@muyjingo:

There's nothing to support that he'd be able to endure it either. Also - on another note, by the time Clark raises his hands to gouge Zod's eyes - the civilians would've been grilled by then.

- TAS

It's reasonable to assume his eyes are vulnerable to another kryptonian trying to mush them. Clark would not have to endure it for long and it would stop the heat vision pretty likely, I would think.

Also keep in mind, when he was shot with heat vision in the film it caused him pain, but didn't seem to slow him down or leave a burn mark. I would think he could endure it with it focused on his thumbs for long enough to stop it, and so he wouldn't have to kill.

@theamazingspidey said:

Thank you :)

Hm... true, true...

- TAS

No problem :P

- TAS

I made it clear that there was no alternative at THAT point,my question is why did they not wrap up the threat with PZ,imagine if Zod was tossed along with Faora and the others, like I said MOS would've escaped half it's criticism. Instead we got a meaningless fight that ended with Zod's death.

Yeah that's why I consider it a scripting issue,they should never have put Superman in that position.

@entropy_aegis:

Well... it was controversy only. If I were Goyer and Snyder - I'd have Superman kill too.

- TAS

But is it really a scripting issue to have the hero to make the hard choice?

I have never understood why people did not like the idea of superman killing Zod. I mean I understand that in the comics he never kills because he is a boy scout and a goddie two shoes but when you think about it that is not real. In real life sometimes its not a matter of there was not another way out its a matter of the fact you did not think of that way at the time. Yes superman could have put his and over his eyes but in that moment in that predicament he was blinded by the fact that the family was about to die and did not see any other way but to kill Zod. And when you think about it that is probs what any of us would of done. Superman is not a omnipotent being he is human (generically speaking) who happens to have god like powers but still falters like us.

My issue with Superman killing Zod is they didn't establish that he was extremely adverse to ending a persons life, instead he just inexplicably screams in pain after killing Zod, like...why, terrible writing all around.

• No. He did the fundraiser because he was surprised at how dedicated Harvey was. Prior to that, Dent had already put away most of Gotham's criminals so money was not made an issue to him
• He bought the crew because he was jealous of them. He did not ''hate'' Harvey; hatred is a strong word and Batman did not have any of that for Harvey
• No he didn't. He got angry when Joker said he was ahead of the curve and the very next thing Batman said was ''Where's Dent?'' - that's when he got aggressive; he was angry throughout the full interrogation

• He didn´t put most of the criminals only the money launderers. He did the fundraiser because in that conversation Harvey said that he may become the repleacement of the Batman, so he decided to give him the money to test what he could do (If you see the scene you will notice that Bruce says the thing of the fundraiser right after Rachel and Harvey hold hands, he may also have thought that giving Harvey the burden of being a hero would separete him from her, so that Bruce could be with her). Batman only heard that Harvey was as stubborn as he was, nothing more.
• Well maybe "hatred" It is too strong a word, Didn´t liked Dent would be the best thing to say. If you are jelous of someone that may drive to hatred.
• No, he didn´t got angry, he noticed that having a pacific interogation with the Joker would be a waste of time, so he try to intimidate the Joker by being more agressive. Gordon when Batman tried to intimidate phisically, said that he was in control, but when Rachel was mentioned Batman knew that the cops would have stopped him and that is why he looked the door with the chair. That is the moment when he was angry.

MoS scene was more graphic I think.

...uh, what? There should NEVER need to be an explanation as to why killing another person would be an extremely traumatic experience, even if a person has the strength of mind to recover from it quickly. He just freakin killed somebody... agony over that isn't "terrible writing" at all - if he did anything less, we'd have to wonder if he was an empathy-lacking sociopath.

@reactor: No, just no, You are suggesting every character has to wail at the sky in pain whenever he killed someone to prove they're not "an empathy-lacking sociopath" no there has to be a deeper meaning prevalent for someone to react the way he did, something in the story that would explain his aversion to killing.

