Comic Vine News

236 Comments

David S. Goyer Discusses 'Man of Steel's' Controversial Ending

The movie's writer shares his expanded thoughts on the polarizing moment and what it means for Superman.

*Obviously contains Man of Steel spoilers*

Man of Steel's conclusion with General Zod has been the subject of a lot of heated debate (and that's putting it lightly). Since the film's release, Christopher Nolan, Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer have all spoken about the shocking moment, but now writer David S. Goyer is giving even more information on the scene. Speaking at the BAFTA and BFI Screenwriters' Lecture, Goyer shared his thoughts on the no kill rule and why he believes Kal had to take Zod's life.

"We were pretty sure that was going to be controversial. It's not like we were deluding ourselves, and we weren't just doing it to be cool. We felt, in the case of Zod, we wanted to put the character in an impossible situation and make an impossible choice.

This is one area, and I've written comic books as well and this is where I disagree with some of my fellow comic book writers - 'Superman doesn't kill'. It's a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don't believe in rules like that. I believe when you're writing film or television, you can't rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film.

So the situation was, Zod says 'I'm not going to stop until you kill me or I kill you.' The reality is no prison on the planet could hold him and in our film Superman can't fly to the moon, and we didn't want to come up with that crutch.

Additionally, Goyer states the action will indeed have a lasting impact on Clark.

"Also our movie was in a way Superman Begins, he's not really Superman until the end of the film. We wanted him to have had that experience of having taken a life and carry that through onto the next films. Because he's Superman and because people idolize him he will have to hold himself to a higher standard."

In case you're wondering, the Man of Steel blu-ray/DVD will come out November 12th.

Source: Digital Spy

242 Comments
Posted by Quintus_Knightfall

@outside_85: I never even thought about that lol. So true.

Moderator
Posted by WaveMotionCannon

@fallschirmjager:

@mitran said:

I for one am okay with this reasoning. It's better than any other official reasoning I've heard.

I actually thought this right after watching the movie. it now makes him never kill again. its not some "SUPERMAN GREW A PAIR AND WILL KILL NOW!" that idea in it self is stupid. Batman let Ras al ghul die and he threw Harvey dent off a building. Captain America shot people. Hulk probably steps on people. Black Widow kills people. Hawkeye Kills people. I dot see a problem with superman having to take the life of the most dangerous man ever.

THIS!!

Edited by manwithoutshame

I loved the ending. It was risky but it worked.

Posted by Z3RO180

@weave16: you sir are not aloud to post if all you do is troll

Posted by fil123

superman has killed before everyone get over it

Posted by ccraft

@hawkguy said:

@movieartman: You're telling me Superman couldn't have moved zods head down or twisted their bodies in another direction? Or even leaped up? Right...

There's a difference between Batman letting nature do it's thing (gravity) as opposed to Superman snapping someone's neck.

Personally, at first I was kind of weirded out by it... but then I thought, the whole movie didn't really feel like a Superman movie. There was just something missing. The "he's kinda hot" bit was ridiculous too, it felt weird and out of place.

Okay.. what happens after that lol

Edited by iceslick

@risingbean: Oh ok, I guess I misunderstood what he was saying. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sort of getting tried of topic being brought up over and over though. People need to learn to let it go. I just don't like how people hold "superheroes or Superman" like a God and he isn't allowed to make the same mistakes we do. I also kind of find it hard to believe that a superhero fighting crime every single day and never getting to a situation where they have to kill. I do believe superheroes shouldn't kill but only kill when it absolutely necessary. I really don't understand why people think killing someone means you can never learn from it and become a better person. If soldiers, police officers or anyone who has fall into that line can feel this way, why not Superman?

Posted by Grimoire

If you want to keep the comic book ideologies you have to put the hamster (Superman or any other hero that shares the ideology) on a treadmill for the rest of his life or the the life of his enemy. (Zod, Luthor, etc...)

