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

[exile001]

Geez...have any of you ever READ a Superman comic of THAT era?

Yes, I am not a fan. Either way, what's to say the director did?

Do any of you have a grasp of the core character of the Man of Steel?

Yep, I'd say an excellent grasp. That doesn't mean the writer or, more importantly, the director did.

Permit me to spell it out for you: 1) Zod, Ursa and Non fell into a crevasse and it appears in the Lester version that they vanished (their screams faded away as they were once again sent to the PZ)

Nope, no evidence in the film of them getting returned to the Phantom Zone. In the movie canon, it is an entire chamber with many glowing rings. Non such thing in any part of the FoS we see.

2) we didn't see Supes prep the chamber reversal or the silly cellophane S-shields, so we have no idea what tech he did have in the Fortress (it isn't beyond the scope of possibility that the final reserves of Kryptonian tech were used to open a portal to the PZ (after all in the comics of that era Supes did have access to the PZ)

The reversal makes sense in the context of the movie. We have seen the chamber and it's effects before so when used at the end of the movie the audience is in on Superman's plan. The comics of this era bare little relevance to the film, as it is an entirely separate canon.

3) the Superman of that era (or even of our present-day) does not treat killing/death in such a cavalier attitude as you would have to accept by his and Lois's almost whimsical reactions as the PZC's fell into the crevasse or (as I saw it then and now) a PZ portal. Yes Superman takes out the bad guys--but he does not casually kill them and then smile about it.

I agree that is not how Superman should act, but within the context of the movie it is how he appears to act. You are assuming Lester cared enough about Superman to know or even think about this.

It IS unreasonable to think that Superman killed them if you are in any way a fan of the character (particularly of that era).

It is not unreasonable, as this is the scene as it is presented to the audience. I am a huge Superman fan, but I still think this scans as him and Lois casually tossing them to their doom.

If one thinks that Superman killed the PZC's and then had a laugh with his girlfriend at the sight of their death's, I think it says MORE about the observer than the film.

And you are entirely projecting your inability to cope with the end of the movie not being perfect to your ideal of Superman and are making up your own scenes. I don't think it makes me a bad person to react to the actual material I am viewing rather than filling in plot holes in my own head.

When I originally saw the film back in the day I will admit it was somewhat ambiguous; but with my knowledge and understanding of the core and soul of the hero, I KNEW that Superman did not kill them--his subsequent reactions there in the Fortress put the lie to that fallacy.

Superman movies are not made for Superman comic book fans. Its nice if you like them, but movies are made to appeal to the widest possible audience and make as much money as possible. Most people watching that scene would simply treat it as any other movie. Threat resolved, baddies dead, lets move on. Understanding the core of the character is all well and good, but don't misunderstand your interpretation of the character with the director's intention.

A bit of imagination is always good to have, as well as a basic understanding of the concept of the character, when watching a Superman film.

By your own words here you're making up things to fit your version of the character. That's fine, but you are coming across as very condescending to those who do not agree with your version of events.

[Mbast1]

In any film if someone gets thrown down a bottomless pit and doesn't turn up alive later on it's assumed they died. In any film. Why is it different here?

See, this is an example of the problem. You do NOT know it's bottomless, you're just assuming it is to make your point. It doesn't fit the movie.

[The Beast]

Yes, I am not a fan. Either way, what's to say the director did?



Yep, I'd say an excellent grasp. That doesn't mean the writer or, more importantly, the director did.



Nope, no evidence in the film of them getting returned to the Phantom Zone. In the movie canon, it is an entire chamber with many glowing rings. Non such thing in any part of the FoS we see.



The reversal makes sense in the context of the movie. We have seen the chamber and it's effects before so when used at the end of the movie the audience is in on Superman's plan. The comics of this era bare little relevance to the film, as it is an entirely separate canon.



I agree that is not how Superman should act, but within the context of the movie it is how he appears to act. You are assuming Lester cared enough about Superman to know or even think about this.



It is not unreasonable, as this is the scene as it is presented to the audience. I am a huge Superman fan, but I still think this scans as him and Lois casually tossing them to their doom.



And you are entirely projecting your inability to cope with the end of the movie not being perfect to your ideal of Superman and are making up your own scenes. I don't think it makes me a bad person to react to the actual material I am viewing rather than filling in plot holes in my own head.



