1 - superman killing zod was the inevitable consequence of that situation. Alternative solutions wold have been possible only with the introduction of some horrendous deus-ex-machina. Deus-ex-machina = bad bad plot = crappy movie.

2 - Moral perfection doesn't mean you will never face a situation whose solution is without grey consequences. Then what will you do? Mantain your credo and fail (causing countless deaths) or act and suffer the moral consequences?

MoS may not be perfect (still one of the best CBM, imho), but this kind of complaints is pure nonsense.

1. If a bad movie involves Superman comprimising his morals for the plot, then I'd hate to see what a good movie is to you. There are plenty of theories I and others have suggested for dealing with Zod.
2. Obviously but there were other ways for Superman to deal with Zod without causing countless death and killing him. If you want to talk countless death, try looking at their fight which wrecked loads of buildings and according to some calculations run by a scientists, would have killed thousands of people
3. You know what, I've really had it up to here with people like you saying my complaints are nonsense. It's you who are spouting nonsense with this nonsesical attitude to this position. Superman does not kill. It's an integral part of his character's ethical compass. I'm sick to the back teeth of those trying to justify something that is wholly out of character for Superman to do. If actually knowing the character's history and how he would act is nonsense, then I guess I'll gladly accept that over novice's who watch this film like you and think they know how Superman ticks. Gimme a break on that one.

I'm surprised you haven't thought of taking Zod somewhere away from populated areas so you could go all out there. As for the headlock, he could have covered Zod's eyes, turned him away from the family, flown up into the air or thrown him away. Bam, 4 alternatives right there. And you fail to see that the human side to Superman IS HIS MORALS. It's not just his emotional side, it's his unwavering dedication to the right thing and carrying that out. If that's righteous to you, then so be it. Spider-Man's the character who makes mistakes and learns from them. Superman is not that character.

To be human is to make mistakes. Yes, Superman is supposed to be the example to which humans can aspire in the DCU, but don't forget that he too is essentially human (not genetically, but having lived among them from birth), and he too can and should learn from his own mistakes. He is not perfect and has never been written that way.

Not saying I agree with the death scene, but just wanted to point that out. Thanks for your review. :)

It's a fair point. I was trying to say it's more Spider-Man's thing than Superman's

Have you ever done tae kwon do, jujitsu or judo? I have and let me tell you, it's bloody difficult to maneuver an opponent that's pretty much matched to you when you're both struggling against each other. You pretty much enter a deadlock. So there go your alternatives out the window. And if Zod was containing Superman within the city it would've been very difficult to get him away from the populated areas. I agree with Hawk80 about the moral situation. And having impeccable morals is NOT HUMAN, having flawed morals or being flawed is. Humans make mistakes and every human goes down some sort of 'journey' that defines and polishes his/her morals. Also I get that you're arguing from the point of a die-hard Superman fan who likes Superman because of his firm morals and doing the right thing but Man of Steel is a different interpretation. I don't think people should be picking on your comments and calling them nonsense because they are valid arguments and this Superman IS out of character to you. From the MoS fans' point of view though, this Superman is a different version so his outlook and morals are going to be slightly different and we're quite happy with that. I do understand why you see it as a betrayal of the character though. I think we should agree to disagree on this topic.

@marzipan007: Yeah I agree. I've argued to the back teeth with this so many times with respectable people on the opposite side like you and some less so respectable so I'm fine letting this rest.

Well I do feel sorry for you with all the stick you're getting. Glad that's not me :P anyway glad we agree on something ;)

I can respect the fact that you don't like this interpretation of superman, but I think you sould not try to apply comicbook plot logic to movies. Even CBM.

And MoS superman is a great superman, even if he's not your superman.

[ by the way I've read DC (and some Marvel) for 10 years and more. Done some Tae Kwon Do, too]

@lvenger: You know, I'm a little curious, what score would you've given this movie if Superman had not killed Zod? (Let's say they give him an option that doesn't feel like an ass-pull but the rest of the movie is exactly the same).

@smashbrawler: Honestly, there's enough wrong with Man of Steel from my view to keep it at a 7. Superman killing Zod pushed it into me almost giving it a 6. I could still give it a decent 7 or maybe 7.35 :P

@lvenger: Oh well. You planning on seeing it again sometime? Even though I originally really liked the film watching it a second time made me like it even more since the pacing was a little less jarring.

