Originally Posted by elgaz
I can understand why a lot of Superman purists wanted to see the writers craft a different storyline where he didn't have to kill Zod.
But why? Why take the easy route? I know Superman has killed before, but the vast majority of writers over the years always put him in a situation where he finds some way to outwit the enemy without resorting to killing them.
I thought it was actually a bit of a ballsy move by Snyder to have Superman being forced into an no-win situation where ultimately, someone was going to die. And he had to make the difficult choice of whether that was going to be an innocent human(s), or Zod.
Is it against his moral code? Yes - you can see how he struggled with it.
Is it against our almost messianic image of Superman? Yes, to a certain extent.
But that messianic image has only been formed because decades of writers decided that when push came to shove, it was much easier to have Zod suddenly be dispatched to the phantom zone, or have Superman come up with a Plan B at the end, or for a third party to intervene so that he would never have to kill whoever he was fighting.
In this situation in MOS, there was no other way out, no other options, and no Plan B for Superman. A film isn't like the comics, where characters appear, disappear, die and come back to life many times over in the course of 5, 10 , 20 years. A film has to have a certain finality. He had to make a horrible decision, and I applaud the writers for actually going through with it for once.
The problem is that it came out of left field. We know that Kal El was a genuinely good person who wanted to help but the movie never went out of it's way to show how much he valued human life.
And come on I hate to beat a dead horse but look at how many lives were lost during his fight with Zod. Measures could have been taken to save more lives but for whatever reason they weren't. Poor writing, poor characterization, poor whatever... the fact is the movie never hammered home the message that Kal El was more interested in saving lives than he was with engaging Zod. If anything he showed more remorse over Zod's death than he did any of the hundreds of thousands of people in Metropolis who had died over the course of the movie.
And not to mention, he didn't really even have
to kill Zod right then and there. He had him in a headlock. He could have flown the both of them away for the time being. So it's not like Superman was backed into a corner. He broke Zod's neck because the filmmakers wanted to force a discussion topic, that's pretty much it. It didn't really arise organically from story or character.
Originally Posted by The Batman
I think Superman breaking Zod's neck would've been even more powerful if the Superman we got in this film were the George Reeves/Christopher Reeve/Fleischer esque Superman.