Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Since Zod and his partners-in-crime have the same powers as Superman, wouldn't that mean that they would also be subject to the same Kryptonite weakness as Superman?
Added DiffLines:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 49,50 (click to see context) from:
*** What about Superman's depowering via the same method earlier in the film? That that his powers away permanently, and it took a sacrifice from Jor-El/Lara to restore them.
to:
*** What about Superman's depowering via the same method earlier in the film? That that took his powers away permanently, and it took a sacrifice from Jor-El/Lara to restore them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 44 (click to see context) from:
to:
* Obviously, Rocky is a regular customer, but he is also abusive and aggresive. The owners don't like him much. So why don't they just bar him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[WMG: Why don't the owners of the diner bar Rocky?]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 46,47 (click to see context) from:
*** What about Superman's depowering via the same method earlier in the film?
to:
*** What about Superman's depowering via the same method earlier in the film?
film? That that his powers away permanently, and it took a sacrifice from Jor-El/Lara to restore them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 13 (click to see context) :
Changed line(s) 42,43 (click to see context) from:
** My opinion: Clark was (to the people of the diner) a new comer at the diner. He saw a trucker rudely demanding food and insulting their cuisine. Clark, in the staff's defence, throws a cannibalism insult at the trucker. The trucker, though never seeing this supposed wimp with glasses before, doesn't take the insult lightly, and, thinking Clark as easy prey, eggs him on. As for the owner's protests, he was probably talking about an [[NoodleIncident earlier unseen fight]] the trucker got into.
to:
** My opinion: Clark was (to the people of the diner) a new comer newcomer at the diner. He saw a trucker rudely demanding food and insulting their cuisine. Clark, in the staff's defence, throws a cannibalism insult at the trucker. The trucker, though never seeing this supposed wimp with glasses before, doesn't take the insult lightly, and, thinking Clark as easy prey, eggs him on. As for the owner's protests, he was probably talking about an [[NoodleIncident earlier unseen fight]] the trucker got into.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) :
[[WMG: Why did Superman destroy the Fortress of Solitude?]]
Changed line(s) 44 (click to see context) from:
to:
** My opinion: Clark was (to the people of the diner) a new comer at the diner. He saw a trucker rudely demanding food and insulting their cuisine. Clark, in the staff's defence, throws a cannibalism insult at the trucker. The trucker, though never seeing this supposed wimp with glasses before, doesn't take the insult lightly, and, thinking Clark as easy prey, eggs him on. As for the owner's protests, he was probably talking about an [[NoodleIncident earlier unseen fight]] the trucker got into.
Added DiffLines:
[[WMG: Why didn't the supervillains feel weak?]]
* When Superman was depowered earlier, you could see the pain on his face as the powers left him. Later, when he switched the depowering mechanism, why didn't Zod, Ursa and Non not feel any depowering?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 48 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** What about Superman's depowering via the same method earlier in the film?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 47 (click to see context) from:
to:
** If you go with the commonly (but by no means universally) held stance that Superman did not in fact execute Zod and his cohorts when he flung them into those pits at the climax of the movie, it is not too much of a stretch to presume he made sure they landed (safely) in an area in the Fortress that would not only contain them, but either continuously bathe them in red sun radiation, or at the very least, cut them off from direct yellow sunlight. Superman had plenty of time to prepare traps and containment before Zod and co. arrived. Perhaps he even re-shunted them to the Phantom Zone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[WMG: Why did Superman destroy the Fortress of Solitude?]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
ManOfSteelWomanOfKleenex
to:
* ManOfSteelWomanOfKleenex
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
We're supposed to believe that it's because Superman isn't supposed to "put one above the rest," except that Jor-El and Lara had to assume Superman would be adopted by SOMEONE to whom he would hold some sort of loyalty. Besides, would they rather he have a girlfriend and have his powers, or just give them up and be with her?
to:
* We're supposed to believe that it's because Superman isn't supposed to "put one above the rest," except that Jor-El and Lara had to assume Superman would be adopted by SOMEONE to whom he would hold some sort of loyalty. Besides, would they rather he have a girlfriend and have his powers, or just give them up and be with her?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 41,42 (click to see context) from:
** So what if that guy didn't recall beating up Clark? If I commit a crime, then develop amnesia and forget that I did, does that absolve me? No it doesn't. He was still the same dick as in the original timeline, and would still have beaten up Clark if given the opportunity again. Would you complain if in the first movie, Superman had gone back in time to before Luthor put his plans in motion and had him arrested?
to:
** So what if that guy didn't recall beating up Clark? If I commit a crime, then develop amnesia and forget that I did, does that absolve me? No it doesn't. He was still the same dick as in the original timeline, and would still have beaten up Clark if given the opportunity again. Would you complain if in the first movie, Superman had gone back in time to before Luthor put set his plans in motion and had him arrested?