Otherwise, you'll have to admit Tony Stark, Captain America, Batman, StarLord and like 90% of the DC and Marvel universe heroes are all sociopaths, point being this was not a normal reaction to killing a genocidal maniac...

Here's a scene from Trigun where they establish why he won't kill anyone (spoilers)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7K4bFPm5_k and it only takes a minute and a half

@lvenger: really? Even is it WAS say "an accident" Batman still killed AFTER mentioning through the entire movie that he has one rule. And also, he's Batman, I'm sorry. Batman doesn't let stuff like that happen. Because, you know, HE'S BATMAN!

And also, Superman was dealin with a guy that was going to keep coming back until he killed every last human. Superman had no choice. I hardly call that "cold blood". What's Batman's excuse for murdering an entire temple of ninjas, letting Ra's al Ghul die, opening fire while on the bat pod into a hopefully empty parking lot (though it wasn't really empty as those two lucky children indicated), pushin Harvey Dent off a roof and finally unloading the bat's full arsenal into the front of a truck killing the driver and directly resulting in Talia's death? What you're saying is it's fine for Batman to kill so Lon as it's an accident but Superman can't do it to save the world even if he means to? I'm sorry, that logic seems flawed.

I don't understand why people are like "oh Superman shouldn't have done that! That's wrong!" But people point out Batman doing something similar or worse and it's like "no no, Batman had to do that. It makes sense." I realize we all have double standards but who is this helping?

You know what, I would say a more comparable settin would be Superman killing Zod to Batman killing the truck driver with the bomb that also resulted In Talia's death. I read someone say "Batman had to do that." Again, why is it ok for Batman to kill in order to save millions but not Superman in order to save billions?

Some things are better left alone.

@jj_was_here:

really? Even is it WAS say "an accident" Batman still killed AFTER mentioning through the entire movie that he has one rule. And also, he's Batman, I'm sorry. Batman doesn't let stuff like that happen. Because, you know, HE'S BATMAN!

Superman has a similar, if not stronger rule on killing. He's supposed to represent the best of humanity and adhere to our highest virtues and morals. Him killing Zod was an absolute desecration of those values and what kind of ideal Superman is supposed to represent. So, to turn over your example, he's Superman. I'm sorry, Superman doesn't let stuff like that happen. Because, you know, HE'S SUPERMAN!

And also, Superman was dealin with a guy that was going to keep coming back until he killed every last human. Superman had no choice. I hardly call that "cold blood". What's Batman's excuse for murdering an entire temple of ninjas, letting Ra's al Ghul die, opening fire while on the bat pod into a hopefully empty parking lot (though it wasn't really empty as those two lucky children indicated), pushin Harvey Dent off a roof and finally unloading the bat's full arsenal into the front of a truck killing the driver and directly resulting in Talia's death? What you're saying is it's fine for Batman to kill so Lon as it's an accident but Superman can't do it to save the world even if he means to? I'm sorry, that logic seems flawed.

Yes it is pure cold blood, simple as that. There is no circumstance, no universe, no scenario, no plausibility, no option where someone calling themselves Superman should EVER kill someone. Superman always finds another way, he goes against impossible odds to not only save the day but do it in the right way. MOS forewent the latter perogative of Superman. And for the record, I don't find it fine for Batman to kill in the Nolan films as it goes against Batman's no kill code too. But Nolan made his version Batman more predisposed to killing, even when he went on about his one rule. In contrast, Nolan was actually AGAINST Snyder and Goyer's idea to have Superman kill Zod. What does that tell you about the depiction of two characters, that one of them went through a lot of discussion, argument and consultation with DC before they put in the idiotic move to make Superman kill? So my logic is not flawed, don't make baseless assumptions. I didn't like it when Nolan's Batman killed and I didn't like it when my childhood favourite snapped a villain's neck and broke one of his biggest moral clauses.

I don't understand why people are like "oh Superman shouldn't have done that! That's wrong!" But people point out Batman doing something similar or worse and it's like "no no, Batman had to do that. It makes sense." I realize we all have double standards but who is this helping?

