Originally Posted by Human Torch
The biggest problem for me with Supe killing,is it didn't feel like he earned making that decision.It was played as a snap judgement thing that he had to decide on a moments notice.
Now you can say it's better/more realistic or whatever that way,but I think the people who were turned off by the killing,would've been better able to get their head around it had there been time for Kal to reflect on how to deal with Zod.
If it had been a case of the General begging Supe "For the good of the world..." and maybe a scene with Lois where he admits he doesn't think he has it in him to do such a drastic act....Maybe,(and it's still a darn big maybe)maybe, I can see the scene working,as is.
But instead,we have a green Superman,still wet behind the ears,basically dragged to the alter of "SuperHero" against his better judgement dealing with a villain saying "you'll have to kill me."And (where Batman manages to keep the Joker alive in TDK,)Supe basically is made to let the villain dictate the outcome. Zod wins.Superman doesn't come across as "Super" in the least.
You can't build to that moment. It wouldnt have the shock value. No one saw that coming. That was the brilliance of it.
Zod didnt win. Zod just lost it and went nuts and didnt care for his life anymore. Superman won by ending the threat but there was a cost. Nothing wrong with that. Its thought provoking. We discuss philosophy.
In TDK Batman didnt win. His goal throughout the film was to support, protect, and help Harvey replace himself as the person to save Gotham. And the Joker destroyed that. He corrupted the white knight. Batman kept the Joker alive but in never wanting to end his life (he had his chance to run the Joker over with the bat pod) it resulted in the destruction of Harvey Dent.