I knew someone would point that out, and it's a valid point. You can certainly judge the film as it's own thing, in which case the fate is ambiguous. For me personally, when I see different cuts of a film with deleted scenes, it shows more of the world, or more of the story that the director intended. It doesn't have to be considered 'canon', but I think it can give more understanding.

In this case, given that we see the villains alive in an deleted scene, I think it is reasonable to say they did not die in the theatrical cut, despite that cut not giving an answer one way or the other.

Everyone is different though.

MoS did challenge Clark in many ways like learning to put his faith in humanity and trying to earn the trust of the government, etc. You're just too blinded by your dislike of the movie to see it.

I'm not blinded at all. Maybe I should clarify. MoS didn't challenge superman in any notable way when contrasted with every other movie that also challenged Superman.

It did have him make rash decisions, but so what? Clark is young, inexperienced and prone to make mistakes as well. If anything, it makes it more interesting to see him learning to be a hero instead of being born one.

So again, we have to excuse the film and it's characterization. I have no problem with him learning to be a hero, but I would have liked it if he had people safety and lives be a constant concern while he was learning to be a hero. I feel that would be far more fitting to the character, and would not detract from the film in any way.

I'd rather see a young Clark learn to be Superman rather than another boyscout Superman. You have more than enough source material for that. Go and rewatch the old movies for your "wise, mature" Superman (AKA Mary Sue).

I see this as a false dichotomy. The choices are not limited to MoS Superman or exaggerated boyscout Superman. Is there any reason we couldn't have a blend? I was mostly fine with the MoS Superman. If he was just a bit less angry, a bit less rash, a little bit more concerned and a whole lot more inspiring (see brighter costume photoshop) it would have been absolutely amazing in my opinion.

Also, please keep in mind my criticisms are not linked to my enjoyment of the movie. I didn't like the movie for the reasons I state, but I didn't enjoy it because I felt that it was boring. That's it. There are many films I don't like when I think about what they did with the story or characters, but I can still enjoy. Terminator 3 being a good example.

Really? Did you watch this movie or are you just spewing out all the hate you've read on the internet. In the real world, sometimes you have to make quick/rash decisions, and most people would say those decisions can be difficult even "challenging".

Boo freaking Hoo.

For decision making to be challenging, thought is required in how best to address the problem. Rushing into a problem with the first idea you have based on instinct ignores any challenge that may have been posed.

While I don't like the movie, I believe I am giving well thought out reasons as to why. People may not agree with my reasons, but it's kind of pathetic to continually dismiss and downplay them simply because I didn't enjoy the movie.

So holding Zod in a headlock and pleading with him to stop was not part of the thought process? It wasn't an attempt at another solution? Killing Zod was not the first idea. You're basically arguing against your own points in your post. I'm not trying to convert you into liking this movie. I'm simply showing that some of your arguments may not be as sound as you think.

I completely disagree with your directors cut comments. That same directors cut had Supes erasing everything again. So in that cut Superman has no consequence whatsoever to his actions, because he can just turn back time whenever he doesn't like a result. At least when he kills Zod and crew, he's taking a stand and making a choice.

The realistic take in MoS shows that there isn't always a black and white answer. MoS is so obviously meant to be a beginning to a greater story, and I believe you'll get more of "your" Superman in the movies to come...when he actually is Superman and not Clark trying to figure things out as he goes.

If there are flaws in my reasoning I would welcome you to show them to me, but you have yet to do so.

No. Holding Zod in a headlock was not part of a thought process. It was the result of emotion. As was snapping his neck.

This is ambiguous and open to interpretation, so this isn't the result of a flawed argument, but rather just a disagreement. Let's just agree to disagree, since the point can't be proved.

The point you mention regarding the directors cut has nothing to do with the point I made regarding the directors cut, which was only that it demonstrates Donnor's intention that villains lived, contrasted with their ambiguous fate in the theatrical cut.