No detours just keep going down the same unending and identical route because we want a hero that's the same but different all the time. It never matters how many hundreds, thousands, millions of faceless lives in the meantime are sacrificed because one so called cool enemy is worth all that hassle.

Posted by Ashr

@g_man: It would have been priceless hearing a debate between you and Goyer on this subject.

Edited by Lvenger

@deranged_midget said:

@lvenger: Watch the terminology there mate.

Wait what? I've been perfectly civil in this thread. Which bit of my perfectly fine terminology isn't OK? I'm legitimately confused.

EDIT: Wait I've guessed it, is it the Super D word? Let me go edit that now so I don't seem like one myself in the original message.

Posted by War Killer

Instead of snapping Zod's neck, what else could Superman have done?

Edited by Lvenger

@war_killer said:

Instead of snapping Zod's neck, what else could Superman have done?

Covered Zod's eyes, flown him away from the family, thrown him away from the area, turn him elsewhere etc. I can think of loads of ways for Superman to have stopped Zod without killing him. For Superman, there should always be another way. Inexperienced or not, it doesn't change his moral compass.

Posted by Omega-Man

The thing many are not getting is, Superman isn't perfect, many people hate Superman because he seemed so perfect. That nothing can go wrong. Superman may have incredible powers but he's still only a man. I don't condone killing, but remember Zod is a monster and there is only one way to deal with monsters. Even modern Superman views this often, there are monsters you just can't stop or cage. When you don't have plot devices like the Phantom zone and no way of capturing these people what are you to do? I can say to everyone here staff included if you had no way of stopping a monster no way of caging it as nothing could hold it, what choice would you have?

I'm a massive Superman fan, I've been a fan of Superman before I could even walk or talk. And I agree with this ending. People who say he could have found another way? tell me what could he have done? Because Superman had no options and no way to capture Zod.

Edited by Captain13

The difference between what you're saying (writers don't have to follow the moral code) and what Goyer is saying: Goyer wrote a movie where, if you look at it, Superman/Clark is really devoid of any kind of moral compass from very early on.

We see him steal clothing (note: as a screenwriter, you can easily pop into that scene: "Clark reaches into his pocket, takes out two soggy 20s, leaves them in place of the clothing." But Goyer didn't.) from a family which is clearly poor, and we see him destroy a man's livelihood b/c he poured beer over his head.

Hate those scenes or like those scenes, they point to a consistent personality type.

So, with that said, much like Reeve's Superman "turning back the world" (which fans hated), it was setup throughout the film that this was coming. In S:TM we constantly hear the refrain, "You cannot change the course of human history" not b/c he CAN'T but b/c he is NOT PERMITTED TO. In MoS, Supes continues to make poor decisions throughout the film -- until the crescendo: the murder.

Personally, I thought the film was terrible in every aspect -- from inane dialogue to poor storytelling and bad editing to uneven characterizations (such as they were), and not even one plot point stands up to any kind of scrutiny.

"You’ll give the people an ideal to strive towards.

They will race behind you.

They will stumble, they will fall.

But in time, they will join you in the sun.

In time you will help them accomplish wonders."

So it sets up that Superman is going to show us a better way - then it ends with the same ending everything sci-fi film of the last couple of years has happened - with mass destruction and the Hero breaking someone's neck. The two together are just jarring to me - that's his better way? Mass destruction and using a finishing move out of a Jason Statham movie?

Edited by War Killer

@lvenger said:

@war_killer said:

Instead of snapping Zod's neck, what else could Superman have done?

Covered Zod's eyes, flown him away from the family, thrown him away from the area, turn him elsewhere etc. I can think of loads of ways for Superman to have stopped Zod without killing him. For Superman, there should always be another way. Inexperienced or not, it doesn't change his moral compass.

How does covering Zod's eyes stop him? Yeah, it stops him from killing that family, but what's stopping Zod from killing another group of innocent bystanders? Sure, he could fly Zod into space, but again, what's stopping Zod from just flying right back to Earth. You say there are "loads" of ways Superman could have stopped him without killing him, but you have yet to give me one.

