http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/06/17/man-of-steel-christopher-nolan-opposed-the-ending-dc-comics-advised-on-it/

Huh. I actually really like this bit by Snyder:

He said that after Zod’s purpose was taken from him, he was nothing but a killing machine, and there was really no putting him in jail and walking away. He compared Zod’s actions to “suicide by cop,” tying it back to the repeated use of “a good death is its own reward” in the movie. The warrior bred, Snyder said, felt that if Kal-El was capable of killing him, then that was an honorable way to go after having failed his people.

He also said that in potential sequels, Superman having killed Zod will keep the audience from becoming complacent and thinking they know Superman’s limitations.

“I think that when you really put in stone the notion that he won’t kill, it erases an option in the viewer’s mind,” Snyder said. “That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t now have a code that ‘I just won’t do that; I have to find another way.’”

I really dont get why it upset so many people. If it happened throughout the series, in future sequels or whatever, then I could understand the frustration. But this is an origin story. Its the process of Clark becoming the Superman we know. If he went from being a civilian to being Supes with all the typical characteristics we know him for, that'd be a boring movie. In my opinion, his actions in MoS justify the origins of Superman's traits better than "Just because he's Superman"

Damn it Nolan, you should have tried harder.

@redlantern23: "I need to kill so I know I should not kill" is the most flawed logic I have ever seen.

@jonny_anonymous: Clearly its less black and white than that, and I know you know that. I feel silly saying this about a comic book character, but lets be realistic. Superman wasn't simply chasing a purse snatcher and decided "Hey, I should kill him!" He was fighting a highly trained militant alien in his second or third fight EVER. And this person was about to kill an innocent family in cold blood. So faced with a tough decision, he made a choice a lot of humans would make. Which is what his moral code and personality up to this point is - flawed and human. But after experiencing what it is like to kill someone, it is believable to think that he should do whatever is in his power to avoid doing it again. So while "i need to kill so i know i should not kill" is certainly flawed i think "In the heat of the moment, i just killed this person to save the life of this innocent family. I never want to feel this horrible feeling ever again" is completely understandable.

Son of a bitch

@redlantern23: There is sevral ways that this could have ended with the pepole saved and Zod not having to be killed, this isn't about Superman having no choice, he clearly did, this is more to do with the film makers wanting this ending.

Well said.

I think that by that point in time, after the mass destruction of the city, Superman realized that he couldn't let more lives be lost. Seeing innocents nearly being killed right in front of his eyes, he probably realized that trying to gain the edge on Zod (a trained killer and soldier) was futile, and that prolonging the fight would only lead to more deaths. It was a split-second decision, and one made of grief and desperation.

Yeah, a big part of it is that Goyer/Snyder wanted a fitting end to the battle, but that's the way I see it within the film's context, at least.

@jonny_anonymous: That statement makes no sense and is kind of redundant. So you're saying the ending happened...because the writers wrote it that way? Obviously.

What I'm saying is, the ending makes sense from a rational point of view. If you're looking at Superman as a character in a film, with human feelings and thrown into a situation he has never dealt with before (being a superhero) with powers he is unfamiliar with, and has the burden of making a split second decision (Zod) it is completely reasonable. But because it doesnt follow the Superman encyclopedia, Its wrong. The only opinion I've seen naysayers come up with about the topic is simply "He doesnt do that"

They dont explain why, or what reason he has for those feelings. My opinion is a young Superman is not a perfect, infallible robot immune from making mistakes. I'd rather watch the character grow and see how his opinions and beliefs form than him be this boring static character.

You mean the same guy that had Batman let Ra's die?

Totally different situation/character, but nice try.

The same guy that had Bruce fire Alfred, the only family member he had left. And for some reason he's the guy that's getting all the praise for this film.