Personally i dont really care about whatever "bold" and "brave" turn the story takes, Supes snapping Zods neck was one such thing that I thought was interesting (neither positive or negative, just something i knew they would follow up on rather than it being an outright misunderstanding of the character. If the film's overal reception from audiences and critics rises and falls over that, it's something that interests me because I'd rather DC be the counterprogramme to Marvel in which they take their leaps and risks rather than slavishly stick to the comics (which in itself is also a good thing).
My main worry is how it stands up as a film, something which man of steel had a lot of failings at, and I fear with the ever increasing blur on the line between geek film blogger and film critic I feel that we are going to get reactions based on "Batman did this, or Superman did that, or it looks right out of a comic, or it's not what I think the characters should be etc etc" Rather than what actually works from a storytelling and narrative viewpoint. It's also why like a lot of obscure cinema, or foreign films or "so bad its good" genre of popcorn flicks, i tend to tune out critical reception for comic book films, so many people come into these things with such strong opinions or pre conceived notions, which no other genre (outside of films based on highly popular novels) has that level of scrutiny. If Man of Steel was based on an entirely different and original superhero but was the exact same film with it's same failings and successes. It would have been received better and I don't even like Man of Steel all that much, but it's the cold hard truth.
Thankfully being raised on Burtons Batman and boning up on the source material afterwards, I've been conditioned like a lot of people my age to just accept that films that go out of it's source material safety black aren't just a novel idea...it's essential for a franchise to move forward.
