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

[Gaelforce]

Some deletions and editing over this thread.

Stop with characterizing other posters, either as individuals or as groups. That goes for the back-handed insults directed at what they're writing which implies there's something wrong with the people holding different points of view.

Stick to the topic and stop with the insults, both the straightforward ones and the more oblique attacks.

[cgh]

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.

This is exactly right. David Chase, creator of The Sopranos, said that what happened on the screen is what happened. The implication was that the viewer's sense of justice or need to see Tony punished (or not) would fill in the blanks.

I have one additional data point to add: I grew up in a place where we actually did walk around on glaciers and stuff, with immense snowfall, huge peaks, etc. When my friends and I saw Superman II, we all automatically assumed the villains died at the end simply because we knew what crevasses are actually like, in real life. If you fall that far down into one, you are not coming out. So that shaped our assumptions, not the intrinsic nature of Superman or whatever.

Death by falling into a crevasse is pretty horrible. Because they constrict the further down you go, you naturally get bent in half until you eventually wedge in place. If you are unfortunate enough to fall face first, then your heels come up and touch the back of your head. Thus was Non's fate.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

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.

They did survive in Donner's. We've seen the scene in the Donner rerelease that proves it.

He gave up his powers to be with the woman he loved,

More like he gave them up to get ghost mom and dad to stop complaining about it, but I guess they could have punished him in some way otherwise.

a choice most people would make.

Yes, but Superman's Superman and places the needs of others over his own desires. It's kind of his thing.

[Mr. Mastermind]

I don't see how Superman's reaction to Zod's death is in anyway different to any other action hero after the kill their enemy. Superhero stories are the only time in entertainment where killing actually means anything, and at the time of Superman II, it and the first movie were the only superhero films around and they set the precendent.

So, by the standards of the non-comic book fan (which is like 99% of the audience), they probably thought Superman killed Zod and they didn't care. It's only when they make a big deal out of it when most of the audience would actually really care on way or another to the main character being a killer.

[Mbast1]

Yes, but Superman's Superman and places the needs of others over his own desires. It's kind of his thing.

Not always, both the Earth-2 and Byrne versions were married. It really comes down to the writer, and how much they want to "humanize" him.

[Mbast1]

So, by the standards of the non-comic book fan (which is like 99% of the audience), they probably thought Superman killed Zod and they didn't care. It's only when they make a big deal out of it when most of the audience would actually really care on way or another to the main character being a killer.

I don't know. This was 1981 (I think) and we weren't as jaded then about things. It was a different time. This was an era where people made fun of the Lone Ranger for never killing, but where they didn't (yet) expect the kind of "heroes always kill" mentality we have now.
Sure, SOME people would have thought he'd killed them and didn't care, but not all of them. People hadn't yet seen the escalation of the action genre the 1980s brought out, and which continued through now, and many people DID see Superman as "too" nice, goody-goody, clean, etc. and I think wouldn't have thought he'd killed them. I surely didn't.

[Mbast1]

If you are unfortunate enough to fall face first, then your heels come up and touch the back of your head. Thus was Non's fate.

Only if you assume that it was a natural space, which seems an odd assumption in the Fortress, which had been created by alien technology. Sometimes a knowledge of the real world helps to understand things, and sometimes is undermines that understanding, because we're not dealing with real world things.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Not always, both the Earth-2 and Byrne versions were married. It really comes down to the writer, and how much they want to "humanize" him.

Yes, but in those it was shown that even if neither Clark nor Lois were particularly happy about it, Clark still prioritized his duties as Superman. What he did in II isn't just putting Clark Kent first, it's throwing away Superman altogether.

[lancerman]

Yeah that's why the whole "of course he didn't really kill them because he's Superman", doesn't fly with me. You're in a film where Superman was for the first time facing legitimate ruthless killers who wanted to enslave the planet (never before in the series did he ever face a villain who merited death even a fraction as much as Zod), he already uncharacteristically put the Earth in peril by selfishly giving up his powers despite every voice of reason telling him not to, and when he gets his powers back he beats up a guy who bullied him earlier in the film. Comparing him to the comics as justification of it not being a real kill is sort of invalid.

