my evidence is that all we see is the Zoners disappearing into the mist in Superman's Alien Fortress. We don't see a chasm in any form. The only visual evidence is that they disappear into the mist.
That is not evidence. It is more of your wish fulfillment game born of a bizarre need to place a comic book character in the position of the cloud-born, rosy-cheeked Santa wearing a security blanket bearing no emotion relatable to real people. Time after time, you have tap-shuffle-tapped around that which you cannot prove, returning to your typical ranting about something that never happened on screen. Few filmmakers or screenwriters worth a second of their experience was going to create a film with a build-up based on a rather elementary hero vs. deadly villain plot, and leave the villain's
filmed death in question, unless there was an
on screen intent to hint at a return.
There was no such hint, suggestion or deliberate effort to suggest that in
Superman II at all.
Superman was not going to take the Kryptonians to prison, drop them off on an island, imprison them at the Fortress, sign them up for rehabilitation programs, or anything else. The simple hero-kills-villain trope was in full force in
Superman II, which was the payoff the Newmans, Puzo, et al. not only understood was the way to craft such a story, but would satisfy the expectations of audiences. That is exactly what the audiences of 1980 saw, not some frankly childish
"oh, t-t-hhey just d-disappeared into a mist" ambiguous nonsense.
Again,
you are the one who made the claim, which you should have been prepared to defend and
support with period evidence from Lester, the Newmans or Puzo, unequivocally stating that Superman and Lois did not take revenge on the Kryptonians by sending them to their deaths down a frozen void, or that Clark did not seek super-powered revenge against Rocky, instead of just forgetting about the man. You have consistently avoided even referring to such evidence, because you know it does not exist. As a result, you are simply projecting your aforementioned need to make that film's Superman into the rosy-cheeked Santa wearing a security blanket, which is a disturbing personal problem that--at the end of it all--will not rewrite history to fit that sad delusion.
I certainly am at a loss as to why you are so condescending in how you go about arguing this.
Said the guy who initially responded to my post when I was not addressing you. Said the guy who has returned to post personal attacks, ranting about a comic book character and misrepresent the artists who made a firm decision in the final, theatrical version of a decades-old movie.
Hypocrisy animates your essence.
Its still all on you--the one who continues to make the ridiculous claim about a film to provide evidence which stands against what audiences around the world witnessed and accepted over four decades ago.
That is not--in what is obvious tradition--going to happen for every reason stated above.
The big difference is that in the examples you cite (as well as in Disney movies) the fall usually occurs during a fight, or in self-defense or similar. In Superman II it happens absolutely in cold blood against three helpless opponents. It is probably one of the reasons that gave birth to discussions in the following years.
Which was the intent all along. Villains killed by heroes is as old as people exchanging stores in ancient times. There was never some need to place anyone in such a lofty position that under no circumstances, they will never be fueled by a sense of retribution.