There were other ways to stop Zod without him killing Zod in the end. All of which were non lethal and would have stopped Zod's rampage without taking his life.

As much as I agree with you on the part that he's Superman and he always finds a way I am really not sure there was any other solution to the problem there. The movie wasn't set like a comic book where you have supervillain prisons in which Zod can be put and depowered and even if Superman flew away with him, what exactly would he do next? There is no place you can keep such a powerful being just like that somewhere around the world, he will find a way to escape and to try to kill millions once again.

Also another thing is that maybe this would serve as a lesson for Superman. He will be looking back at that moment when he killed Zod and he will be setting his "No kill" rule upon that moment.

@TDK1997 @lvenger: what other routes could Superman have possibly had here? We're talking about the start of his super heroics. He's inexperienced and doesn't have a total hold on his powers. He made the hard choice.

And this is not the first time Superman has killed Zod. Superman II. De powered Zod and then cast him into a frozen crevice to fall hundreds of feet to his ultimate demise. And did it with a smile on his face. Superman 22(?). Zod and his ilk had killed everyone on a parallel earth and were honing to do the same on the main earth. Superman executed them with kryptonite. The end result of that was Supes taking on a vigilante persona. So since Zod seems destined to be the one being that Superman crosses that line for, how does that take away from Superman's mythos? He's not killing humans, he killed one rogue kryptonian who was hell bent on the destruction of mankind. That is not in cold blood. That is back against the wall. It almost seems like it's ok in those other instances, but not in Man of Steel. So yes, it feels like flawed logic all around.

So we can't say Superman always finds another way, because that isn't true. In almost every other case it's true, but not in the singular case of Zod. You can't condemn a movie for doing what has already been done twice in the past. As for Batman, he has a much more black and white view on killing (as far as the comics go). Superman will only do it as the absolute last resort.

...

Dude, that's exactly what I'm saying. *Exactly*

90% of Marvel heroes are freakin' murderous psychopaths because they habitually (or are very willing to) kill. Usually, without visible remorse. You shouldn't need a huge moral stance to be overtly evident, you shouldn't need to show the hero discovering that killing is horrible. That should be a natural predisposition, both in heroes and in normal people. Life and death has taken on such cheap meaning, we sling around killing (let's face it, probably in part due to its saturation in media, like tv, games and comics) so casually, and people are constantly losing the sense of value it has.

There does not - and should not - need a deeper meaning for someone reacting traumatically to killing another person. There does not - and should not - ever need to be an explanation as to why any normal person, let alone a hero, does not want to kill someone. There should always be a natural aversion to killing, even when your life, or the life of someone precious to you, is in danger. And should it happen, it should never be made light of. There's a reason so many soldiers, both now and in times past, have had to cope with PTSD. It's a terrible, horrible thing to take the life of another person.

Choosing to kill a man instead of letting him butcher a family is hardly in cold blood. He didn't want to, but it's what he felt was necessary, given his level of experience.

Put in a similar position, Captain America would do the exact same and he's as morally virtuous as any hero.

I'd hate for you to to think I'm looking down on you here, it's just what I think.

The thing with your Cap example is that Cap was trained as a soldier. It's been retconned into his history that, if push comes to shove, he'll cross the line in the heat of battle to get the job done. I'm fine with Cap killing as it makes sense within his character and backstory. In contrast, Superman doing that act isn't within his character as Superman is not a soldier. He's supposed to be an ideal and an example to humanity, and this isn't exactly something a fictional character that many people look up to and draw inspiration from should do IMO.

Eh, different strokes I suppose.

One thing I've kinda realized about the whole 'no killing policy' is that it came out of the Comics Code Authority, which was one of the worst things to happen to the comicbook industry, ever. Personally, I've got no issue with Superman killing when it's absolutely necessary, such as those 3 Kryptonians in the Phantom Zone.

That's just my opinion, though. :)