What do you think Christopher Reeve would have thought of Man Of Steel?

[The Beast]

Of course Jerry Siegel, George Reeves and Christopher Reeve can't directly comment on the Zack Snyder/Henry Cavill Man of Steel, but we do know how they felt about Superman.

Christopher Reeve explained in his book Nothing is Impossible: Reflections (2002), "It seemed to me that the values embodied by Superman on the screen should be values that prevail in the real world." Christopher Reeve explained in Comics Scene magazine #1 (1987), "He's not a one-man vigilante force who goes around knocking people's heads together. He's more reserved. Superman's attitude is that people have to solve some of their own problems, they can't always look to superheroes. Superman's more like a student council president than Rambo."

And Superman creator Jerry Siegel explained on Superman: The Comic Strip Hero documentary (1981), "Superman stands for exactly the motto that they used on the television show - Truth, Justice and the American Way. A very clean cut guy who could have ruled the world and is powerful, but instead he uses his powers to aid the helpless and deserving, rather than to exploit them. The concept was that there would be a mild mannered reporter Clark Kent, Lois Lane who scorned him, but loved Superman, not knowing that Superman and Clark Kent were one and the same person."

And George Reeves explained in the Baytown Sun newspaper (July 13th, 1951), "Our idea is to give the children good entertainment without all the guts and blood and gore. We think the series should teach them something, too. That's why I decided to do this."

Ironically enough despite these fine testimonials, all three of these men depicted Superman using lethal force. Under Siegel's pen, Superman killed(or callously allowed them to die) dozens of villains and henchmen, not to mention the threats of dismemberment to civilians and criminals alike.

During Reeves' first season on T.V. He sidesteps as a thug lunges at him and watches the crook fall over the cliff and plummet to his doom then during another episode when his secret ID is discovered he punches Jimmy's lights out and lets one of the criminals who knows the truth step outside to be mowed down by police tommy guns. The remaining members of the gang who know the truth are scooped up and dropped off on the top of a mountain to remain for all eternity in exile which immediately proves fatal when they all fall their deaths trying to escape.

Christoper Reeve's hypocrisy is the most laughable because despite his noble sentiments, Superman used lethal force, or was an accomplice to its use, five times during his movies. Zod, Non and Ursa all fell to their deaths after being de-powered, he choked his evil doppelgänger to death in the junkyard and then once he subdued Nuclear Man, Superman incinerated him inside a nuclear power plant.

All in all, Superman is responsible for 25-30 deaths across all media during his 76 years and that's not including the Elseworlds stories. If we factored in those tales, Superman's kill count would reach triple digits.

Personally, I think Reeve would have publicly praised Man of Steel and would be glad to see the torch passed on to Henry Cavill. I think he would have supported the death of Zod and chalked up the destruction in the film as a sign of the times we live in.

[Powerboy]

Ironically enough despite these fine testimonials, all three of these men depicted Superman using lethal force. Under Siegel's pen, Superman killed(or callously allowed them to die) dozens of villains and henchmen, not to mention the threats of dismemberment to civilians and criminals alike.

During Reeves' first season on T.V. He sidesteps as a thug lunges at him and watches the crook fall over the cliff and plummet to his doom then during another episode when his secret ID is discovered he punches Jimmy's lights out and lets one of the criminals who knows the truth step outside to be mowed down by police tommy guns. The remaining members of the gang who know the truth are scooped up and dropped off on the top of a mountain to remain for all eternity in exile which immediately proves fatal when they all fall their deaths trying to escape.

Christoper Reeve's hypocrisy is the most laughable because despite his noble sentiments, Superman used lethal force, or was an accomplice to its use, five times during his movies. Zod, Non and Ursa all fell to their deaths after being de-powered, he choked his evil doppelgänger to death in the junkyard and then once he subdued Nuclear Man, Superman incinerated him inside a nuclear power plant.

All in all, Superman is responsible for 25-30 deaths across all media during his 76 years and that's not including the Elseworlds stories. If we factored in those tales, Superman's kill count would reach triple digits.

Personally, I think Reeve would have publicly praised Man of Steel and would be glad to see the torch passed on to Henry Cavill. I think he would have supported the death of Zod and chalked up the destruction in the film as a sign of the times we live in.

Okay, first off, I liked MoS. The Christopher Reeve thing is nothing more than, "I have such and such an opinion and I just know that "God" (or Christopher Reeve in this case) would agree with me."

