Previous Post Think that Synder and DC saw just how effective Nolan was with having a gritty and determined bats, so decided to have that tone throughout the DC Movie realm.. I had no problem with kal forced to kill off Zod, so would be open to that take on Superman, but would like to also see him played up as being the Anti bats, that while he will do the hard stuff that must be done to sto[ the evil guy, that when we leave the movies, we should know that there was a profound difference on how bats and Supes viewed their roles of being heros! Boy Scout vrs the vigilate...

My problem comes with how it was presented. Had most of the action been primarily the cause of the villain(s), with Superman doing his best to protect innocents and reacting to the destruction, I might have been able to handle it a bit better.

But for the most part, Superman was complicit in the destruction (would Smallville had suffered as much damage if Superman didn't initially take the battle there?) and the only time we saw he get emotional about any of the damage was when Zod was about to fry the family.

He didn't show any concern or worry when he dropped Lois back down to the battleground, kissing her instead; didn't show any regards punching Zod through buildings or when he jumped the tanker truck.

The entire moment felt unearned, because where was his concern 95% of the time beforehand?

I don't like Superman killing (and would prefer to never see it) but if you're going to do it, do it where it makes sense. Having the Kryptonians go out of their way to harm and kill people while Superman does his best to prevent it, while he hears and sees the people he can't save die before him. With death all around him, even as he saves lives, is the only way I could even begin to buy Superman killing a villain.

Which goes right back into Man of Steel's problem. They didn't do that.