Supermen winning best hero means a lot IMO...it's purely a popularity contest, so it's awesome he beat out two marvel characters!
Just noticed how they do tend to have superior numbers in alot of aspects.
Maybe after BvS, we'll have multiple heroes nominated from the same movie? Is that how it worked with Avengers?
Just playing Devil's Advocate, but the reason Clark uses his powers to help people is just "Because... Reasons!".
The attack on Metropolis and death of Zod should have been reorganised and done in a different manner. There's very little suspense in the fight because usually, the final confrontation in a cape film is to occupy the hero from the more pressing matter (Fear gas monorail, Chitauri invasion, Helicarriers, Arc reactor running out of power, nuclear warhead- I could go on).
Two things about this.
Firstly, superman helps people cause it's the right thing to do. We understood that much from his rhetoric about the school bus, he was raised(by someone) to ask the simple question, 'what was I suppose to do, let them die?' Good parents, unbroken household, and an access to things like Plato, I would understand that being enough to explain why he feels the drive to helps folks when he can. However this does little to explain what he 'feels' is right when his first premise(helping folks) comes into conflict with a new premise, that of taking a single life to do so. Does a good man take a singular life to save the universe? What's the right thing to do here. Neither Jon Kent(literally) nor Plato could give you that...
I'm sure a good man like Stark or even Parker could tell him.
Feeling that killing is wrong when you are out there fighting for the universe takes a specific explanation beyond, "I don't need to kill to know..".
Having the kill shot on the detonator man in a superbowl goes beyond, "I don't need to kill to know.." It takes someone that knows the answer and who know that answer better than someone that knows what it is to kill? Someone that doesn't?
Look at all the colourful marvel heroes that kill for example. Not killing isn't inherent in doing the right thing, it takes a characterization catalyst if a film is actually in the game of dramatizing imo.
Secondly
As much as I think the zod fight should have happened prior to the world engine(leaving a weakened torn suit, bloody superman to engage the machine), I can understand the benefits in the framing they went with:
1-The 'better' final fights in action films are the one's that 'are personal' in motivation. If you want a big emotional fight between two people but the motivation is skewed in having to turn off the device...it's not as poignant imo. Is TWS fighting cap with a clear head and because he blames him for his fate etc....or is he fighting cap so as to stop him from turning off the button. Clearing up motivation goes along way towards emotional payoff. Zod vs Superman was a step towards that, particularly given the fact that Zod was now fighting beyond any self righteous goal.
2-In this particular situation Zod himself is an atom bomb that needs to be stopped here and now so they still find themselves partially in former premise. WE and Zod are two separate world ending devices but people hare having a hard time appreciating that in zod. Often times it's doc ock and his device.
3-In most other cbms, the villain himself getting away doesn't result in the immediate or otherwise, end of the world. Joker just runs off to be scheme and be thwarted again, that is if Bane himself get's a way, the world doesn't end in 4 hours. Some other films even have other heroes/people to take up the fight..Superman here really is faced with a 'this is it' premise.
4-The framing of the big character defining moment towards the very end of the conflict...not in the middle somewhere to be forgotten. The big decision 'saves the day'.
I personally think alot of MOS' execution went against the grain of both superman and cbms, and was bound to lead to an audience that is used to convention, longing, or outright confused. I don't think films should cater to such things.
.
t:
"