Once again, MoS is not realistic. It's just dramatic.

There isn't a 'my' Superman. There is 'just' Superman.

MoS is to Superman as Batman Earth One is to Batman.

I just this second watched the Superman Vs Zod end fight scene. Clark's collateral damage was minimal in comparison to Zod's, Clark didn't once toss Zod through buildings in the clip, its all Zod throwing him around and through buildings. The closest i saw to Clark being careless was him scraping Zod's head against windows of a building making them shatter and fall to the ground...any civilians below are going to receive a glass shower.

that's an alternate ending. that does not count. there are plenty of movies that have alternate endings where the hero or villain survives. however, they don't matter since in the end the characters still die in the actual release. if the director had wanted the villains to live then they would have lived. in the actual movie they died.

@christianrapper: You seem to have ignored everything that I wrote above...

Anyway. They don't die in the theatrical release, their fate is ambiguous. You can choose to believe they die if you like, but it's just a theory.

i want to believe mace survived his fall in star wars. however, i am pretty sure he didn't. there is nothing ambiguous about getting knocked into a hole that u can't see the bottom of.

@christianrapper: Prove they died. Otherwise it's just a theory.

Have to agree with Muy. It's a theory. We have no idea how far they go down. For all we know there is another level down there.

While I enjoy this scene, it's a bit of a stretch saying they don't die. Zod falls nearly two stories before hitting the smoke. If he doesn't die, he is surely a quadriplegic.

@allend4bbt: That's the thing, it's open to interpretation. The only evidence we have to their fate is the directors cut, which shows Donner's intention that they survived. When something is ambiguous in a movie, sometimes it makes sense to acknowledge the directors stance or intentions to clear that up.

So, either their fate is ambiguous, or they survived. People can argue all they like that they died, but it's only speculation.

Donner wasn't the director when the movie was released. In fact, he isn't even credited. So I'm not sure why his "alternate" ending would make the difference here. I call it an alternate ending, because judging the distance Zod falls before the smoke, there's no way he's walking out of the fortress. Also, why would Supes wait for police to risk their lives traveling these uncharted areas when he could just take in these now "non-powered" people in himself. How does one give directions to the fortress of solitude? Why would Supes want more people knowing it's location?

Basically, I'm saying the Donner Cut is garbage and should have no merit on the actual theatrical release due to the reasons above. I guess you can picture Zod and crew in a vegetative state if it makes you feel better, but most would lean towards the more sympathetic result of death.

@allend4bbt: Donnor directed the bulk of the movie, with Lester coming in to do the remaining 15% or so. It's definitely Donnor's movie.

You can call it an alternate ending, but it's also a directors cut, which as I said shows the directors intentions. You can dismiss them if you like, as it's up to each person to make their own canon in these types of situations. For me, it gives insight into an otherwise ambiguous fate.

I think it's foolish to argue Zod is dead though since there is absolutely no evidence to support that. He isn't human, and despite being depowered we don't know what he can survive. More than that, the fall isn't that deep and humans have survived far greater falls without injury. There may also be water or snow down there to cushion the fall. Like I said, the fate is ambiguous.

The police in the directors cut were Arctic Police, so they likely had a station close by. Superman also destroyed his fortress at the end of the directors cut, perhaps in part because the location was compromised.

@muyjingo:

That looks pretty steep to me. You seem to need a lot of convenient plot twists for him to survive.

I did forget about him destroying the fortress though.

@allend4bbt: No, I don't need plot twists. Your making a lot of assumptions and trying to present them as fact. You're welcome to your interpretation, and it's certainly just as valid as mine, but neither are conclusive.

As I said, we don't know what is at the bottom. Snow in the north pole or water is hardly unlikely, and despite being depowered they may still be more durable than humans. That assumption is now less valid than yours that they fell straight to their deaths.

That fall looks to be about 30 feet. That's nothing if there is snow at the bottom.

