Originally Posted by PacificBoy
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!
No, sweetheart. That wasn't the only thing posed to Superman in Day of Doom, but thanks for playing. ;-) I have a link to all four books, if you need a refresher on it.
One of the reasons Day of Doom was written was because in the previous comics, not enough had been done to suggest that Superman even paused to think about all the death that had occurred.
This is why Day of Doom is relevant, both in the questions is poses and tries to answer, and how comics in general deal with death and destruction.
MOS unfolded mostly from Clark's POV. So we the audience feel over-whelmed and breathless from the battles. Imagine then what Clark would be feeling in that moment.
No, we didn't get a news report on the number of dead or injured. We didn't see Clark pulling people out of the rubble. I don't really see a need for it. What would be the point? To demonstrate that, what, he's a good guy? I mean, I don't get the obsession with the idea that the destruction had to be acknowledged.
If we're going to fall back on comic book characterizations, in Day of Doom, Superman is totally self-absorbed at first about what happens. It doesn't even occur to him at first to look beyond his own death.
Time and again in comics, we see Superman sometimes be thoughtless, not because he's a jerk, but just because he sometimes misses things. It doesn't make him horrible -- on the contrary, it makes him more interesting, because those mistakes allow his character to grow and change.
So I didn't expect or need MOS to do angst p0rn for us over the devastation of the battles. That isn't the story we were being told. We were being told the epic beginnings of our greatest modern fairy tale.
Granted, I think a lot of this discussion could have been avoided if they hadn't cut out the portion where Clark tells people to get the injured to safety while he goes to fight Zod, and if we'd seen a little more of the military and police presence on the ground, but eh.
I still think this is a lot of unnecessary wangsting on a non-issue.