@smashbrawler: I do intend to watch it again, yes. A second watch of a film opens up new interpretations and stuff you weren't aware of before.

@lvenger: I always watch movies I liked twice to see if they hold up (and sometimes with movies I didn't like, although that's much more rare). That's the reason I initially liked The Sixth Sense but now I don't because the twist makes no sense.

thIs revIew sux Imo.

So any review with comprehensive points on the strengths and weaknesses of the Man of Steel reaching a balanced conclusion sucks? Good reviews must be hard to come by for your narrow mind.

@lvenger: You made alot of good points.I enjoyed reading this post.

I do aggree that Lois knowing of Clark results in a big gap in the development of their relationship (kiss could've waited till the next installment too) , him being nonchalant about giving away his identity to several people, the lack in Superman's true character or personality, and the end feeling shallow and not well rounded due to overdue action. I also half agree (explain later on) that Clark feels distant and cold. I did like the action though (Even though i feel Kal-El woudlve led his enemies into a less densely populated area) i thought they were brilliant and breathtaking, i do think Cavill is the one who is best suited to where the cape yet and is quite talented. I was also in aww at the redesigned supersuit, it looked spectacular in every scene.

I do, however, slightly disagree with some of your statements. I do have to firstly say I mostly like the darker approach to superman. I think its unique perspective that might've prevented another cardboard superman (Brandon Routh anyone?). He's only human (no humor intended) in spirit, he isn't perfect. It could've made him more relateable or led to better character development (him breaking Zod's neck and his reaction) , but the end never justified the means as Goyer or Snyder didn't utilize this opportunity (leaving Kal seem cold). Being indecisive: He's not a off the bat superhero, he's just a rookie (id like to think), making decisions in crisis mode is a new challenge to him. He only recently stopped following his fathers advice of not exposing his abilities do to save others. I do expect better decision making skills in future sequels. I did perceive moderate warmth for him as a sense of gratefulness and security dawns as he arrives to defend the humans.

I DO hope that sequels that follow do enlist his quirkier side, a more accurate relationship with Lois and more Superman Traits. I'll give it 7.5. Good thorough review.

Sorry for writing a small Review, looking forward o your reply.

First off thanks for the comment and praise of my review. It's much appreciated. Your mini review makes for an interesting read too.

The darker approach as a character isn't what Superman is about. As I mention, Superman is about moral certainty, not moral ambiguity and the constant doubting and second guessing himself wasn't played up correctly in the film. I agree that his humanity is what makes the character tick but breaking Zod's neck and Superman seeming distant and cold doesn't suit the tone of the character who is far more about optimism and inspiration which are things we can relate to about Superman.

This is an argument I've had to face a fair few times. Yes I know he's a rookie here and I don't want him knowing exactly how to deal with the crisis but still things like keeping the fight in the city and keeping Zod in a headlock in a populated train station are things even a rookie Superman wouldn't do as they endanger the lives of innocent people and he should be protecting them no matter what stage of his career he's at.

I do too and the relationship with Lois and Superman does need to be reworked thoroughly for it to seem more palatable.

@lvenger: my pleasure.I;d also like to add that i liked that they added what became my favourite part of the movie:

@cyrus_omerta: Yeah that was pretty symbolic.

Yeah i'm a couple of months late here but I think some people have waaaaaay overestimated the ammount of input into and control over this film that Nolan had. There was an early interview where he said that after he had signed off on the mai creative forces, the writer and director, that was pretty much it for his involvement and he would basically be buying a ticket and seeing the film like everybody else.

Basically Nolan never seemed interested in making Man of Steel - he was only involved because, after TDK and Inception, WB all but begged him to be. This was a Goyer/Snyder film.

@fifthchild: There's still the distinctive Nolan approach to the film along with the aesthetic and the tone. But interesting to see what you've posted about Nolan. They've brought him back for the Superman/Batman film.

@lvenger: Where did you hear they brought Nolan back?

@muyjingo: Sorry, my mistake. Just read an article that says the Nolan Brothers aren't involved in the Batman/Superman film.

