force exactly the same time that supporters of MoS cite Superman II as an example of precedent.

I'm just curious, how old were you in 1980?

[Clark_Kent]

Says who, exactly? This really isn't an issue in which there is an authority handing out rules.

Says adult common sense. Deleted scenes & alternate cuts of anything were seldom seen prior to the invention of DVD. Tell me: if the ONLY version of SII you had ever seen was the INTENDED TO BE THE ONLY VERSION EVER theatrical cut, how would you interpret the ending?

The point I don't see addressed is that this is a superhero movie, from the early 80s. It's not going to have the hero casually kill the villains.

To use your terrible logic, "says who"?


I really had never met a single person who thought they'd died until MoS

So we're using personal anecdotes now? Ok cool.

, and now they seem to be out everywhere. Not saying they didn't exist, but it seems odd that this issue only started being a problem when people wanted to say that Superman had already killed. But, that just doesn't fit with the times.
Of course we never see or hear of them again, there were only two more movies, with their OWN plots.

Obviously I was talking about during the end of the movie.

I have seen a LOT of Bond movies, and rarely does he bring up past villains. Movies usually focus on the stories they're telling at the time.



I've seen tons of movies from that time and earlier where the heroes won, but didn't kill the villains.

And?




So intention matters when you think it's on your side, otherwise it doesn't?

Why would intention ever not matter? Intention is intention. It is my intention to make your argument look foolish. You could argue that I didn't succeed, but it does not erase the intention.



Or didn't die at all. If, as you say, it WAS a family film

It was. And not because "I say". Have you ever actually seen this film?

I say it's MORE likely they weren't intended to die.

Disney's Beauty & the Beast. The Secret of Nimh. All Dogs Go to Heaven. Disney's Sleeping Beauty. Disney's Snow White. Need I go on? These are all ANIMATED even, and the bad guys die. It happens in family films all the time.

Responses in bold. How old were you in 1980?

Edit: I'll add this. These are the facts, and cannot be disputed:

Per the 1980 film , the Phantom Zone criminals are tossed into a pit that we don't see the bottom. We hear Zod trail off during the fall. We do NOT see a Phantom Zone triangle-thing fly away (so no return to the zone). We do NOT see "arctic police" take them away. They are not seen or heard from again. There are no additional scenes shown in theaters. It's akin to take the Star Wars SE's seriously.

[Kurosawa]

Scripts and deleted scenes do not matter. No matter how much you wish they might, they just don't. The only thing that matters is what is on screen in the THEATRICAL cut of the film. The cut that gets decided upon, and the studio signs off on, and that people pay money to see. And the facts are thus:

• Superman tricks them and removes their powers.
• Superman tosses Zod into a 'pit'; Lois punches Ursa into a pit; Non falls into a pit attempting to fly.

AND WE NEVER SEE OR HEAR OF THEM AGAIN. The last thing we see or hear is the fall, and Zod's voice trailing off (indicating quite a fall). They were not arrested by "arctic police" (this idea is so stupid), and not sent back to the zone.

Then we have to take into account the time period in which this film was made and the many people involved in writing it. When SII came out, there wasn't really a "geek culture" like there is today. People didn't cry for fair trials back then, they just went to the movies to see the hero win. And Superman did, because he's Superman & he always does. And people loved it. The hero won, the villians were vanquished, a sequel announced. I do believe it was "intended" that they died, although it wasn't shown (this was a family film after all). But you have to take into account how often the trope of "villian falls to his/her death at the end" was used back then. Especially in family fridndly films, where the bad guy got their cumoppence (sp) without being graphic.

Then Superman and Lois Lane are both completely evil and insane, on a par with Joker and Harley.

Go, heroes!

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Then Superman and Lois Lane are both completely evil and insane, on a par with Joker and Harley.

Go, heroes!

No kidding, that scene is a HUGE part of why I hate Superman II way, way more than I do Man of Steel. I don't think it was meant to come off as particularly brutal or horrifying, just...offhanded.

[Kurosawa]

No kidding, that scene is a HUGE part of why I hate Superman II way, way more than I do Man of Steel. I don't think it was meant to come off as particularly brutal or horrifying, just...offhanded.

