Originally Posted by
exile001
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.