I agree with this review. In theaters, when Superman was crying because he failed to save the family, I thought: "Just how many families did he kill when he wrecked every odd building in Metropolis?" I also thought that although Henry Cavill did a good job as Superman, he just didn't LOOK like Superman.

@logy5000:

Actually, that family survived. Superman cried because he killed Zod.

Don't agree with this.

A) The scream was because he was forced into a corner and had to kill -- something he clearly never wanted to do.

B) Um... zero families as far as we can tell? Zod does a VAST majority of the significant damage to Metropolis. Superman is reckless and smashes Zod's face along the glass of one structure, but aside from that, Zod was the one using heat vision to collapse an abandoned building in ground zero, kicked the oil truck into the parking garage, and then hit Superman through several buildings. Did Superman do some damage to the city? Sure, there's no denying that. But is there any evidence HE killed numerous families? No, I don't believe so at all.

People are still arguing about MOS.

@k4tzm4n:

At last, someone who saw the same film as me!

To all who say this – Superman destroyed Smallville, Superman destroyed Metropolis, and Superman killed thousands during his fight with Zod – my only advice: look this film closely and with more attention.

Smallville – look on after-fight air perspective: not all Smallville destroyed its one street on fire. This street on fire not because Kryptonians wrecked it, but because military planes were constantly crushing on it. Plus they were crushing strictly on the road, somehow missing close buildings. It looks worse that really is.

Metropolis… See entry about Smallville. First, Not entire city destroyed, just district or two. Second, it was destroyed by terraforming machine, not by Superman. Third, during final fight it was Zed who been punching Superman through buildings. Forth, after Zod kicked Supes through 5 building in the row, Superman tackled him and takes him to space, i.e. Superman tried to take fight from the city. Why doesn’t anyone else remember this?!

Edited. Sorry about that rushed post. Just came from one big fight about MoS from other site. Cooling off right now. Again, sorry if I offended anyone. Each has his own impression about this film.

A) He didn't have to kill Zod. I've given a plethora of ways Superman could have stopped Zod without killing him and more can be found on the Internet. The no kill code is something that should be intrinsically wrapped to Superman

B) A tad convenient that no families are killed wouldn't you say? For someone who said he groaned when the Chitauri basically missed all the densely populated streets of New York in their invasion, it's a bit of a logical contradiction not to have the same attitude to Superman and Zod's destructive fights in Smallville and Metropolis that would have killed many people too.

Not gonna tackle the Smallville one but a large chunk of Metropolis was destroyed by Superman's and Zod's fight, not just the terraforming machine. And Superman does destroy a couple of buildings himself by flying Zod through them so it's not Zod who's solely responsible. I'm surprised you didn't catch that with your much 'closer' look at the fight scene. As for taking the fight elsewhere, Superman could have flown somewhere else rather than space to allow him to go all out to take Zod down. The flying into space tactic could have been done much better in the film. It was these areas that really let the film down and I make that explicit in my review.

@lvenger: Evey time I'm on the main page this is always on it :P

@z3ro180: The main page? Huh didn't think it would get this level of attention if I'm homest :P

@lvenger:

Rewatched the fight scene again just now with even more 'closer' look and even slow-mo. Superman:

1 takes Zod to unfinished building with Losercorp’s emblem

2 let oil cisterns explode in the parking garage

3 when they with Zod ‘meet’ in mid-air, they crashed half of outer wall of one building

4 smashed Zod’s face through glass in other building

5 both destroyed a lot of roads.

3 and 4 can be blamed on Supes and can lead to human’s death, I admit. All other fight its Zod punching him around.

But I didn’t see a single moment when Superman does fully destroy a couple of buildings himself by flying Zod through them. So, unless in my country were released cut version of the film, I don’t see what you mean by that.

About damage to the city. For me it like 90%-terraforming machine, 10%-Superman vs. Zod fight, from this 10% Superman’s fault is 3-4%.

About taking fight elsewhere. Supes could take fight from city by grapping Zod and flying with him into vertical or horizontal direction.

Let’s see. Superman grabs Zod and tries to fly into some desert. Zod wouldn’t hold still during this flight, he fights, their flight uncontrollable, and while they still move inside city, they both crush 10 or building on their way. Forget this variant.