And again I refuse to get around the fact that you are taking a trope (the villain falling to his untimely death, and not being shown to survive) that has certain assumptions that have always gone along with it, which is almost a classic trope of fictionalized storytelling, and using it in the inverse of how it is traditionally presented.

[Mbast1]

Yes, but in those it was shown that even if neither Clark nor Lois were particularly happy about it, Clark still prioritized his duties as Superman. What he did in II isn't just putting Clark Kent first, it's throwing away Superman altogether.

True, and it's a flaw, but it's really more to do with people's need to "humanize" Superman than anything else. I love those two Superman movies, but they're hardly without flaws.

Although, I don't that either version of him had a way to take away his powers, even if he'd wanted to. Not sure that makes a difference, but it's something that's relevant.

[Mbast1]

And again I refuse to get around the fact that you are taking a trope (the villain falling to his untimely death, and not being shown to survive) that has certain assumptions that have always gone along with it, which is almost a classic trope of fictionalized storytelling, and using it in the inverse of how it is traditionally presented.

So tropes are never violated?
More importantly, there is nothing on the screen that says one way or the other, as much as people want to interpret it that way, and (as was pointed out above) if Superman DID kill them, he was disturbingly casual about it. If it's so important to people that Superman DID kill them, then they've just created an ending where's he's pretty much a monster. Not a Superman I want anything to do with. So, for me, since you just do NOT know what happened, I take it that he didn't kill them and go from there.
Also, the thing about Zod. This is only the 2nd movie in the series, and the first one was almost entirely origin. Of course he'd never met anyone like Zod.
In the end, this one comes down to belief, and there's no amount of evidence that changes that. Those who believe he did kill them are going to continue to do so, and those who don't will also continue.

[cgh]

Only if you assume that it was a natural space, which seems an odd assumption in the Fortress, which had been created by alien technology. Sometimes a knowledge of the real world helps to understand things, and sometimes is undermines that understanding, because we're not dealing with real world things.

It wasn't explicitly stated that the crevasses were non-lethal in nature. It seems an odder assumption that just because the building was created with a science-magic crystal, then falling into any holes in the ground somehow wouldn't kill you.

Regardless, such a notion never occurred to us as kids. When we watched it, Superman killed the Bad Guy and got the girl, the classic Hollywood narrative. The End.

Far more troubling to us was the weird cellophane thing with the S shield on it that he threw. What was that thing? I recall being disappointed.

[Mbast1]

It wasn't explicitly stated that the crevasses were non-lethal in nature. It seems an odder assumption that just because the building was created with a science-magic crystal, then falling into any holes in the ground somehow wouldn't kill you.

It wasn't stated either way. People keep wanting to read into things what isn't there. We have no clue where those holes led, that is NOT an assumption.

When we watched it, Superman killed the Bad Guy and got the girl, the classic Hollywood narrative. The End.

I watched it as a kid, and never thought he killed them.

[GlennSimpson]

So can we all agree that the scenes could be interpreted both ways?

I assumed they weren't dead because Superman wouldn't let them die, but I can completely understand the opposing point. Even I had no idea how he prevented them from dying, and considered it a flaw in the film.

Because even if you don't think Superman would let them die (or be so flippant about it), you can still see it as a situation where they died, and he was flippant, and therefore the movie is flawed. In other words, it's possible that the movie is just not put together well, which would allow for these two contradictory things to actually be present in the movie.

[Mbast1]

So can we all agree that the scenes could be interpreted both ways?

Pretty much have to. The things that indicate to me he didn't are glossed over by those on the other side of the argument, and the things they think are important don't seem realistic to me. I doubt there's anywhere to go beyond this.

where they died, and he was flippant, and therefore the movie is flawed. In other words, it's possible that the movie is just not put together well, which would allow for these two contradictory things to actually be present in the movie.

This is very true, and important. Sometimes it has less to do with the character (who is, after all, fictional) and far more to do with the writer/director/editor and how well they do what they do.