Changed line(s) 44,45 (click to see context) from:
* From what we saw, all it does is bathe Kryptonians in red light. Going by the comic canon, all this would do is temporarily remove their powers; all they would have to do to get them back is absorb yellow light again. Even in this universe, it doesn't make sense. The Kryptonians were already exposed to red light when they were in Krypton, yet it didn't take away their ability to gain super powers from yellow sunlight.
to:
* From what we saw, all it does is bathe Kryptonians in red light. Going by the comic canon, all this would do is temporarily should merely remove their powers; powers temporarily; all they would have to do to get them back is absorb yellow light again. Even in this universe, it doesn't make sense. The Kryptonians were should already have been exposed to red light when they were in Krypton, yet it didn't take away their ability to gain super powers from yellow sunlight.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[WMG: Faora/Ursa]]
* What was the point of renaming Faora to Ursa in this continuity?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** So what if that guy didn't recall beating up Clark? If I commit a crime, then develop amnesia and forget that I did, does that absolve me? No it doesn't. He was still the same dick as in the original timeline, and would still have beaten up Clark if given the opportunity again. Would you complain if in the first movie, Superman had gone back in time to before Luthor put his plans in motion and had him arrested?
[[WMG: Why does that depowering machine permanently remove a Kryptonian's powers?]]
* From what we saw, all it does is bathe Kryptonians in red light. Going by the comic canon, all this would do is temporarily remove their powers; all they would have to do to get them back is absorb yellow light again. Even in this universe, it doesn't make sense. The Kryptonians were already exposed to red light when they were in Krypton, yet it didn't take away their ability to gain super powers from yellow sunlight.
[[WMG: Why does that depowering machine permanently remove a Kryptonian's powers?]]
* From what we saw, all it does is bathe Kryptonians in red light. Going by the comic canon, all this would do is temporarily remove their powers; all they would have to do to get them back is absorb yellow light again. Even in this universe, it doesn't make sense. The Kryptonians were already exposed to red light when they were in Krypton, yet it didn't take away their ability to gain super powers from yellow sunlight.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Adding comments to questions. Final two additions at the bottom are mine, but I didn't know how to indent "out of universe answer" without adding a second bullet point.
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** They aren't even dead in the Richard Donner cut either. Remember, in the end, Superman turns back time basically resetting everything (i.e, repairing the Fortress of Solitude, bringing Jor-El's essence back to life,repairing Metropolis, and it shows the prisoners being returned to the Phantom Zone. So while he temporarily "killed" them, in the end they survived, unlike in Man of Steel.
Added DiffLines:
** In universe answer: it was apparent from the reactions to the trucker's arrival in the earlier scene, the trucker was obviously bullying the customers for some time prior to Lois and Clark's arrival. Remembering that, Clark returned after he regained his powers to (admittedly in a slight out of character moment) help the people in the diner by kicking out the trucker. In the end, he was doing what he usually does: saving people.
** Out of universe answer: Richard Donner (if he directed the "return to diner" scene instead of Lester) probably had an explanation in his original script for Superman's return, but due to the fact the Richard Donner cut was cobbled together as well as they could with existing footage, he couldn't film an appropriate reason for Clark's return, but wanted to put it in there to show the trucker ended up getting punished for his attitude. If Lester directed the footage, then Donner probably just put it in there for the same reason as I stated plus just trying to pad out the run time of the movie.
** Out of universe answer: Richard Donner (if he directed the "return to diner" scene instead of Lester) probably had an explanation in his original script for Superman's return, but due to the fact the Richard Donner cut was cobbled together as well as they could with existing footage, he couldn't film an appropriate reason for Clark's return, but wanted to put it in there to show the trucker ended up getting punished for his attitude. If Lester directed the footage, then Donner probably just put it in there for the same reason as I stated plus just trying to pad out the run time of the movie.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Answering question about zod in superman vs. man of steel
Changed line(s) 33 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Superman does not kill Zod and the others. He pushes them into a crevice inside the fortress of solitude, and their fate is unrevealed. Nothing more can be determined because the movie does not choose to show us what happens. Maybe they were put into suspended animation. Maybe they fell a few feet to the snow and were picked up later. Maybe the pit is full of foam rubber. Who knows? I never interpreted this as Superman and Lois killed them, but rather the movie conveniently forgetting about them. This is different from Man of Steel, which explicitly makes a big point about Superman killing Zod (although I'd hardly say it makes him out to be a remorseless killer, just a pragmatist).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[WMG: Why does Clark go back to the diner in the Richard Donner Cut?]]