Now we have take fight above or under. Well, we don’t want take fight under earth, because that would probably result in the earthquake. So, Supes take Zod into space, then Zod freed himself and fight continues. How do you think this 'grab Zod and fly away'-thing should have been done?

And in conclusion. I didn’t wanted to renew this fight about MoS, I returned from other site really , let’s say , tense, then I see k4tzm4n’s post whose opinion on film looks a lot like mine, and then write my look on some questionable parts of MoS.

P.S. Wow! Congratulations with 10000 posts!

A) Except that's not what I'm addressing at all -- I'm correcting him on why Superman screamed. I'm well aware you think otherwise and that's fine by me. I have about a grand total of zero interest in discussing "BUT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE KILLED HIM" anymore, because...well, what's the point?

B) That's not what I'm saying like, at all. I'm saying THE BLAME for loss of life in Metropolis shouldn't be aimed primarily at Clark. Anyone saying people didn't die is obviously oblivious. But entire families slaughtered through Clark's actions? I don't think so at all. If so, then where are the gripes when Superman punched President Luthor through 3 buildings? Or when he smacked down a massive Kryptonian creature in Metropolis? The destruction SUPERMAN is responsible for in Metropolis isn't massive, especially compared to the comics. I said there's no denying Superman did indeed cause damage, and yeah, lives could have potentially been lost (most notably when the two punched at the same time), but to point the finger at him? Ridiculous to me. it's also worth pointing out that when Zod threw him through several buildings he then attempted to take the fight into orbit and it was Zod who brought it back down with the satellite attack. Further evidence that Clark can't exactly dictate the fight however he wants to.

And yeah, regarding Avengers, I think it's funny that EVERY SHOT conveniently missed someone when aliens abruptly started attacking one of the most densely populated areas of Manhattan with explosive lasers and all. Do I care? No, it's Disney and Marvel studios, obviously they don't want something so bleak, especially when they're aiming for a fun movie. But did it make me laugh? Yes, and apparently that means it's translatable to a totally different movie with totally different circumstances and a totally different tone? I don't think so in the least and honestly, I'm disappointed you'd even turn to that (taking a quote from a totally different conversation and then trying to use it against me?). Nowhere did I deny lives were lost in their fight. What I'm instead saying is I see nothing to support that SUPERMAN caused the death of "families" while fighting Zod. Lots of lives were lost in Man of Steel. Is Superman responsible and to blame? In my eyes, f*ck no.

Hah. Well, I just chimed in because I strongly disagreed with Logy's post regarding the incident in Metropolis.

If anything, I think the Smaville fight is where people have more reason to complain and honestly, I wouldn't disagree with them on that one. I think Superman did what he could to save lives when it went down (I even recall him trying to fly away but they grabbed him and yanked him down), but the way it was initiated was super reckless and definitely killed at least two people or so at the gas station/711. I get he was outraged because his mom was in danger and this was his first time facing people on his level, but still, ouch.

It's what we do :D

This is your 10,000th post. Just wanted to point that out! Pretty awesome. =)

@k4tzm4n: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you Gregg. But this film is a sore topic for me and I just figured that you saying one thing here contradicted something else you'd said. But I'm sort of tired of this go around debate regarding MOS. Although this blog is my most commented one, I'm not sure it's for the right reasons anymore.

I posted my review in the official review thread. But since its been a continuing conversation, i'll post it here too. I watched it twice to make sure I was confident with my opinion, because this definitely is a hot topic. Enjoy. =)

Okay, I went to see it again tonight, this time in 3D, and I want to give a follow up impression to my lengthy first one (found somewhere on the first page). After watching it for a second time, I feel I can judge the film a lot better.

My thoughts after seeing it twice -

- First of all, I can confirm that 3d is useless. Outside of the first 30-45 mins, I forgot I was watching it in 3d.

- Instead of liking the movie more the second time, I actually liked it less. I'll stick with the 7/10 that I gave to it, but if I had felt this way the first time around, I wouldn't have given it anything higher than a 6.5, and the following is why I feel this way.