But this is reaching. Yes Golden Age Superman did kill though not often and that was retconned away by Siegel himself. Silver Age Superman did maneuver a guy into killing himself and I found that disquieting because it's just making himself feel better about it by the rationalization that he didn't do it himself.

George Reeves Superman did sidestep a guy who fell to his death but he also had a shocked look on his face like he didn't realize the guy's attack was going to throw him that far forward and off a cliff. Keep in mind also that this version of Superman did not have super combat speed and was very limited in his flight abilities.

Also, I think you're mixing together a couple of episodes. The one where two people fell off an icy cliff, Superman took them there to a cabin with plenty of food, water and wood for heat and was going to keep them there until he figured out what to do. They knew his secret identity but killing them was not an option. While he was gone, they tried to climb down the cliff because they just assumed he would kill them. They fell to their deaths. It was not Jimmy Olsen he punched but another friend which he did to protect his secret identity.

The guy who ran out and got shot was one of those fluke things from another episode. It's been a while but I don't think Superman set him up for that but it was one of those things. Once the guy knows his identity, you just know the guy will get killed by a freak set of circumstances.

In fact, many episodes of the George Reeves show hinged on criminals knowing Superman would not kill them and using that to their advantage.

Now I will say that GR Superman never showed any sorrow over murderers (not just any criminals but murderers) getting killed and probably would have killed if there was no other way. But he never actually killed or intentionally allowed it to happen.

Now the Christopher Reeve Superman did do things like breaking the hand of a helpless opponent and slamming him hard. He did get revenge on the guy who had beaten him up when he didn't have his powers. But the insistence that he killed Zod, Ursa and Non? Sigh. From the original theatrical showing, I'll just say that is an opinion that cannot be proven or disproven from the movie. The television showing with all the scenes put back in show he didn't. Then there is trying to invoke the Bizarro Superman from S III and the other genetic copy or whatever from S IV. Even in the comics, Superman had exceptions to his Code against Killing. Things like machines and such that had an arguable definition of life to begin with were always an exception. One could argue that he just killed himself or, in the case of S III, reabsorbed part of himself. After all, the duplicate vanished.

At any rate, this is reaching to find a kill. Mind you, I don't have an issue with MoS Superman killing under the extreme circumstances.

[Powerboy]

It should be noted that Terrence Stamp-Zod didn't make it to the end of the film either, neither the theatrical cut nor the director's version.

Er, what? I saw the first television showing where it specifically showed Zod, Ursa and Non being led away from the Fortress by the police. Not that the idea that Superman killed them was really on the mind of hardly anyone in 1978-79. That was more an idea that sprang up about it among a Post-COIE/ Post-DKR group of fans.

[DochaDocha]

I think most Superman actors are diplomatic about other portrayals of the character, at least openly. They might disagree, but I don't recall too many times when one actor said, "No, no, no, they did it all wrong!" I'm guessing Reeve would've been similarly supportive. It's a small club of men who've played Superman, so I guess they have empathy for what that means.

Maybe Reeve wouldn't like the killing part (spoiler!!! ), but he probably wouldn't say anything negative unless a question were worded in a way to force that kind of response.

[Carabas]

Er, what? I saw the first television showing where it specifically showed Zod, Ursa and Non being led away from the Fortress by the police. Not that the idea that Superman killed them was really on the mind of hardly anyone in 1978-79. That was more an idea that sprang up about it among a Post-COIE/ Post-DKR group of fans.

The television version differs from what either director wanted. There are reasons not all scenes that are shot go into a movie.
The scenes are not in the theatrical version nor in the Donner cut, and they were scenes Donner shot before he was removed as director.

[Auguste Dupin]

The television version differs from what either director wanted. There are reasons not all scenes that are shot go into a movie.
The scenes are not in the theatrical version nor in the Donner cut, and they were scenes Donner shot before he was removed as director.

Yeah, I have the Donner's cut on DVD, there's no artic police on it.

[lancerman]

Er, what? I saw the first television showing where it specifically showed Zod, Ursa and Non being led away from the Fortress by the police. Not that the idea that Superman killed them was really on the mind of hardly anyone in 1978-79. That was more an idea that sprang up about it among a Post-COIE/ Post-DKR group of fans.

That was a cut of the film that was not the main canonical film.