* The Lester cut of Superman 2 has Clark kiss Lois so that she forgets his identity, in the Donner cut he turns back time all the way back to before Zod, Ursa, and Non escape from the Phantom Zone. Basically all of the things leading up to depowered Clark getting beaten up at the diner never happened and Clark going back to the diner so he can humiliate a man that never met Clark in that timeline seems very petty.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 26 (click to see context) from:
* A very common complaint about ''ManOfSteel'' is that its Superman is a "darker, remorseless killer," contrasting it to the "brighter, more heroic" Superman of the Donner films, even though he kills Zod in BOTH films. A comparison of the two films will show that:
to:
* A very common complaint about ''ManOfSteel'' ''Film/ManOfSteel'' is that its Superman is a "darker, remorseless killer," contrasting it to the "brighter, more heroic" Superman of the Donner films, even though he kills Zod in BOTH films. A comparison of the two films will show that:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11,13 (click to see context) from:
** The snake didn't hurt her; her reaction was purely reflex. When she hits it with her heat vision, she was giving it a literal DeathGlare.
to:
** The snake didn't hurt her; her reaction was purely reflex. When she hits it with her heat vision, she was giving it a literal DeathGlare.
DeathGlare and had no idea she had the heat vision power. Hence why she was so surprised after.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Just adjusting the page
Changed line(s) 20,21 (click to see context) from:
* The original theatrical cut alluded to the idea that Clark used the green crystal to restore start his powers. The crystal glows, he picks it up, there's a close up and the next time we see Clark he's Superman again.
to:
* The original theatrical cut alluded to the idea that Clark used the green crystal to restore start his powers. The crystal glows, he picks it up, there's a close up and the next time we see Clark he's Superman again.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Just expanding the page
Changed line(s) 20 (click to see context) from:
to:
* The original theatrical cut alluded to the idea that Clark used the green crystal to restore start his powers. The crystal glows, he picks it up, there's a close up and the next time we see Clark he's Superman again.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 31 (click to see context) from:
*** "Arctic Patrol" is nowhere to be found in the Richard Donner Cut.
to:
*** "Arctic Patrol" is nowhere to be found in the Richard Donner Cut. And even in the cuts where it does exist... really? [[AssPull Not only do Zod and the gang survive plummeting to the bottom of that pit, but there just happens to be a law enforcement agency there to arrest them?]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** "Arctic Patrol" is nowhere to be found in the Richard Donner Cut.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** The "Artic Patrol" sequence isn't just a deleted scene. It appears in the Expanded International Cut, released in 1983.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[WMG: Why do many fans ignore that, in the film as released, Superman nonchalantly KILLED Zod?]]
* A very common complaint about ''ManOfSteel'' is that its Superman is a "darker, remorseless killer," contrasting it to the "brighter, more heroic" Superman of the Donner films, even though he kills Zod in BOTH films. A comparison of the two films will show that:
** In one film, Superman depowers Zod, rendering him no threat. He reveals this by sadistically crushing Zod's hand, then throws him twenty feet or more into a wall where he [[DisneyVillainDeath falls at least five stories into an icy crevasse]], never to be seen again. Superman does this all while smiling and quipping afterwards.
** In the other film, Zod commits SuicideByCop by forcing Superman to kill him to protect a family of civilians. Superman is desperate not to, and when he does kill Zod he gives a scream of anguish and [[HeroicBSOD collapses to his knees, unmoving]] until Lois hugs him.
** The first Superman is the one fans keep calling "brighter, more heroic," and the second the Superman they complain about being a "darker, remorseless killer." What's the deal here? Is it the NostalgiaFilter coloring their perception of the older film from having seen it as children? Is it that because they didn't SEE Zod die in ''Superman II'', it "doesn't count?" The Superman of ''Superman II'' is only "brighter" in that he is cheerful and triumphant while he cripples and executes a helpless foe, while the "darker" Superman of ''Man Of Steel'' is forced into it by a DeathSeeker and is greatly traumatized by the experience.