Covering Zod's eyes or flying him into space does not stop Zod, it simply slows him down. Even if Superman could overpower Zod and defeat him, where is Superman going to put Zod? There aren't any prisons that can hold him, and even if there were what's stopping Zod from breaking out and starting the whole thing all over again?

Sometimes, even for the greatest superhero in the world like Superman, there just isn't another way.

Posted by Captain13

There was a lot more wrong with the movie than just this scene like the passive aggressive Superman scene, the makeout scene Clark and Lois had over dead bodies even though they just met, the forced/hammy flying montage, Clark's ability to infiltrate any organization with no questions Batman-style, Papa Kent's unbelievable death scene, Papa Kent period, jarring tonal shifts, uneven pacing, and a total lack of heart. Oh, and really forced Jesus imagery that made no sense given the ending of the film and what the writers have said about it.

Posted by War Killer

@samuel_simmons said:

The ending was so forced, why didn't he just cover zod's eyes with his hand? Feel like supes would definitely make that sacrifice. And he's not able to fly to the moon? that's bull. They could've flown to space, get too close to the sun or something and get caught in its gravitational pull, supes tries to save zod, and then zod doesn't let him or something. Or zod goes back to the phantom zone with everyone else somehow. The point is he didn't like having to follow the no kill rule and made a seen where he did just to say " I can do whatever I want "

Not really. Covering his face would've probably done more harm than good. For one, Clark's concentrated blasts knocked away and damaged Nam-Ek and Faora. Zod displayed no such restraint and his heat vision was far more destructive.

Secondly, they both gain their powers from the sun. Flying towards it would only push Zod's gain rather than aid Clark's attempts if we take the origins of their powers in perspective.

The entire point of leaving Zod behind was to put Clark in a position he's never been put in before and despite having all the power he possibly needs, he's ironically powerless to do anything to stop Zod who was both stronger and far better trained than himself. That was the purpose of the ending, not to show off a darker, grittier version of Superman despite what people pointlessly argue against.

Exactly.

Posted by Lvenger

How does covering Zod's eyes stop him? Yeah, it stops him from killing that family, but what's stopping Zod from killing another group of innocent bystanders? Sure, he could fly Zod into space, but again, what's stopping Zod from just flying right back to Earth. You say there are "loads" of ways Superman could have stopped him without killing him, but you have yet to give me one.

Covering Zod's eyes or flying him into space does not stop Zod, it simply slows him down. Even if Superman could overpower Zod and defeat him, where is Superman going to put Zod? There aren't any prisons that can hold him, and even if there were what's stopping Zod from breaking out and starting the whole thing all over again?

Sometimes, even for the greatest superhero in the world like Superman, there just isn't another way.

  • Flying him into a remote area where he can fight all out and not hurt innocent bystanders
  • Keeping the fight mainly in the air so buildings and bystanders aren't hurt
  • Putting him in one of the cryogenic pods that were still on the old Kryptonian ship after subduing Zod

Do you want more? Because I can do this all day. This is one area I feel very, very strongly on as for me, Superman does not kill. Period. Sorry but you're not going to convince me otherwise as for me, it's a prerequisite of the character and speaks a great deal of his moral code. Superman's morality has been an example for me all my life and when Zod's neck was broken, that really stung a great deal. Search the net if you want more alternate suggestions or something like that but trust me when I say there are more ways Superman could have stopped Zod without killing him. There were prisons to keep him in and ways to stop him without endangering lives. In the words of All Star Superman, written by someone who actually gets Superman properly unlike Goyer's dark, morally relativistic questionable Superman

Edited by ccraft

@deranged_midget said:

@samuel_simmons said:

The ending was so forced, why didn't he just cover zod's eyes with his hand? Feel like supes would definitely make that sacrifice. And he's not able to fly to the moon? that's bull. They could've flown to space, get too close to the sun or something and get caught in its gravitational pull, supes tries to save zod, and then zod doesn't let him or something. Or zod goes back to the phantom zone with everyone else somehow. The point is he didn't like having to follow the no kill rule and made a seen where he did just to say " I can do whatever I want "

Not really. Covering his face would've probably done more harm than good. For one, Clark's concentrated blasts knocked away and damaged Nam-Ek and Faora. Zod displayed no such restraint and his heat vision was far more destructive.