Superman movies are not made for Superman comic book fans. Its nice if you like them, but movies are made to appeal to the widest possible audience and make as much money as possible. Most people watching that scene would simply treat it as any other movie. Threat resolved, baddies dead, lets move on. Understanding the core of the character is all well and good, but don't misunderstand your interpretation of the character with the director's intention.



By your own words here you're making up things to fit your version of the character. That's fine, but you are coming across as very condescending to those who do not agree with your version of events.

Brilliant post!

I am astonished and horrified by the lengths some fans go to project their own bias and delude themselves into thinking the phantom zone villains survived Lester's theatrical cut or Donner's for that matter.

[Mbast1]

He surrenders his powers the first chance in his life that he gets and leaves the world in incalculable peril to get laid, murders a couple powerless beaten dudes, hangs around just long enough to super-roofie Lois and shove a dude's head into a pinball machine for bullying him before in front of his girlfriend, then f**ks off into space for 5 years to find his people he already knows are dead because it's SOOOOO LOOONELLLY being the most powerful and universally beloved being on Earth, returns when that doesn't work out to learn he left his girlfriend knocked up, who without her memory of the incident must have thought either she had some sort of demon seed growing in her or that Kryptonians can impregnate human women via hand-holding, and he then stalks said engaged girlfriend until she implicitly agrees to go back to him away from her far more courageous and not super-creepy new boyfriend (who they don't seem to discuss revealing to the actual paternal status of the child he loves that he believes to be his son).

You are assuming they died, we do NOT know that. He gave up his powers to be with the woman he loved, a choice most people would make.
You know, if you start from the position that you have, you can pretty much interpret it to fit. As you seem to have done.

[Mbast1]

With what was actually produced as the final cut of the film though, there is just nothing to convey that these three lived

Or that they died. There is no real information in it one way or the other.

[Mbast1]

I don't see how anyone can watch that scene and think that Superman and Lois Lane (!) could kill two people, and Superman stand there and let the other person fall to his death, and just laugh about it. Anyone with any concept of storytelling, of film, of anything really, knows that scene was not written, shot and acted with that outcome in mind. And right in front of Lex Luthor? Riiiiiggghhhht.

Christopher Reeve himself said that no one died in any of his movies past the original. As he was the star of those movies, I'll take his word for it.

Now if you do see it that way, then Christopher Reeves' Superman and Margot Kidder's Lois are about as evil and insane as Joker and Harley.

Nicely put. Good points, all.

[Lexrules]

There is no right or wrong here. It was left up to the views point of view much like the Sopranos ending. Did Tony die or didn't he?

If you think they were killed then that is correct to you, If you think they lived then that is correct to you.

I don't think they died. That's good enough for me.

[Mbast1]

Then, they are never seen again. Sounds pretty final to me.

This is the one that gets me. So what that we never see them again? We had a total of four movies, and it's not like they are going to bring back the villains in every one. We never see them again because they don't need to be seen in either of the next two movies. It doesn't tell us anything.

[Mbast1]

once again sent to the PZ)

I have to disagree here, somewhat. I still don't think we DO know they were sent back to the PZ, there's no indication in the movie about that at all. No indication he had that technology. We just don't know. I still saw nothing to indicate he killed them, at all, but we only know what we saw happen.

I think it says MORE about the observer than the film

I would agree. Some people want their "heroes" to kill, and will make any argument to show why it's ok. That is all on them, I think.

I KNEW that Superman did not kill them--his subsequent reactions there in the Fortress put the lie to that fallacy.

Yeah, a Superman who could be that casual about people he'd killed would be outright evil.

[Mbast1]

Brilliant post!

I am astonished and horrified by the lengths some fans go to project their own bias and delude themselves into thinking the phantom zone villains survived Lester's theatrical cut or Donner's for that matter.

And I think the same about those who so badly want to defend killing that they project their own biases. Works both ways.

[Lexrules]

Brilliant post!

I am astonished and horrified by the lengths some fans go to project their own bias and delude themselves into thinking the phantom zone villains survived Lester's theatrical cut or Donner's for that matter.

Don't be horrified by people passion for something. You may not agree but always respect those who have passion with different opinions since there really is no right or wrong in this situation since none of the directors have come out to say otherwise.