[Powerboy]

The television version differs from what either director wanted. There are reasons not all scenes that are shot go into a movie.
The scenes are not in the theatrical version nor in the Donner cut, and they were scenes Donner shot before he was removed as director.

True. But, all things considered, unlikely in the extreme that either Donner or Lester intended us to think that Superman killed Zod, Ursa and Non. I never knew anyone that thought that until it started springing up on the Internet decades after the movie. And I don't just mean because the Internet didn't exist until long after. I mean because, at the time, it wouldn't have been necessary to hold up a big neon sign saying, "Superman did not kill anybody." A difference in cultural mentality makes it now far more likely to read something like that into it. It's sort of decades later saying they should have been more clear about something that seemed clear at the time because super hero characters were not thought of in a way that there would have been such an idea about what he did.

This has nothing to do with whether he should be presented as ever killing nor arguing one presentation as better than another. It just was not necessary in 1978 to state what was the obvious at the time. And, regardless of whether Donner or Lester chose to cut that scene, it is the only thing that arbitrates between people who argue one way or the other or think there is any ambiguity about it.

[lancerman]

True. But, all things considered, unlikely in the extreme that either Donner or Lester intended us to think that Superman killed Zod, Ursa and Non. I never knew anyone that thought that until it started springing up on the Internet decades after the movie. And I don't just mean because the Internet didn't exist until long after. I mean because, at the time, it wouldn't have been necessary to hold up a big neon sign saying, "Superman did not kill anybody." A difference in cultural mentality makes it now far more likely to read something like that into it. It's sort of decades later saying they should have been more clear about something that seemed clear at the time because super hero characters were not thought of in a way that there would have been such an idea about what he did.

This has nothing to do with whether he should be presented as ever killing nor arguing one presentation as better than another. It just was not necessary in 1978 to state what was the obvious at the time. And, regardless of whether Donner or Lester chose to cut that scene, it is the only thing that arbitrates between people who argue one way or the other or think there is any ambiguity about it.

If either director wanted us to believe they didn't die, they would have made their last scene the one they conveniently had instead of "they fall down a bottomless pit". I, and nearly everyone I've ever personally known to watch the film thought they died as well. And in a lot of these cases it was pre internet.

[Pinsir]

If either director wanted us to believe they didn't die, they would have made their last scene the one they conveniently had instead of "they fall down a bottomless pit". I, and nearly everyone I've ever personally known to watch the film thought they died as well. And in a lot of these cases it was pre internet.

There is no such thing as a bottomless pit, nor was one ever implied to exist within the movie.

[The Beast]

There is no such thing as a bottomless pit, nor was one ever implied to exist within the movie.

Actually, by having their voices trail off for several seconds after they fall implied just that.

Just like the astronauts who were killed offscreen on the moon, the implication was clear and as others have stated, the scene depicting the arctic police carrying off the three villains could have been included in either director's cut but it wasn't.

I think most Superman actors are diplomatic about other portrayals of the character, at least openly. They might disagree, but I don't recall too many times when one actor said, "No, no, no, they did it all wrong!" I'm guessing Reeve would've been similarly supportive. It's a small club of men who've played Superman, so I guess they have empathy for what that means.

Maybe Reeve wouldn't like the killing part (spoiler!!! ), but he probably wouldn't say anything negative unless a question were worded in a way to force that kind of response.

I agree this would be the most likely scenario if Reeve was still around.

[Powerboy]

If either director wanted us to believe they didn't die, they would have made their last scene the one they conveniently had instead of "they fall down a bottomless pit". I, and nearly everyone I've ever personally known to watch the film thought they died as well. And in a lot of these cases it was pre internet.

In the theatrical release of the first movie which was Donner's choice, they also cut one of the best scenes in the movie, the one where Jor-El says that were it not for his own mistakes, he might be there to hold his son in his arms that very moment. Dramatically, that was a poor choice in my opinion but he made that choice as a director.

At any rate, you think that Zod not being showen being led away means Superman killed him. At the most, it makes it ambiguous. Your opinion, I think, is that not including the scene means Donner meant to imply they died. Or it could as easily mean he didn't think the scene was necessary because he took it as a given that people wouldn't think that. From what I've read of Donner's comments, he has an image of Superman that is very old school and I'm not sure he perceives that anyone would have an image of Superman as doing that.