Secondly, they both gain their powers from the sun. Flying towards it would only push Zod's gain rather than aid Clark's attempts if we take the origins of their powers in perspective.

The entire point of leaving Zod behind was to put Clark in a position he's never been put in before and despite having all the power he possibly needs, he's ironically powerless to do anything to stop Zod who was both stronger and far better trained than himself. That was the purpose of the ending, not to show off a darker, grittier version of Superman despite what people pointlessly argue against.

Your reasoning is awesome!

Edited by teddy_the_god_killer

Thank god it's done. No coming back. Dead is dead. Saves popping up again and again and again.

Edited by HexThis

He should've snapped Zod's neck earlier, 30,000 people probably died in that absolutely ridiculous and indulgent fight scene. Zod is fully capable of flying but he sees Superman up in the air at one point and says to himself "You know what? I'm going to just smash every level of this skyscraper as I climb up it because I'm in no rush to murder my arch nemesis".

Posted by Mr. Kamikaze

The idea that Superman never kills is...a bit naive, really. The dude had to make a choice. It was either stop Zod in that moment or let those innocent people die. Clark was not a very experienced hero at this point, he was not "Superman", he probably didn't even know the full limits of his strength and...what if he managed to stop Zod from killing that family, what then? Throw him in prison? What exactly would be able to hold him? No one on that planet, other than his parents, even knew someone like Clark existed, making it reasonable to assume there have been no defenses or offenses created to actually stop a Kryptonian, so Zod was going to run rampant until one of them was dead.

The one part of the movie that did bug me was how careless and reckless Superman was when fighting Zod. Literally leveling the city in the process. But, I suppose, his inexperience plays a factor there too. He's never had to face someone as strong as him (or even 3 people as strong as him) before.

Frankly, I'm glad the movie ended the way it did. Made him appear so much more human and relateable, rather than being stuck in an outdated, idealistic trope that really doesn't make sense given the situation.

Edited by gor724

@lvenger said:

@war_killer said:

How does covering Zod's eyes stop him? Yeah, it stops him from killing that family, but what's stopping Zod from killing another group of innocent bystanders? Sure, he could fly Zod into space, but again, what's stopping Zod from just flying right back to Earth. You say there are "loads" of ways Superman could have stopped him without killing him, but you have yet to give me one.

Covering Zod's eyes or flying him into space does not stop Zod, it simply slows him down. Even if Superman could overpower Zod and defeat him, where is Superman going to put Zod? There aren't any prisons that can hold him, and even if there were what's stopping Zod from breaking out and starting the whole thing all over again?

Sometimes, even for the greatest superhero in the world like Superman, there just isn't another way.

  • Flying him into a remote area where he can fight all out and not hurt innocent bystanders
  • Keeping the fight mainly in the air so buildings and bystanders aren't hurt
  • Putting him in one of the cryogenic pods that were still on the old Kryptonian ship after subduing Zod

Do you want more? Because I can do this all day. This is one area I feel very, very strongly on as for me, Superman does not kill. Period. Sorry but you're not going to convince me otherwise as for me, it's a prerequisite of the character and speaks a great deal of his moral code. Superman's morality has been an example for me all my life and when Zod's neck was broken, that really stung a great deal. Search the net if you want more alternate suggestions or something like that but trust me when I say there are more ways Superman could have stopped Zod without killing him. There were prisons to keep him in and ways to stop him without endangering lives. In the words of All Star Superman, written by someone who actually gets Superman properly unlike Goyer's dark, morally relativistic questionable Superman

Yes but this Superman has been Superman for 2 f*cking days!!! He is going into a battle with no experience, he just learned how to fly, and his morals aren't set yet. And he didn't just break Zods neck and brush his shoulders off, no, he didn't want to do it, but he had to. It was smart anyway, because now he has a reason to not kill, not just having a stupid rule for no reason whatsoever.

