Well watching the three supervillains get carted off by the police at the end DID look pretty darn silly, so I can definitely understand why Donner decided to cut it out.
‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Well watching the three supervillains get carted off by the police at the end DID look pretty darn silly, so I can definitely understand why Donner decided to cut it out.
It's the only way I've ever understood the scene, and I've been watching that movie again and again all my life.
If you fall into a bottomless pit and you don't have super strength, you die. The End.
Kor
Well, we understood the scene differently.
For the record...
For the record...
This.
I tend to feel that their fate was left way too vague to make any assumptions about Superman having killed them, but given this film's infamous director swap, the original intent of the storytellers doesn't count for as much as it would otherwise. Donner filmed one thing, Lester didn't use it, and the end result is that it's not clear what Lester intended (unless he's explained it somewhere).
40 high-res pictures
http://collider.com/batman-v-superm...ersocial&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
Their feud is because Bruce trolled Clark online
http://collider.com/batman-v-superm...ersocial&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
Their feud is because Bruce trolled Clark online
I Am Legend -- Will Smith dies, Will Smith lives. Since both versions were filmed, do they both speak to the original intent?
"Can somebody tell me what kind of a world we live in, where a man dressed up as a bat gets more Likes than me!?!"
Not really. They are two different situations. IIRC, one was a scene cut for pacing issues and the other was a re-shoot based on negative test-screening responses. I'd say the story-teller's intent there was with his original ending, but his intent was super-ceded by the studio's desire to make a buck instead.
Yep. I saw that movie as a kid, and myself and everyone I knew assumed they were dead. Mainly because bad guys falling off a cliff was a pretty cliche way for bad guys to die back then.
In other news, Henry Cavil walks around Times Square in a Superman t-shirt and doesn't get recognized by ANYBODY. The caption on his photo? "Dear Doubter, The glasses are good enough. Regards, Superman" XD
http://robot6.comicbookresources.co...quare-in-a-superman-shirt-and-no-one-noticed/
^ Funny because just a few days ago, someone on a talk show was saying that he's failed to become a big recognizable star despite playing Superman.
Pretty cool new image of Superman pulling something really heavy... for some reason...
http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/content/batmanvsupermanbattleshipjpg
http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/content/batmanvsupermanbattleshipjpg
Most people feel Byrne's run is a classic. His choice to have Superman kill the Pocket Universe Kryptonians is very much in character for Superman. Thinking it is out out of character or bad writing shows a lack of understanding of the character and what constitutes good writing.
Three new clips
I actually get the character, and good writing. Its all opinion, really. I don't like what Byrne did in that situation, and he is far from the end all be all Superman writer. Superman never kills, that's his character. Some people think that Superman never killing is bad writing, and that's moronic. Like I've said before, Joe Kelly wrote basically the best Superman story of all time, and it was all about why superman doesn't kill or enforce peace on the world. If Grant Morrison, a popular Batman writer, had Batman shoot Red Hood in the head to save Tim Drake, that wouldn't make it part of Batman's character just because grant Morrison wrote it. Same with John Byrne and the killer Superman. I actually like Byrne's writing a lot (the man himself is kind of an asshole apparently, but he used to write good stuff), but he wrote some junk, and that particular Superman story was junk.
I'm pretty sure the killing was retconned away a long time before the 2011 reboot anyway. Heck, Byrne's "Kryptonian birthing matrix" definitely wasn't in continuity by the time I knew about comics, so they were retconning the stupid Byrne stuff away fairly soon after he did it. Kind of like how the Golden Age Batman stories where he used a gun were ignored. Byrne did some good with Superman, and he did some bad that was removed long before the New 52 reboot. The killing was part of that.
I'm glad you're the final authority on what Superman's character really is, and which version should be adhered to. Don't know what we'd do without you.
That's not what I meant. I meant that I get what the character is, regardless of what Nerys Myk thinks about my level of understanding. Superman is the world's greatest hero, who leads by example and never kills. Its a simple premise, but powerful when the writer isn't a moron. Its what all the great Superman writers have gone with. There are other versions, but they are variations, not the core of superman. When you get away from that, what's the point? If he won't kill, why should anyone not kill?
To repeat for the 100th time, What's So Funny about Truth, Justice and The America Way explains what Superman is better than anyone else ever has, and that's the standard I hold superman to. If you want Superman to be a moronic murderer, more power to you. You can like whatever you want. But, its not a Superman I want to see.
I just don't see how a Superman who, in the course of saving the entire planet from destruction, is forced to kill to stop a rampaging and incredibly dangerous mass-murderer from killing more innocent people, and then clearly feels incredible anguish afterwards over being put in that position, is suddenly someone not worthy of being praised or admired.
Cops and soldiers have to make that same tough decision all the time in order to save innocent lives, and we don't usually look at them as being weak or morally corrupt for doing so.
Cops and soldiers have to make that same tough decision all the time in order to save innocent lives, and we don't usually look at them as being weak or morally corrupt for doing so.
Its because how he acts is the whole point of Superman, at least in the good stories I've read. Discounting a bad story or two, Superman wants to show people that there is another way. No matter how hard it is, no matter how dark the situation or how uncontrollable the opponent, there is a way to win without killing or doing something evil. Like I said before, Superman doesn't believe in a solution where killing is the only, or best, answer. Its why, to me, he's not just a over powered bore like some people seem to think he is. He has incredible power, but his morals are important to him. Batman, at his core, fights so that no child ever has to have his parents killed by criminals. Superman fights to show another way. Its not easy, and he can get criticized for being unwilling to do the "smart" or "pragmatic" thing, but he's Superman. He fights the supposedly impossible fight and doesn't compromise himself. He's done it since before he put on the tights, and he'll die upholding those ideals.