It was just bad editing, the scene was not written, acted, directed or shot with the idea that they were killing them. Donner shot all the footage with Luthor in it (Hackman wouldn't come back for the Lester reshoots), and the scene was never meant to be interpreted as Superman and Lois Lane killing three people. Bad editing and a desire to see Superman kill-or as in the case of Mark Waid, a fear of seeing Superman kill-is what leads people to interpret the scene the way they do.

It never crossed my mind for a second that they killed three depowered, unarmed and completely neutralized people then laughed about it. So that scene never bothered me until people started bringing it up to defend the killing in MOS.

But I have seriously reevaluated Superman II since MOS came out, and I have come to the conclusion that it is a crappy movie, along with all the other Superman movies. Only the middle part of STM-from Smallville to the helicopter rescue-is any good, along with bits and pieces of II-III, and IV was total junk apart from Reeve's performance.

There will never be a good Superman movie.

[Clark_Kent]

Then Superman and Lois Lane are both completely evil and insane, on a par with Joker and Harley.

Go, heroes!

Unfortunately I think it was just par for the times. People wanted to see the bad guy lose, and the good guy win. I'm not saying it's a particularly good thing (or even a good film; it's not), but those were the times.

Like you said, a lot of it has to do with poor editing. If Reeve thought their arrest would make the cut, then it goes a long way towards explaining how relaxed he is after they die. The unfortunate thing is, the editing gave no indication that they survived. I never used this as an excuse to defend MoS, as I don't think MoS particularly needs defending, but ever since my first viewing (which pre-dated my very first Superman comic book) I saw it as they died & so be it. Disney cartoons had been teaching me for years that villians die at the end because that's kind of what villians do in closed mediums. And poor editing or not, it doesn't change what Lester, the Salkinds, and WB signed off on -- a final cut in which they do appear to die. I wholeheartedly believe that if the intention was to simply arrest them, then there would be no purpose in sending them down a pit. It would have been more practical for Superman to just thump each of them on the head with his finger & knock them out til he could fly them somewhere.


Edit: small caveat...I'm willing to consider the fact that Donner intended part 2 to end with time travel, thus undoing the events of most of Superman I & all of Superman II. And Superman probably knew he was going to do that as soon as the zoneds were gone. So it's possible that Superman figured "meh, kill 'em now cause tomorrow it'll be like it never happened!" This actually makes Superman the monster that you've made Cavill's out to be...but I can accept it as a possibility. But it doesn't change what we got on film.

[Clark_Kent]

bits and pieces of II-III, and IV was total junk apart from Reeve's performance.

There will never be a good Superman movie.

I agree for the most part. I enjoy "The Movie" up until we get to Metropolis & it turns into a comedy. And I can forgive the cold, sterile Krypton based on their budget & not wanting to look like so many old crappy sci-fi shows of the post-Trek 60's boom. I enjoy the alleyway change & Paris rescue of Lester's cut of II. I LOVE & just simply adore the Homecoming dance in Smallville in III because I felt Reeve actually got to make Clark his own person with his own dreams & ideas instead of the caricature of Metropolis-Clark. His interactions with Lana are great.

I also enjoy the plant rescue in III, knowing what they were going for. Clever way to set up the deus ex weapon for the ending, and an even more clever way to get Jimmy out of the movie as much as possible. I enjoyed the IDEA of "drunk, trolling" Superman (even if the execution was bad). That junkyard fight is still one of my favorite fights in any superhero movie though. Probably because Reeve just got to let loose, yelling & screaming at Clark. The bad guy (Webster, I think?) was kind of a proto-Byrne Luthor, which was fun, but was lacking in the evil scheme dept.

And The Quest for More Money...er, Peace...there's actually a lot to like here, but nobody ever looks past the silliness of disarming all nukes, Nuclear Man, and people breathing in space. Don't get me wrong: THIS IS A BAD, BAD MOVIE. It's bad, and Canon-Globus should feel bad. But it's CHOCK FULL of great ideas, just executed extremely poorly.

I made my own super-edit once...using S1 & Donner's cut of 2 as the "continuity", I made a 2.5 hour film out of only parts of Lester's 2, Superman 3, and Superman 4. I cleaned up some visual effects, added original Williams music, and...

Well, that's neither here nor there & not the subject of the thread. I don't have a copy of my edit anymore, but if anyone was interested in reading about it then I will make a thread for it.