Edited by sasquatch888

get over it ,,,times have changed superman kills now in extreme situations ..in the movies and comics ...just like he killed zod in the original superman 2 ...just like he killed zod in the pre 52 continuity ....just like he killed zod in man of steel ...do you see a pattern SUPERMAN KILLS ZOD ...what did you think Zod would come back for the sequel? ... FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SAY SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL ..YOU'RE WRONG ... look at the history superman is willing to kill if he has too ...look at this very blog several members have posted actual comic scenes where supes is killing the proof is in those panels ...its non debatable .. and you are still delusional wtf ??? what are you reading ?,....the fans dont decide if supes kills the writers do ...donner decided supes would kill ZOD in superman 2 ...john byrne decided supes would kill in the late 80's comic book when he killed zod and goyer decided he'd kill ZOD in the movie man of steel ..they wrote the comics and movies with supes killing the fans didnt ...stop crying about it ...youre wrong supes kills !!! ....ITS TRUE SUPES KILLS

Posted by Lvenger

@gor724: I disagree heavily about his morals being set. Superman is supposed to be raised and ingrained with a strong moral compass and it's here where the film fails massively. We don't see him act as the man he should do when he does things any Superman writer worth their salt would cast aside.

Posted by TheIncredibleSuperHulk8642

@lvenger said:

Damn it Goyer, why'd you have to raise this topic back from the grave? No matter how you justify it, Superman never takes a life under any circumstances. You betray that and you betray his very morality and the ethical compass that makes him human. If Goyer thought Superman needed that for Superman to have his no kill rule, that betrays a lack of understanding behind Superman's character.

QFT, The only time I ever felt Superman killing someone justifiable was in Death of Superman

Posted by Saint_Wildcard

Posted by sasquatch888

@hexthis said:

He should've snapped Zod's neck earlier, 30,000 people probably died in that absolutely ridiculous and indulgent fight scene. Zod is fully capable of flying but he sees Superman up in the air at one point and says to himself "You know what? I'm going to just smash every level of this skyscraper as I climb up it because I'm in no rush to murder my arch nemesis".

good argument ...if youre willing to kill ...why wait till the city was destroyed ? He should've snapped Zod's neck earlier

Edited by DRUDOX19

Ah god seriously? This is getting kinda silly at this point ,the idea of Superman not being able to kill is in my opinion a very retarded notion of the character matter a fact i think its rather genius that they used the first superhero to really see if killing with superheros really is OK. That is a very valid critic of Superman because Batman and Superman in some cases are willing to let many die just because of there own self righteousness. Now is that a great message for kids either, cause your basically saying superman must let villains that are genocidal maniacs live. I will keep saying it over and over again, if this was Darksied or Brainaic we would not be having this discussion.

I mean lets be honest here ladies and gentlemen, if this was a villain that didn't look human then this would not be a problem superman has killed off and let Brainaic die millions of times in the comics. Darksied superman is willing to kill him with no hesitation, so no I will not take that from the community cause i think it is very hypocritical. Sorry to say but Superman's no kill policy IS NEVER EXPLAINED AT ALL IN THE COMICS!!!!! It came out of left field because a DC editor said "oh are hero's should not kill" ( even though he allowed superman to kill Nazi and Imperial troops -_- hypocrisy MUCH!!!!) to me I fine very absurd. Batman is different because yes his villains can be put away in prison ( Joker thing is a whole another issue) Superman has enemies that are literally willing to live massive body counts to achieve their said goals. To me that is a even worst message to children cause your saying yep superman should let a genocidal nutcase live because remember kids you must hold your principles even though thousands upon thousands will be dead because of your sense of self righteousness and OH YEAH EGO!!!!!

