Originally Posted by Daybreak_st
I have to agree with this. A point is made in those Batman films that regardless he wouldn't kill. The line he says to Ras Al gul, "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you" speaks volumes about their "take" on Batman. It's in the movie for a reason. So yeah I get from an "in story" perspective that it makes sense why he does what he does. But from a writing stand point...it really doesn't. Unless there is some serious follow-up in the next film about guilt and remorse etc then it just seemed unnecessary to specifically write Superman into a corner where he is forced to kill...then in the follow up scenes he seems back to his normal self
Found that odd.
As far as writing goes, why not just have Zod sucked back into the Zone with the rest of them? Did people really find it so much more satisfiying to see Superman
? Again we're not talking "in story logic" but writing here. For me it just felt like the wanted people to see just how bad@$$ Superman can be. "OOooo he
" i even had people cheer in the audience I was in. Give me a break people.
You essentially have a guy who's never been in war, in fights, and certainly never killed anyone or anything. Then he has to
. That had better haunt him till the day he dies. I think a line from the film unforgiven says it best
I don't think killing Zod should make him spend much time brooding, but a catalyst for him to not do it again. If it's ever addressed, he should say that he's moved on. Though if he spares a supervillain's life, he should say something like "it's different this time", or something like it.