It is left up to ones opinion on what happen.

[Mbast1]

since none of the directors have come out to say otherwise.

I think this is wrong, really, in that there WAS a scene made to show at least one director's intent. Not what we saw at the movies, but it's there.

[Lexrules]

I think this is wrong, really, in that there WAS a scene made to show at least one director's intent. Not what we saw at the movies, but it's there.

Sure but it was not used in the final cut of the film so you and I may want it to be that way but most will go with what they saw in the mass release of the film.

[CaptainLiberty76]

Yes, I am not a fan. Either way, what's to say the director did?

The director guided the movie, Warner Brothers and DC approved the movie and they wouldn't allow something that was contradictory to the character to be portrayed, IMHO. They had a vested interest in having the character portrayed in the movie as he was seen in the comic.


Yep, I'd say an excellent grasp. That doesn't mean the writer or, more importantly, the director did.

See the above answer, neither WB or DC would allow something which contradicted the character's core as seen in his publishing history to be portrayed.


Nope, no evidence in the film of them getting returned to the Phantom Zone. In the movie canon, it is an entire chamber with many glowing rings. Non such thing in any part of the FoS we see.

We never see what is beyond the fog/mist in the crevasse; it is fair to infer that a modified, jerry-rigged version of a PZ portal was present. Again, I base this on my understanding of Superman and his core values to NOT kill except as an absolute last resort.


The reversal makes sense in the context of the movie. We have seen the chamber and it's effects before so when used at the end of the movie the audience is in on Superman's plan. The comics of this era bare little relevance to the film, as it is an entirely separate canon.

But the comics of that era are what the premise is based upon; yes, things are a bit flashier, some things (as the FoS) are portrayed differently, but the foundational premise of the character is there--"Truth, Justice and the American Way." Separate canon or not, the core basis of the character are intact.


I agree that is not how Superman should act, but within the context of the movie it is how he appears to act. You are assuming Lester cared enough about Superman to know or even think about this.

I don't know about Lester, but I'm pretty certain WB and DC had a vested interest to know or think about it.


It is not unreasonable, as this is the scene as it is presented to the audience. I am a huge Superman fan, but I still think this scans as him and Lois casually tossing them to their doom.

Respectfully disagree simply due to their reactions as whimsical and relieved--no remorse or sorrow. This is a reasonable inference based on the characters as they had been portrayed in this film and the previous one. Supes demonstrated compassion and concern for all.


And you are entirely projecting your inability to cope with the end of the movie not being perfect to your ideal of Superman and are making up your own scenes. I don't think it makes me a bad person to react to the actual material I am viewing rather than filling in plot holes in my own head.

No, you are NOT a bad person; but then, neither am I for making a reasonable inference based upon my knowledge of the character to understand what is not said and analyze it based on prior understanding and experience. Filling in plot holes is something that anyone will attempt when viewing a film whether it be Supes, Bond or Indiana Jones--any inference is done based on what is known about whichever character might react given the particular circumstances.


Superman movies are not made for Superman comic book fans. Its nice if you like them, but movies are made to appeal to the widest possible audience and make as much money as possible. Most people watching that scene would simply treat it as any other movie. Threat resolved, baddies dead, lets move on. Understanding the core of the character is all well and good, but don't misunderstand your interpretation of the character with the director's intention.

Again, permit me to direct you to my first two responses.


By your own words here you're making up things to fit your version of the character. That's fine, but you are coming across as very condescending to those who do not agree with your version of events.

My apologies if I appear condescending (such was NOT my intent in any way, shape or form); but there is a difference between 'making up things to fit your version of the character' and a reasonable inference based on knowledge, experience and my own moral foundation, as well as an understanding of the character. A character who is a global icon at the point of the film's debut and whose core principles as a moral hero were understood by even the most uninformed movie viewer. Superman was known even then as the 'Big Blue Boy Scout' and Scouts do not casually kill.

I appreciate the time, effort and friendliness of your response, but I sense you do not quite grasp the primary point I'm making. Anything we experience or encounter in life is informed by our knowledge or lack of it when confronted with questions. Yes, the film was not made for just the fans, but even the wider movie-going public had an understanding that Superman does not kill, and it was not shown in this film that he did. Look at the scene in question and watch his and Lois's reactions as the PZC's fall--it is not one with a shadow of remorse or a twinge of sorrow--but of relief and a smile. Something Supes would never have done in the movie canon as presented nor in the comic canon which formed the basis of the films.