- Watching it the second time, the films structure was definitely choppy and simply bad overall. Its one thing to have different aged flashbacks to tell how he grew up, but its another thing entirely to have the supposed "present time" lack a continuous flow as well. When you have "present" clark jumping from fisherman, to bartender, to anthropologist, in combination with the flashbacks, topped off with these flashbacks being out of continuity as well (in age), you simply have a train-wreck of a story. Jonathan shouldn't be dead in one scene, and still be in a flashback in a later scene giving him more advice. And the sad part is, these were only the problems of the first half of the movie. It was a unique attempt, but I didn't like it.

- The second half can simply be renamed as a hybrid of transformers / a dragon ball z episode. It's like transformers in the amount of explosions and building collapses (counted it this time, total of 7 buildings collapsed in this film). And it is like DBZ when it came to the brawls. At one point I felt I could've just been watching an extremely high budget cg film, similar to the Deathstroke Arkham Origins trailer. It seemed like there was more apparent cg in the brawls of the last hour of this film, than there were in every other cbm film ever made, combined. That most likely isn't true, but it definitely felt like it. Without a doubt there's more cg in this than in Avengers. And any film in the IM trilogy, TDK trilogy, and even spiderman trilogy. I felt that there was an entire 2-3 minute stretch in the superman vs zod battle, that was just PURE cg.

And another thing that annoyed me was pointless explosions and destruction. They completely destroyed all of metropolis. I still can't figure out for the life of me why superman continued to fight in populated places. One of the contributing reasons as to why it doesn't feel like a true superman movie. The real superman would go to deserted areas, and not put so many people in danger. Fight with zod in the CENTER of metropolis? What was he thinking? Same thing with Faora and that henchmen in that small town. Careless and complete disregard for collateral damage.

- I liked Cavill as superman ALOT better this time around. He just wasn't given a good enough script to properly act the part.

- Hans Zimmer DEFINITELY carried this film for me. Might be the best work he's ever done thus far.

Now for some slight nitpicks.

- How in the world do the lights go off but not the tvs, when zod makes his message to earth? Tvs use electricity as well. I feel that was a cheap way to create a dramatic effect. And after he finished, the lights came back on, and a lightbulb busted in the Kent living room. lol wow.

- Why is lois such a damsel in distress? Superman must have saved her from death about 3 to 4 times in this film. Lol

- Overall, the first half of the film was the best parts of it, but it was horribly structured. The second half of the film was simply a huge, over the top, action movie. Both of these halves combine to make an average cbm in my opinion. But this is by no means a fact. Some people will love it and say its great, others won't. Everyone has their own opinions. And i've told you the reasons why I have mine.

I get why you attempted to draw the parallel, but in my eyes, they're totally different things (which I hopefully elaborated enough on why above).

@k4tzm4n: Yeah I do. You made it very clear in your other post.

WELL THAT'S BECAUSE --

Oh, okay.

@k4tzm4n:

Hah. Well, I just chimed in because I strongly disagreed with Logy's post regarding the incident in Metropolis.

If anything, I think the Smaville fight is where people have more reason to complain and honestly, I wouldn't disagree with them on that one. I think Superman did what he could to save lives when it went down (I even recall him trying to fly away but they grabbed him and yanked him down), but the way it was initiated was super reckless and definitely killed at least two people or so at the gas station/711. I get he was outraged because his mom was in danger and this was his first time facing people on his level, but still, ouch.

Heh. Remember on some other site what someone else was saying about gas station. Something like that: “There was just one car parked there. For all we know, workers went outside to smoke in that time”. But I agree that during Smallville fight, during Metropolis fight people were dying. It’s just sayings like “Superman destroyed entire Smallville”, “Superman destroyed entire Metropolis”, “Superman killed thousands of people” and “Superman not even once tried to take fight somewhere else” that really bugs me. My own eyes tell me that Smallville mostly intact, the same can be said about Metropolis, Supes several times tried to take fight outside heavy populated areas ( he didn’t succeed, but thats other case) and most toll of humans life should be attributed to terraforming machine, not Superman vs. Zod fight..

@k4tzm4n: And if Superman is so worried about the lives of people, why didn't he take the fight to space like he did in "Our Worlds at war?"

Um he did. But it failed spectacularly.

@k4tzm4n: @lvenger: YO IMA LET YOU GUYS FINISH BUT CAN I... YOU KNOW... CHIME IN OR SUMTHIN?

