DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Sci]

It matters because you asserted it as an unambiguous fact that Superman killed Zod, and built a whole argument around that revisionist assumption:



This argument is invalid because the foundation it's based on is invalid. It is egregiously false to claim that the movie presents death as something to be celebrated, because it's egregiously false to claim that it explicitly depicts death at all. It is egregiously false to claim that nobody objects to the appearance of Superman killing, as the past few pages of this thread have explicitly demonstrated. So the conclusion you draw about the film's message based on that incredibly clueless misreading of the text is pure pretentious claptrap. "Framing" is irrelevant if you're incorrect about what's inside the frame to begin with.

It absolutely does matter whether your arguments are based on a valid premise or not. Nothing matters more. Garbage in, garbage out.

Christopher, you do realize I'm on the side that wants a brighter, more optimistic, more moral Superman that doesn't kill and isn't morally ambiguous, right? I'm not on Trek_God_1's side here. I'm not a Snyderman fan. I'd appreciate not being regarded with the same tone as someone who enjoyed Superman being turned into a monument to nihilism.

But no, when a movie shows a mortal (as Zod and the others had become mortal) being thrown down a chasm with no visible bottom and no indication as to a different fate, I do not think it is reasonable to conclude that that film has depicted anything other than that character's death.

But let's say Superman doesn't kill Zod in Superman II. Even if that is the case, my argument -- that tone and framing are what matter -- still holds, because we see a version of the same archetype as Superman who does kill villains in the Captain America movies. And all three of those movies are still brighter, more optimistic, more hopeful, more morally-grounded, and more appropriate for children than Man of Steel or Batman v. Superman. Because the Captain America films lack the nihilistic themes that Snyder's works are filled with.

 

[Christopher]

Christopher, you do realize I'm on the side that wants a brighter, more optimistic, more moral Superman that doesn't kill and isn't morally ambiguous, right?

I don't care what "side" you're on. The truth exists independently of "sides" or ideologies or agendas. Nobody on any side has the right to misrepresent the objective facts to support their argument. If a position is valid, it can be argued for based on the facts alone. Falsifying or twisting the facts to support your case undermines the legitimacy of the case, and I don't want anyone on my side doing that.

The only side I'm on is the side of the facts. I'm not addressing your overall argument. I'm pointing out that one specific part of it was based on a completely false premise, and that undermines your argument. If you admit that one mistake and correct it, you make your overall argument stronger.

But no, when a movie shows a mortal (as Zod and the others had become mortal) being thrown down a chasm with no visible bottom and no indication as to a different fate, I do not think it is reasonable to conclude that that film has depicted anything other than that character's death.

First off, as Supervisor 194 pointed out this morning, there is no "chasm," just a fall into mist. The chasm is an assumption you're making.

Second, this is a children's movie based on a comic book character. As I've been saying, it's been commonplace since the late 1930s for comic-book villains to survive seemingly fatal falls and come back a few issues later. It's also bizarre, as I've pointed out already, to apply standards of realism to a movie where the powerless Clark walks through the Arctic twice and doesn't freeze to death. If you can buy Clark and Lois surviving that, it's utterly contradictory to refuse to buy Zod et al. surviving an ambiguous drop into mist.

And again, the deleted scenes make it explicit that the villains were intended to survive the fall. It is disingenuous to ignore that fact. Removing that scene from the movie merely makes it ambiguous.

Even if that is the case, my argument -- that tone and framing are what matter -- still holds, because we see a version of the same archetype as Superman who does kill villains in the Captain America movies. And all three of those movies are still brighter, more optimistic, more hopeful, more morally-grounded, and more appropriate for children than Man of Steel or Batman v. Superman. Because the Captain America films lack the nihilistic themes that Snyder's works are filled with.

That's fine, but that's not the part I'm complaining about. I'm calling out the one specific part you got wrong. It's a logical fallacy to mistake specific argument for general argument. Just fix that one mistake. I don't care about the rest. You're not wrong about the rest. You are wrong about this one thing.