*** (The scene deleted from ''Superman II'' of the "Arctic Patrol" arrest is just that, a DELETED scene. The film has to stand as it was released, not as it might have been released. And the released film clearly shows the Kryptonians suffering the recognized DisneyVillainDeath of falling to their deaths off-screeen. See DeathOfTheAuthor.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 19,20 (click to see context) from:
* The RichardDonner cut answers this to some degree. Jor-El foresaw the possibility that Kal-El would want to give up his powers to be with an Earth woman. He also foresaw the possibility that Kal-El would change his mind. Since Jor-El was about to die on Krypton anyway, he imbued the green crystal with all his Kryptonian life essence, which Kal-El could use to regain any of his powers he'd given up ... once. "The son becomes the father, and the father the son."
to:
* The RichardDonner Creator/RichardDonner cut answers this to some degree. Jor-El foresaw the possibility that Kal-El would want to give up his powers to be with an Earth woman. He also foresaw the possibility that Kal-El would change his mind. Since Jor-El was about to die on Krypton anyway, he imbued the green crystal with all his Kryptonian life essence, which Kal-El could use to regain any of his powers he'd given up ... once. "The son becomes the father, and the father the son."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
headscratchers is not to complaining
Changed line(s) 8,15 (click to see context) from:
[[WMG:Why did Lois and Superman sleep with one another?]]
Superman and Lois have, for a very, very long time, held the titles of Moral Arbiters. They are examples to be held up by kids...and now they've slept with each other out of wedlock. Does this mean that it's okay for our kids to do this? No, not at all! What were the writers thinking?
* Nothing wrong with non-self-destructive sex between two consenting adults. That and the issue of "making her an honest woman" was only a problem in societies where women would be refused marriage opportunities if they weren't virgins, which isn't the case anymore. The sexual revolution was 40 years ago, long before this movie- long enough for Superman, Lois, and the audience to have grown up in and been familiar with it. The only thing they did wrong was not using a condom and/or not making sure Lois took The Pill afterwards.
** And even these last wouldn't be "wrong" if they intended to have children together. [[spoiler:And according to SupermanReturns, their tryst apparently ''did'' get Lois pregnant.]]
** As a side note, ''Lois Lane'' spent the better part of the years before this movie scheming and plotting to make Superman marry her, often against his will and in utterly ridiculous ways, in the comics. So much for being a moral arbiter.
** When "kids" are in their late twenties to early thirties, then yes, they can do whatever they damn well please. Seriously, did you write this from the past?
Superman and Lois have, for a very, very long time, held the titles of Moral Arbiters. They are examples to be held up by kids...and now they've slept with each other out of wedlock. Does this mean that it's okay for our kids to do this? No, not at all! What were the writers thinking?
* Nothing wrong with non-self-destructive sex between two consenting adults. That and the issue of "making her an honest woman" was only a problem in societies where women would be refused marriage opportunities if they weren't virgins, which isn't the case anymore. The sexual revolution was 40 years ago, long before this movie- long enough for Superman, Lois, and the audience to have grown up in and been familiar with it. The only thing they did wrong was not using a condom and/or not making sure Lois took The Pill afterwards.
** And even these last wouldn't be "wrong" if they intended to have children together. [[spoiler:And according to SupermanReturns, their tryst apparently ''did'' get Lois pregnant.]]
** As a side note, ''Lois Lane'' spent the better part of the years before this movie scheming and plotting to make Superman marry her, often against his will and in utterly ridiculous ways, in the comics. So much for being a moral arbiter.
** When "kids" are in their late twenties to early thirties, then yes, they can do whatever they damn well please. Seriously, did you write this from the past?
to:
Superman and Lois have, for a very, very long time, held the titles of Moral Arbiters. They are examples to be held up by kids...and now they've slept with each other out of wedlock. Does this mean that it's okay for our kids to do this? No, not at all! What were the writers thinking?
* Nothing wrong with non-self-destructive sex between two consenting adults. That and the issue of "making her an honest woman" was only a problem in societies where women would be refused marriage opportunities if they weren't virgins, which isn't the case anymore. The sexual revolution was 40 years ago, long before this movie- long enough for Superman, Lois, and the audience to have grown up in and been familiar with it. The only thing they did wrong was not using a condom and/or not making sure Lois took The Pill afterwards.
** And even these last wouldn't be "wrong" if they intended to have children together. [[spoiler:And according to SupermanReturns, their tryst apparently ''did'' get Lois pregnant.]]
** As a side note, ''Lois Lane'' spent the better part of the years before this movie scheming and plotting to make Superman marry her, often against his will and in utterly ridiculous ways, in the comics. So much for being a moral arbiter.
** When "kids" are in their late twenties to early thirties, then yes, they can do whatever they damn well please. Seriously, did you write this from the past?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Because it's not specified to be a gadget, and because these movies have a bad habit of giving Superman completely ridiculous powers at seemingly random, so it fits with what else we've seen.