I am not buying into this CRAP!!!!! If superman loves humanity so much why would he let a genocidal super-powered nutcase live or spare his life knowing that said person will return and commit genocide. Also shut up with the Superman must move the fight , Darkseid isn't going to move for crap nor Brainaic will. Has if people wanted superman to be the Christian God of the Bible out of freaking nowhere. Also the one who said the version superman kills was bad writing, so the entire GA version of superman was bad writing when Siegel was writing the stories OK. You do know the reason people hate Superman is because we have been brainwashed into thinking the Superman of the McCarthy era is Superman and many people think superman being a boy-scout is the product of that era, that is BULL!!!

Edited by ghost_runner

Goyer, you say you put superman in a situation in which it you say there was no way for superman to stop Zod without killing him
Here's my response
That's what Superman does, he fights the impossible!

Posted by Outside_85

@lvenger said:

  • Flying him into a remote area where he can fight all out and not hurt innocent bystanders
  • Keeping the fight mainly in the air so buildings and bystanders aren't hurt
  • Putting him in one of the cryogenic pods that were still on the old Kryptonian ship after subduing Zod

  • Same problem as with taking him into space: Zod will just head back
  • Only works on people that cant fly like Doomsday, plus you have things like physics to consider
  • Just the small problem of actually subduing the born soldier by a guy with no combat skills and if I am not mistaken, that ship crashed and he has no idea how the pods actually work.
Edited by Lvenger

@lvenger said:

  • Flying him into a remote area where he can fight all out and not hurt innocent bystanders
  • Keeping the fight mainly in the air so buildings and bystanders aren't hurt
  • Putting him in one of the cryogenic pods that were still on the old Kryptonian ship after subduing Zod

  • Same problem as with taking him into space: Zod will just head back
  • Only works on people that cant fly like Doomsday, plus you have things like physics to consider
  • Just the small problem of actually subduing the born soldier by a guy with no combat skills and if I am not mistaken, that ship crashed and he has no idea how the pods actually work.
  • Not if Superman actually went all out and used his greater experience with his powers to put Zod down.
  • This was in relation to the Zod fight, not generally.
  • If Zod is blitzed to the ship at the speed Clark has been flying at then a surprise attack should work. As for the pod, Jor-El's conscience could tell him how it worked. Boom, done and dusted.
Posted by maurdakar

The reason the moment was bad was because A) We never had scenes of Superman saving people, and exalting how important life is to protect and B) It wasn't really played up that Superman HAS a thing against killing. There's no excuse for this, it's bad writing, and wholly separate from the 'should superman kill' debate. That said the whole movie didn't feel like Superman, holy crap, dark and gloomy.

Edited by bunkerbuster05

I get it. I understand why he did it.

But for me, just for me (and clearly a ton of other Superman fans?) I didn't like it.

He isn't Superman yet, but I just CAN'T ignore all the damage he did to Metropolis. Regardless of the reasons, I can't take it. Yes, it sets up a sequel with Luthor and Bruce Wayne excellently, but it wasn't worth the cost.

It's not for me to decide how the Superman movie universe is developed, I just wish it was done differently. Other than the ending, I greatly enjoyed it. Despite it being joyless and colorless.

Edited by War Killer

@lvenger said:

  • Flying him into a remote area where he can fight all out and not hurt innocent bystanders
  • Keeping the fight mainly in the air so buildings and bystanders aren't hurt
  • Putting him in one of the cryogenic pods that were still on the old Kryptonian ship after subduing Zod

  • You say that as if Zod is just going to stay in this remote area, but again that still doesn't stop Zod, this just stalls him.
  • Yet again, you're assuming Zod is just going to stay in the air, but this still doesn't stop Zod either.
  • How do you know those pods could hold Zod? Those weren't prisons, they were long term beds. Not to mention that Superman still has to defeat Zod and place him in one, and then your assuming that Zod won't wake up and just break out again. So again, there's not evidence that this would stop Zod.
@lvenger said:

Do you want more? Because I can do this all day. This is one area I feel very, very strongly on as for me, Superman does not kill. Period. Sorry but you're not going to convince me otherwise as for me, it's a prerequisite of the character and speaks a great deal of his moral code. Superman's morality has been an example for me all my life and when Zod's neck was broken, that really stung a great deal. Search the net if you want more alternate suggestions or something like that but trust me when I say there are more ways Superman could have stopped Zod without killing him. There were prisons to keep him in and ways to stop him without endangering lives. In the words of All Star Superman, written by someone who actually gets Superman properly unlike Goyer's dark, morally relativistic questionable Superman

I get that I'm never going to change your mind, as your too high up on your moral stool to understand, but killing someone for the greater good doesn't make one any less of a hero. Soldiers who fight for their country or police officers who live to serve and protect are, at times, forced to kill those who endanger others, yet they are still considered heroes. A hero is someone who's willing to do everything they must to protect those around them, even if it means the taking of another life. This doesn't make Superman any less of a hero, it simply makes him a hero who was willing to do everything he could to protect the world he loved. That's a true hero.

But again, I get I'm not going to change your mind, but even though Superman killed, like you I still believe Superman is one of, if not the greatest superhero of all time. Him killing Zod doesn't change that for me, but simply shows me that he was willing to do everything he had to do to save those around him. To me, that's what makes Superman a hero.

I don't want to argue with you, I just wanted to point that Man of Steel didn't make Superman any less of a hero. He's still the hero little kids look up to and at the end of the day, that should be good enough.

Posted by Marionettegeist

@lvenger said:

Flying him into a remote area where he can fight all out and not hurt innocent bystanders

And then Zod will fly right back, because he WANTS to kill innocent bystanders.

Keeping the fight mainly in the air so buildings and bystanders aren't hurt

Zod's a trained warrior, growing more accustom to his powers by the minute. Superman's an untrained farm-boy who's never even been in a fight before. It's not like Superman's really in control here he could barley even hold Zod down in the end, besides what's he going to do after this? Just keep fighting Zod forever?

Putting him in one of the cryogenic pods that were still on the old Kryptonian ship after subduing Zod

This parts foggy to me, so I may be wrong. But wasn't that ship destroyed and/or sent into the phantom zone?

Posted by Outside_85

@lvenger said:

  • Not if Superman actually went all out and used his greater experience with his powers to put Zod down.
  • This was in relation to the Zod fight, not generally.
  • If Zod is blitzed to the ship at the speed Clark has been flying at then a surprise attack should work. As for the pod, Jor-El's conscience could tell him how it worked. Boom, done and dusted.
  • His 'greater experience' is measured in days, at best is makes him Zod's equal.
  • Still doesn't work
  • Jor-El was deleted before the fight and if Clark blitzes Zod to the ship... well remember when Neo went super sonic in Matrix Reloaded? Thats going happen here. Plus he had to hold on to Zod for the duration.
Posted by sasquatch888

The "Superman doesn't kill" rule is total bullshit. There's been a number of times which he has, reluctantly had to make that choice. It doesn't diminish his ability to be a hero, it goes with the territory of being the world's protector.

well said ....and its not up for debate ...its not negotiable superman kills anyone who says different is wrong ....please debate the panels below where superman committed pre meditated murder

Edited by Deranged Midget

@lvenger said:

@outside_85 said:

@lvenger said:

  • Flying him into a remote area where he can fight all out and not hurt innocent bystanders
  • Keeping the fight mainly in the air so buildings and bystanders aren't hurt
  • Putting him in one of the cryogenic pods that were still on the old Kryptonian ship after subduing Zod

  • Same problem as with taking him into space: Zod will just head back
  • Only works on people that cant fly like Doomsday, plus you have things like physics to consider
  • Just the small problem of actually subduing the born soldier by a guy with no combat skills and if I am not mistaken, that ship crashed and he has no idea how the pods actually work.
  • Not if Superman actually went all out and used his greater experience with his powers to put Zod down.
  • This was in relation to the Zod fight, not generally.
  • If Zod is blitzed to the ship at the speed Clark has been flying at then a surprise attack should work. As for the pod, Jor-El's conscience could tell him how it worked. Boom, done and dusted.