 

[kirk55555]

The Donner cut was an interesting hypothetical, but it was a sequel to a Superman movie that never existed. The Donner cut is a sequel to a Superman movie in which the Salkinds do not fire Donner, and Donner does not choose to use time reversal as a finale.

I think the Donner cut would have been more effective if there had been an alternative cut of the first movie included with it, one in which Superman does not reverse time and ends with the missile cracking open the Phantom Zone and the criminals escaping with a To Be Continued title card, which was Donner's initial plan.

It feels like I'm the only person who likes the Donner Cut, and considers it the definitive version of Superman II. It obviously has some problems, but to me its still better the the goofy garbage Richard Lester put out (I know he was hired to do it so I don't harbor any real anger or anything towards Lester, but his Superman II had major problems and Superman III really sucks).

 

[The Realist]

I prefer the Donner Cut in many ways, acknowledging the structural problems already discussed. Keeping the Jor-El AI in the film, instead of replacing him with Lara for the sake of $$, offers a much better thematic and character through-line for Clark from the first film. (In principle, I'd approve of Lara getting a more substantial role, but Jor-El works better here given the first movie's set-up.) It also provides an actual explanation for how Clark is able to reverse his de-powering, unlike the theatrical cut, and makes it come at a meaningful price.

Also, screen-test footage or no, Lois's little trick with the gun to force Clark to reveal himself is clever, and Kidder's reading of "Gotcha!" is a laugh-out-loud delight.

 

[Tosk]

I "like" the Donner Cut just fine, but I can really only enjoy it as an assemblage of deleted material. An officially released fan-edit. It's a fascinating watch, and it contains material that is better than what ended up in the finished film. I think that the best version of the film would be a carefully constructed composite of the theatrical, Donner, and TV cuts.

 

[JD]

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.

And in most of those cases, it's made clear the fall is meant to be fatal, with it usually happening from the top of a building or something else where the fall would most likely be fatal. In this case, all we see is the characters falling into mist, with no indication what's under it.

 

[Skipper]

And in most of those cases, it's made clear the fall is meant to be fatal, with it usually happening from the top of a building or something else where the fall would most likely be fatal. In this case, all we see is the characters falling into mist, with no indication what's under it.

And there is also the detail that Superman made a powerless Zod fly for tens of meters until he slammed into a wall (after having crumbled his hand). I don't want to do the math now, but I'm sure that alone would have been enough to kill him.

 

[The Realist]

 

[The Knappos]

Hey siri, snooze the thread until it moves on please

 

[Tosk]

I'll just point out that Superman II is a hard one to pin down in terms of its stance on death/injury, and how it implements 'cartoon violence'. People being blown backwards on rollerskates, dudes laughing on the phone while sliding down the street, a massive Jeep crash which they then go out of their way to show that the Army dude survived it somehow.

On the other hand, you've got that UK-accented Houston kid who gets killed by a hurled police cruiser light which then explodes for some reason. Or the horse explodes, it's not clear which is true.

And yes, I relish in how ridiculous that all sounds. Superman II is filled with ridiculousness.

 

[Christopher]

I prefer the Donner Cut in many ways, acknowledging the structural problems already discussed. Keeping the Jor-El AI in the film, instead of replacing him with Lara for the sake of $$, offers a much better thematic and character through-line for Clark from the first film. (In principle, I'd approve of Lara getting a more substantial role, but Jor-El works better here given the first movie's set-up.) It also provides an actual explanation for how Clark is able to reverse his de-powering, unlike the theatrical cut, and makes it come at a meaningful price.

I agree with all of this.