[lancerman]

In the theatrical release of the first movie which was Donner's choice, they also cut one of the best scenes in the movie, the one where Jor-El says that were it not for his own mistakes, he might be there to hold his son in his arms that very moment. Dramatically, that was a poor choice in my opinion but he made that choice as a director.

At any rate, you think that Zod not being showen being led away means Superman killed him. At the most, it makes it ambiguous. Your opinion, I think, is that not including the scene means Donner meant to imply they died. Or it could as easily mean he didn't think the scene was necessary because he took it as a given that people wouldn't think that. From what I've read of Donner's comments, he has an image of Superman that is very old school and I'm not sure he perceives that anyone would have an image of Superman as doing that.

I already went over this in the other thread. But the trope of a villain falling into a bottomless pit with no indication of survival is a long standing fictional storytelling trope that precedes the lives of everyone on this board and it implies death.

Also another thing. The only people I really see arguing against it are using their own preconceived notions of the character to say "well it's obvious SUPERMAN, wouldn't kill. My two problems with that are, no Superman has killed before in virtually every incarnation, and to the vast majority of the movie going audience those films are what shaped their notions of the character, not a prior comic background.

[Powerboy]

I already went over this in the other thread. But the trope of a villain falling into a bottomless pit with no indication of survival is a long standing fictional storytelling trope that precedes the lives of everyone on this board and it implies death.

Also another thing. The only people I really see arguing against it are using their own preconceived notions of the character to say "well it's obvious SUPERMAN, wouldn't kill. My two problems with that are, no Superman has killed before in virtually every incarnation, and to the vast majority of the movie going audience those films are what shaped their notions of the character, not a prior comic background.

Oh I know that the Golden Age Superman killed. So did the Post-Crisis Superman. Even the Silver Age Superman once or twice set someone up to be killed by their own murderous choices. I do think the vast majority of the young audience who saw those movies on their first release grew up on the Silver Age Superman and had read the comics because it was still an era where most kids, boys anyway, read comics.

You may well be right. I've looked over interviews with Donner and, so far, I can't find one where the interviewer asked him that question. At most, he mentions that there is old footage he would like to have included but, to his knowledge, a lot of footage was lost. Which gives nothing towards any sort of canon answer to the question.

Now, saying that the fall into a pit (bottomless or not I'll let go) indicates death is an argument. But then why even film a scene that showed them alive afterwards? Regardless of whether it made it into the final cut, why even film it if the intention was that falling into a pit automatically shows they were killed? The scene simply would not have been filmed, period.

We can say that we don't know whether it was Donner or Lester who filmed it. We can debate why it was cut. But if it was that set and that obvious that they were killed and that was the clear intention of the scene for us to know that, why even film such a scene as the arrest? It would make no sense.

Oh, let me repeat. I like MoS. This has zilch to do with certain preconceived notions of Superman being the only good ones.

[lancerman]

Oh I know that the Golden Age Superman killed. So did the Post-Crisis Superman. Even the Silver Age Superman once or twice set someone up to be killed by their own murderous choices. I do think the vast majority of the young audience who saw those movies on their first release grew up on the Silver Age Superman and had read the comics because it was still an era where most kids, boys anyway, read comics.

You may well be right. I've looked over interviews with Donner and, so far, I can't find one where the interviewer asked him that question. At most, he mentions that there is old footage he would like to have included but, to his knowledge, a lot of footage was lost. Which gives nothing towards any sort of canon answer to the question.

Now, saying that the fall into a pit (bottomless or not I'll let go) indicates death is an argument. But then why even film a scene that showed them alive afterwards? Regardless of whether it made it into the final cut, why even film it if the intention was that falling into a pit automatically shows they were killed? The scene simply would not have been filmed, period.

We can say that we don't know whether it was Donner or Lester who filmed it. We can debate why it was cut. But if it was that set and that obvious that they were killed and that was the clear intention of the scene for us to know that, why even film such a scene as the arrest? It would make no sense.

Oh, let me repeat. I like MoS. This has zilch to do with certain preconceived notions of Superman being the only good ones.

I'd generally agree. But I stand on the side of, if the filmmakers really wanted to make certain that it was understood that the Phantom Zone criminals survived, there was one, and only one thing they could have done. And they did, and they filmed it. And somewhere along the lines, someone made the decision to take it out of the film. So our last image is the bad guys depowered, falling down a pit that seemed longer than any normal man could survive, and then they are never seen again or references (in any of the next 3 films).