Thank you

[manduck37]

Geez...have any of you ever READ a Superman comic of THAT era? Do any of you have a grasp of the core character of the Man of Steel? Superman has NEVER just casually killed anyone--as some indicate he and Lois did with the PZC's in SUPERMAN II. Permit me to spell it out for you: 1) Zod, Ursa and Non fell into a crevasse and it appears in the Lester version that they vanished (their screams faded away as they were once again sent to the PZ); 2) we didn't see Supes prep the chamber reversal or the silly cellophane S-shields, so we have no idea what tech he did have in the Fortress (it isn't beyond the scope of possibility that the final reserves of Kryptonian tech were used to open a portal to the PZ (after all in the comics of that era Supes did have access to the PZ); 3) the Superman of that era (or even of our present-day) does not treat killing/death in such a cavalier attitude as you would have to accept by his and Lois's almost whimsical reactions as the PZC's fell into the crevasse or (as I saw it then and now) a PZ portal. Yes Superman takes out the bad guys--but he does not casually kill them and then smile about it. Superman's character is that of a hero who does NOT kill if he has any other choice and if he is forced to kill as a final option he does NOT smile about it (even in MoS when forced to kill Zod he is tormented and in absolute anguish by the action he had to take).

It IS unreasonable to think that Superman killed them if you are in any way a fan of the character (particularly of that era). If one thinks that Superman killed the PZC's and then had a laugh with his girlfriend at the sight of their death's, I think it says MORE about the observer than the film. Superman simply does not casually murder his opponents--it is against his morality and his character (even MoS showed this). When I originally saw the film back in the day I will admit it was somewhat ambiguous; but with my knowledge and understanding of the core and soul of the hero, I KNEW that Superman did not kill them--his subsequent reactions there in the Fortress put the lie to that fallacy. In the Donner cut (which is NOT canon) we see the 3 PZC's hauled off, so Donner had not meant for them to die and the inference in the Lester version is that they vanished as they fell--NOT that they fall until they hit bottom and died. As I said--if you think they died that says more about you and perhaps a poor understanding of the Superman of that era which Reeve embodied. A bit of imagination is always good to have, as well as a basic understanding of the concept of the character, when watching a Superman film.

Here's the big problem lots of people can't seem to get past: comic book Superman of that era had nothing to do with the film. The comics were used as a basis, but were not the be all end all of the film. So what Superman was doing in the comics around the time of Superman II is completely irrelevant. The filmmakers had their own ideas and that's what we saw. It's their interpretation of the character and the application of what works in film, not comic book Superman.

Once again, to address some of the points here, there was no indication that Superman had access to, could open, or had any technology related to the Phantom Zone. None. Absolute zero. So it's quite unreasonable, and a bit of wishful thinking, to say he just sent the villains back to the Phantom Zone. The only technology we see in relation to Krypton is the device that removes their powers. That's it. It's the only piece of tech Superman is seen having access to. It's mentioned at the start of the film, when Superman gives up his powers, as a set up for the end of the film. In a movie, they'll clearly establish what is important and refer back to it. The Phantom Zone is only referenced as a prison. At no point does anyone even mention the possibility of getting the villains back into the Phantom Zone.

Like I said before, I prefer the version where they are captured. Though the general public isn't really aware of that kind of thing. They have the movie as presented and that's it. Based on what was seen, it's not a far stretch for people to assume the criminals were dead. The comics of the time aren't what's important here. The films of the time are.

And really, assuming that anyone who saw the ending of the film as Superman killing the villains makes them not a fan of Superman or uneducated in Superman's history is just plain ignorant. Many of us here, myself included, have read thousands of Superman comics from this and every other era. Taking the film for how it presented the information is not an indication that people don't "get Superman" or aren't "fans of the character". It just means they saw the film as Lester intended and made their conclusions. When you see a Superman film, any Superman film, you cant' come into it with any information about Superman. You're getting an entirely new version. Just like Earth One, Birthright, Man of Steel, or any other time the character was reinvented. You can only take Superman for how he's presented in the film. It's a whole new version of the character that is completely separated from the comics.