Although... I think the interpretation of Jor-El's "ghost" as an AI program is a later rationalization. In S:TM, it was never really clear what Jor-El was -- an AI, an imprint of his soul, an equivalent of Obi-Wan's Force ghost, whatever. An AI is a logical interpretation, but the film didn't pin it down that clearly. And the original S2 footage restored in the Donner Cut implied that it was the real Jor-El in some sense, and that he died for good to restore Clark's powers.

And there is also the detail that Superman made a powerless Zod fly for tens of meters until he slammed into a wall (after having crumbled his hand). I don't want to do the math now, but I'm sure that alone would have been enough to kill him.

Realistically, sure, but there are literally thousands of action movies and shows where normal human beings survive being thrown or blasted that far.

 

[Mage]

Hey siri, snooze the thread until it moves on please

Wouldn't that be nice.....
I keep coming back to this, hoping one of the posts is actually about something new and exciting about the DC movies that are coming. I know, not likely because of the strikes. Instead it's just page after page after page of the same arguments being thrown back and forth in a desperate attempt to 'be right' about something that to me, personally, doesn't seem worth the effort. I mean, if people enjoy it, more to them, absolutely. But the time and energy required to argue on the internet like this, could be used to watch a nice movie, enjoy a show, read a book, enjoy a meal, spend time with loved ones, go out for a walk, whatever.

Again, I'm not trying to piss off anyone here, but really guys.... Look back at the last I don't know how many pages.... Is it really worth it? All this for a fictional character? And yes, I know some people are very inspired by some fictional characters. And that's fine. But so much wasted time on an argument that clearly is never going to end? Because none of you are going to find common ground here.

 

[The Realist]

^ Cue the argument about the right to argue.

Although... I think the interpretation of Jor-El's "ghost" as an AI program is a later rationalization. In S:TM, it was never really clear what Jor-El was -- an AI, an imprint of his soul, an equivalent of Obi-Wan's Force ghost, whatever. An AI is a logical interpretation, but the film didn't pin it down that clearly. And the original S2 footage restored in the Donner Cut implied that it was the real Jor-El in some sense, and that he died for good to restore Clark's powers.

Well, I think it's pretty clear the Jor-El ... let's call it "manifestation" in the Fortress is the product of technology. Magical, alien, crystal technology, but technology nonetheless. I think AI is an appropriate enough term, given that. But yes, it does seem to be an AI that's sophisticated enough that it effectively preserved Jor-El's personality and emotions in some ways, hence Clark's (and the audience's) sense of loss in the Donner Cut.

 

[Tosk]

Half the time I click on this thread expecting to see an argument about Superman, I instead get posts complaining about how we should talk about something else...but without actually bothering to talk about something else themselves.

 

[Mage]

Half the time I click on this thread expecting to see an argument about Superman, I instead get posts complaining about how we should talk about something else...but without actually bothering to talk about something else themselves.

Please go back and see how I tried to go back to the possibility of Gal Gadot returning....
Everyone jumped back on the Superman discussion. While there is an actual Superman thread.

 

[Tosk]

I don't have time to look back. I can only react to the most recent post and then move on.

 

[The Realist]

Please go back and see how I tried to go back to the possibility of Gal Gadot returning....
Everyone jumped back on the Superman discussion. While there is an actual Superman thread.

It's not like Superman is irrelevant to a DC movies thread, either, so ....

Threads go where they will go. At least Superman is actually on-topic.

Although I certainly can't disagree that I'm long past over some of these specific debates (and several of the posters involved in them).

 

[Mage]

I don't have time to look back. I can only react to the most recent post and then move on.

Fair enough. As as you're aware people are actually attempting to talk about other things in this thread.

 

[Tosk]

And no one is stopping them. Even better, I'm sure if those topics are popular they'll take root and more people will join in!

Edit: Preemptive apologies if my posts are coming across too aggressive. Passive or otherwise. But you basically told people to touch grass and I was triggered.

 

[The Realist]

Okay, fine. No more Superman.

New topic!

Hey, guys, what about that Supergirl, eh?