@muyjingo: So your argument is that the ending was ambiguous...though I would argue that it was implied. And you're basing this on a cut of the movie, which isn't even actually included in the Donner Cut. So technically, it's just a random deleted scene that was added when it was aired on a foreign television station. Good for you.

I must have stated that at least 5 times, and you are just now getting that? You can argue what you like, but you haven't provided anything to support your argument, aside from speculation.

And you're basing this on a cut of the movie, which isn't even actually included in the Donner Cut.

Well, it is in the Donner cut.

Anyway. Due to politics Donner was ousted from the production. His cut shows his intention on a film that he shot 80% of, and pretty much dictated everything about. Seems foolish to disregard it to me, but whatever...

Obviously you can disregard it but it's the only thing that is useful in determining the fate of the villains one way or the other.

So technically, it's just a random deleted scene that was added when it was aired on a foreign television station. Good for you.

Well, no, it's anything but. It's a scene that the director who directed the majority of the film would have included had he got to finish his film, and did get to include when they released his cut of the film.

You want to ignore the only evidence we have that can give insight to an ambiguous fate, because your argument for MoS relies on Superman killing Zod in Superman 2. Good for you.

Yeah that random guy on Youtube is wrong, as people in the comments point out. What a surprise.

People should keep in mind in this movie Superman is an inexperienced hero. He only recently learned the full extent of his powers and has never fought a super villain before. I feel like metropolis was evacuated prior to the final fight but even if it wasn't superman was In a kill or be killed situation and I think that since no deaths of civilians by superman's hand it may be insinuating that no civilians died because of him. But he can't prevent everyone from getting hurt, even with his vast power that is impossible to do

i was just watching mos. in the comics his secret identity is a closely guarded secret. the movie is a little more realistic. everyone who really knows him seems to know who he is. that means most of smallville will know clark is superman. shouldn't there be a problem with his secret identity? lois lane was able to find him pretty easily.

The plot could've been better. And the dialogue. But the effects and shots were nice.

i don't see how they are going to establish clark kent. it should be easy to deduce that clark is superman based on the mos movie.

In all honesty, any hope of that movie's Superman being "Superman" by any known stretch of the character was done the moment they turned him into a random drifter with superpowers.

One of the things about Superman's character for the last several decades is that he took a long, LONG time to get acclimated to the majority of his powers as well as how he wanted to use them for the betterment of the world. He also had support and help from his parents, who often made lots of suggestions about what to do and how he should use his abilities. In short, he spent as long "training" to be Superman as Bruce Wayne "trained" to be Batman. And that's not including all the incarnations where he was active as Superboy (or an equivalent) for a long time before making an active career as Superman.

MOS, however, decided to go the route of making Clark "some dude with a cape and powers" for the sake of a more relatable hero. Clark in this movie isn't someone who's become well educated on diplomacy, physics, psychology and other fields or gained a lot of experience to parsel out the best possible solution out of a bad scenario. He's just "Some Guy". And because of this, any bad decision he makes is excusable under that assumption. For example, why didn't he go to Jor-El to come up with a plan to stop Zod in case things went south? He's just Some Guy and didn't think of it. Why did he crash the pod ship with Zod in it (thus ensuring that Zod would be too far for the PZ vortex to pull him in)? Because he's Some Guy and didn't think ahead any. Why didn't he and military come up with some sort of backup plan using the ONLY known weakness they knew Kryptonians had (Kryptonian air, which even managed to knock the wind out of Superman for a while)? Because he's Some Guy and not a xenobiologist or strategist.

Now I'm not saying that they may not reveal that Clark did spend all those years wandering gaining some sort of education or experience. I'm saying that in this movie, that is the character they presented: Some Guy who is in way over his head. Superman, the character comics fans are used to, always has better options or better ideas because he's not just physically advanced, but mentally advanced as well.

i still don't get it. the avengers murdered people throughout the movie and destroyed the city. however, an inexperienced superman killed zod because he has no choice and everyone whines.