I would agree with you, if the luminosity is predictable, that would have some impact on temperature and the overall blackbody curve. Exactly what - neither you or I can possibly be expected to tell. Astrophysics must rely only on 'far field' visual observations, and as such (as I said) even the best experts can turn out to be wrong, or only conditionally correct at best. That's why actual observations (and workers like RL) are so damn important. Pity we don't have more of them on this board - and have actually lost one thanks to RL's 'disappearance'.

As to type II supernovae: surely the overall model still holds. A star maintains itself through hydrostatic equilibrium: where the tendency for the massive object to gravitationally collapse inwardly, is balanced by the huge amounts of outwardly flowing energy due to the nuclear reaction cycles. When the lighter fuel is used up to the point where this balance can no longer be maintained, the outer parts of the star explode and the inner parts implode (Newtons 3rd Law basically). The remaining inner part will compress to neutronium if the process was massive and sufficiently violent - giving a neutron star.

I'm sure you know all this but the point is that I can't see Mitra's work affecting that in any significant way. As far as the theory of black holes go - it's all bets off as far I'd say. Although as I say, at least we do have observational evidence of their existence. Maybe the real question is whether there are singularities at their core.