What greater experience? He had full control of his powers for what, a day? How is Clark supposed to blitz a stronger and far more skilled combatant? He tried to do that with Faora and Nam-Ek, who ironically both lacked flight and heat vision and he still barely got out alive if it weren't for the interference of the army. Additionally, Clark destroyed the ship himself and forced it to crash. That option is completely out of the question.

Moderator
Edited by ghost_runner

I've got it! I know how to fix the ending that satisfies both sides!

Superman covers zods eyes, with his hands, sure it hurts but superman can take it.
Zod doesn't let up with his heat vision.
Superman screems at Zod to stop, but he just keeps pouring his heat vision out.
There's a bright flash.
we see superman stranding there in confusion, Zod's on the ground, dead, his head burned to a crisp.
It was is own heat vision and stubbornness that killed him.

This could have been a great ambiguous ending.

Posted by frogdog

If The Avengers can get away with a prison cell that can hold Loki and Thor (possibly) long enough to kill them then Man of Steel could have done the same thing.

Man of Steel earth doesn't have S.H.I.E.L.D

Posted by DRUDOX19

@seathdroke: Superman needs a Tyler Durden in his life to help him deal with how reality really works, Darkseid to me should be that Tyler Durden if you know what i mean.

Posted by Azjenco

The argument I really hate is: "They wrote themselves into a corner"... What a stupid retort. No, it's how it was written, there are no corners in this case.

They were cut off from the Phantom Zone, end of story. Sure you could say, "but they could have written it differently". Hell yeah they could, but now wouldn't that be convenient. Not everything in fiction or life always works out, it isn't always cookies and sunshine. That's what makes it interesting.

Yeah, they could have written it in a way where the Phantom Zone was open and they locked him away, all smiles and Supes give us the thumbs up. But things didn't conveniently work out, now did it? Heroes are molded in difficult situations, that's what makes them interesting. Superman had to choose between the people of his adopted planet and practically the last Kryptonian he'll ever see again.

A person could stand back in a situation like that, take the easy road and stay indifferent with the delusional notion that he'll save both sides by keeping a military trained general subdued for the rest of his life. But a true hero would go so far as to condemn himself, sully his hands by making the hard choices so that others don't have to make them.

Edited by CrazyScarecrow

Edited by bunkerbuster05

Hey everyone! Remember Christoper Reeve's Superman? Wasn't he the true Superman? Didn't he give such a great portrayal (for at leas the first two movies) of who Superman is?

Yup! Damn you Snyder, Goyer, and Nolan for making Superman kill in Man of Steel. And what more show remorse? The only reason I bring this up because I have seen countless of times on the internet making Reeve's movies look anything, but flawed (mainly from critics).

I have no problem with Superman killing. General Zod was going to KILL those innocent people if Superman hadn't. Would you have rather seen a couple more hours of the movie with nothing, but Zod and Superman fighting and have even more innocent lives taken? Anyway Superman has killed on occasions. One of the victims was even Zod. And from what it looks like Superman will be the moral compass of the DCCU. They are making him killing Zod part of Superman's backstory of something that haunts him and have a higher standard.

Oh my god, just rewatching that scene made me fall in love with those movies all over again.

They got EVERYTHING so right, it's insane. There will never be a better Superman on the big screen, or on any screen for that matter.

This is my favorite moment.

Great, now I have to watch the whole thing again.

Posted by SandMan_

Huh, since when did so many people cared about Supes? Its nice to see some people still care about him. :) Anyway, he had no choice, he saw an opening and he took it. Get over it. Now, don't have him killed again....this has been a very controversial year for Superman.

Edited by Samuel_Simmons

@w0nd said: wrote themselves into a corner

This, just this. They shouldn't have done that.

Posted by Samuel_Simmons

@g_man everything you said. completely agree.

Posted by toptom

What does he mean Superman can't fly to the moon? Why not?

this.....what the frick?