A New Generation of Superman Fan

[beetee]

I did. Lots of others did. Its an ambiguous scene in the way it was presented theatrically. The fact it wasn't shot that way doesn't change the impression the actual released cut made on many. And it has nothing to do with dumping on the Donner films to build up MOS. I figured Zod, Non, and Ursa died when I was little kid all the way up to the present day. This isn't something that people go back and put a new spin on just a couple years ago because they wanted to save face with Man of Steel. This has been something argued and debated long before MOS was even a project.

That was not how it was shot... It was also presented "ambiguously" that Lex Luthor was left in the Arctic to freeze to death... If the fourth film hadn't been made would that really have been a valid conclusion?

[beetee]

It's not fake if the final cut of the movie leaves it ambiguous with the most logical prognosis for a mortal being who plummeted a great distance in the cold being death. Even the decision to cut such an important clarifying scene speaks to the mindset of the filmmakers who, in your view, chose time over morality in terms of what was more important to them.

Ouch... Really they just chose time not morality... Since that wasn't supposed to be the edit in the first place.

[beetee]

That's even worse, then. A Superman movie so cartoonish that it desensitizes and trivializes violence and murder is a terrible thing, in my opinion.

Ouch.. again.

[Flash Gordon]

I remember when I first saw the Donner films I also assumed that Superman just killed Zod. He did. While I may own the Donner Cut and watch that, or the deleted scenes, they're not the theatrical cut.

The theatrical cut is what matters.

The 70s Superman films are not cartoons. That's not really how storytelling works. Seeing Zod and his pals, stripped of invulnerablity, plummeting into a cavern in the Artic- they're dead.

[beetee]

I'd say such a factoid is irreverent when put into the context of its movie. The final cut of that movie is basically a cartoon that happens to be played using real people. Superman and his powers are basically magic, and work under the most tentative of explanations. I mean, even by comic book standards, flying around the world a dozen time real, real fast, and spinning it backwards, and then forwards again doesn't equal time travel. It equals everyone on the planet being dead. The world basically bends to Superman's redefined laws of reality. Thus Zod and his crew falling into nothingness is more akin to shuffling a player(s) off a stage due to their usefulness being used up, and not really murder. No one complained about it because they spent 1 and a half movies getting you used to the rules of the world.

I feel the same when people make hyperbolic statements about Superman blowing up a city and having no morals. It's all without contextless and thus you can bend it to whatever suits your argument best. I mean, Tom and Jerry's pretty f$%ked up when you take it out of the context of its world.

Thank you. This was Silver Age Superdickery nothing more.

[beetee]

Eh that's not really how storytelling works. Seeing Zod and his pals, stripped of invulnerablity, plummeting into a cavern in the Artic- they're dead.

The Donner cut is what's shown on TV these days. Zod goes to jail or someplace. Director's Cut rules. And Deckard's a Replicant.

[Flash Gordon]

The Donner cut is what's shown on TV these days. Zod goes to jail or someplace. Director's Cut rules. And Deckard's a Replicant.

Nope. The theatrical cut is what matters. It's what was released by WB and played in cinemas for the whole world to see. Directors cuts are great, I love them- but they're not the film. The film is what the finished product was.

A Director's Cut is equivalent to reading a novel with notes in the margins. The novel is finished and on the shelves.

[beetee]

[QUOTE=Flash Gordon;2791595]I remember when I first saw the Donner films I also assumed that Superman just killed Zod. He did. While I may own the Donner Cut and watch that, or the deleted scenes, they're not the theatrical cut.

The theatrical cut is what matters.[/QUOTE

The point is there's no universal interpretation that happened (and no it didn't). That the moment is so called "ambiguous" and acts as some moral Rorschach test speaks more to viewer at the time. Those scenes weren't deleted to make Superman a murderer. It was probably considered self evident that he didn't. Or they didn't feel the need for a loose end for a maybe sequel that might not get made.

[beetee]

Nope. The theatrical cut is what matters. It's what was released by WB and played in cinemas for the whole world to see. Directors cuts are great, I love them- but they're not the film. The film is what the finished product was.

A Director's Cut is equivalent to reading a novel with notes in the margins. The novel is finished and on the shelves.

Movies are malleable. Welcome to the twenty first century.

[Flash Gordon]

Movies are malleable. Welcome to the twenty first century.

Movies are not malleable. They're a finished product. You have to allow something to "end". You finish watching it and move on.

Show don't tell. What happens on the screen is simple- stripped of all powers, Zod and fam are cast into a frozen pit. They're dead as door nails. I don't really have a problem with that, it's just weird seeing people try to deny it by saying "SUPERMAN CAN FLY SO THEREFORE NO LOGIC IS ALLOWED!"

[Superlad93]

That's even worse, then. A Superman movie so cartoonish that it desensitizes and trivializes violence and murder is a terrible thing, in my opinion.

That's an opinion, sure. But putting it in the context of the real world, like you're doing, seems fruitless, to me. It's a film that obviously isn't interested in that. It's like looking at Space Jam and calling out all the times where they break the rules of basketball, and then saying it desensitizes people to cheating at the game. That's an opinion you can have, sure, but you're deliberately keeping the world's obviously heightened context at arms length while you criticize it. You're cutting it's legs off and telling it to run.

[beetee]

Movies are not malleable. They're a finished product. You have to allow something to "end". You finish watching it and move on.

Show don't tell.

Novels are usually considered "finished" because only the author knows where to take the story forward. Or the author is dead. Movies are more often considered product produced by different hands. Thus you get rewrites, reboots and directors cuts which can be seen as "authentic" or competing perspectives. Occasionally, the Director will be the acknowledged "author" of the work, but even here his interpretation can be debated. Ridley Scott releases three versions of Blade Runner and says each one of them is valid.

[Sacred Knight]

That was not how it was shot... It was also presented "ambiguously" that Lex Luthor was left in the Arctic to freeze to death... If the fourth film hadn't been made would that really have been a valid conclusion?

That it wasn't how it was shot is irrelevant because how it was portrayed theatrically left it ambiguous, thus creating the question in the first place. What matters is what is released, not what is shot. The final cut is what billions of people saw in the theater. Many left assuming the criminals had died. Many left assuming they were just trapped. For the former, finding out many years later that something was shot that would have confirmed things will never change that lasting first impression.

In the end there is no right answer. Their fate is what the viewer left the theater/tv believing was their fate because of the way they chose to cut and present the final product.

[beetee]

That's an opinion, sure. But putting it in the context of the real world, like you're doing, seems fruitless, to me. It's a film that obviously isn't interested in that. It's like looking at Space Jam and calling out all the times where they break the rules of basketball, and then saying it desensitizes people to cheating at the game. That's an opinion you can have, sure, but you're deliberately keeping the world's obviously heightened context at arms length while you criticize it. You're cutting it's legs off and telling it to run.

The Donner era Superman's are Silvery foolishness and romantic comedy (the real selling point of the first two movies).

[beetee]

That it wasn't how it was shot is irrelevant because how it was portrayed theatrically left it ambiguous, thus creating the question in the first place. What matters is what is released, not what is shot. The final cut is what billions of people saw in the theater. Many left assuming the criminals had died. Many left assuming they were just trapped.

Fair enough. They both are valid. Look, my beef is that the Superman/Zod moment is presented as being definite when it isn't. There really are better and less muddy examples of Big Blue killing than this. That's why I keep getting the feeling it's to slag Donner and Reeve as in "Look yur Sooperman is a killah laik mah Sooperman!"