Originally Posted by Tempest
It talks a lot about whether Superman was justified in his actions in his battle with Doomsday.
And it talks about how he kind of just waltzed back into the world. Out of the millions of deaths that resulted from that battle, and the aftermath, the only person who was able to come back was Superman.
He was confronted with the sheer number of deaths that were a direct and indirect result of what happened when he fought Doomsday.
Some of the questions posed were "Why didn't you save more people?", and "Why didn't you take the fight out of Metropolis?"
I mean, his battle with Doomsday injured and killed people. He didn't take time to save anyone. He remained focused solely on his fight, and he gets called on that.
Sounds kind of familiar, right?
It certainly does! But the criticism here is not that Superman doesn't get called out on it, is that for a movie grounded in reality, it surreally sweeps all the death and destruction under the rug. Superman isn't posed the question, the movie doesn't pose the question. No questions asked, seemingly.
I mean Superman made the ultimate sacrifice, taking the life of the last of his kind. So the deaths in the last act had to count for something. Snyder himself said that "in ancient mythology, mass deaths are used to symbolize disasters". So "Superman... is probably the closest we get. It's a way of recounting the myth".
Sndyer's version, his mythology of Superman is built upon those deaths. An inexperienced Superman killed Zod in his first costumed outing. He had to because Zod caused the death of millions and will cause the death of millions more had he lived.
The other central question posed in Day of Doom is if Superman wasn't around, would there be fewer Doomsdays (monsters seeking to confront Superman) or more Coast Citys (a disaster that only happened because Superman wasn't there)? And the answer suggested from the movie is the former!