In my opinion yes, the damage is extensive and to most people, including massive Superman fans such as Lvenger and myself, it's a tad bit weary to see considering how Superman has dealt with such situations in the comics. I've argued this point a few times throughout the past few months. In no way do I deem the destruction caused as acceptable or brush it off but I can understand the tone the film and the crew went for here and why they referred to it as a realistic sci-fi film rather than a comparison to a super hero film in the same vein as Avengers.

For one, Avengers doesn't take much of bleak tone. It's humorous, it's light hearted, everything is conveniently placed for the heroes to succeed with each of them bringing a fine set of tools to the table capable of combating an alien threat that's not much of a threat to the team in general. In Clark's case, he's new to his powers at large, he's a rookie to who he is and what's he capable of. Cue the Kryptonian invasion. Let's compare the two films quickly.

Avengers has a well trained Super solider, a warrior God of Thunder, a nearly unstoppable brute, two expert assassins and one of the smartest, most technologically advanced men on the Earth. Oh, and S.H.I.E.L.D. Their opponents? An Asgardian who has been bested by Thor himself and a bunch of canon fodder alien invaders.

Man of Steel. We have Clark Kent, arguably the strongest being on the planet. Power, nearly limitless. Skill, zero. His enemies, highly advanced Kryptonians with limited weaponry that still dwarfs anything humanity has and are their physical prowess is equal to that of Clark with the addition of militaristic genes and years upon years of training.

In either case, destruction was to be had but unfortunately for Clark, he lacked the skills and the tools to properly protect and subdue his opponents nor could he hope to defeat them directly in hand to hand combat the longer they were exposed to the Earth's atmosphere. True, Clark had a minor advantage due to possessing heat vision and flight but only ever so slightly. Cue General Zod. With what took Clark his entire life to control and "master", Zod understands and commands in a mere few days and already becomes a more prominent warrior than Clark himself. How is someone supposed to combat a being like that? That's why I don't like the comparisons to the comics.

This isn't the heavily experienced Superman we've seen from Birthright, Last Son, or especially What's so Funny about Truth, Justice and the American Way. This is a rookie, an unknowing hero who is completely unaware and torn between his kin and his adopted home world. I'm not supporting Superman's decision with Zod nor do I defend it entirely, but I do acknowledge the reasoning behind it. Clark lacks the resources to properly put Zod away as he might've in the comics via larger scale assistance and PIS. There is no knocking out Zod and continually doing so. Clark was clearly losing that fight. The Phantom Drives were all but gone when the other Kryptonians were sent away and even if there was a shred left in the Fortress of Solitude, how would Clark hope to get Zod there and activate it at the same time? He was put in a position we've almost never seen Superman in before and he reacted in a manner that he absolutely didn't want to, but had to in order to save billions of lives from an uncontrollable, more powerful and homicidal being.

Evidently as we've all heard, Snyder, Goyer and Nolan all had the original ending to finish with Zod and all the Kryptonians being zipped away into the Phantom Zone, but honestly? We've seen that dozens of times and while it's the accurate thing to do, it's also quite derivative. If Man of Steel didn't end as it did, we wouldn't be talking about it months after it's release. It adds discussion, controversy, and impacts the character morally in a way we've never seen. What I take from that is much improved and desired character development in the future films. In almost every other form of media, we see Superman already built into the man we know and adore. With Man of Steel, we are side by side with him as he treads the path to become that hero and I find that to be an intriguing proposition.

That's my take on the film. I've seen it three times. I was in the same position as Lvenger in my first viewing, completely unwilling to accept what had happened and it stained my view on the film. What I did do though was give it another shot, to observe from a different perspective and to give it another chance and you know what? It helped, it truly did.

@deranged_midget: A well balanced, evenly weighed post my friend. Even if I do differ from it at the end of the day, you have one hell of a set of reasoning behind it. Why do you keep going offline so that I miss pearls of wisdom like this one? :P

Thank you my good sir, I very much appreciate it! Alas, I am jumping around quite a bit but I'm always around! :)

Not necessarily. It didn't look like he took it to space. They just seemed to kinda end up there, and they brought it back down almost instantly.