I thought it wouldn't hurt to have a thread about this topic over here, but one of the things that I wanted to discuss about with everyone is regarding the "Double Standards" that people seem to have towards the character of Superman, especially as of late. Personally, and I could be proven very wrong about this later on (which I'll gladly admit when done so), but I do strongly feel that the character has a huge stack of double standards set against him by audiences and fans, and this has been proven even more so with the release and reaction to "Man of Steel". One of the gripes that I've seen a lot of people have and even make fun of is how Superman is no longer "Superman" due to the massive carnage that took place within Metropolis. Yet it feels like people constantly forget that most of the damage that took place within the city was due to Zod's Black Zero ship and that Superman was like on the other side of the world where he was trying to stop the World Machine, where it's destruction was the only way to stop Black Zero from destroying more buildings and killing more people. Then there's the whole issue of how people bash Superman for having fought Zod the way he did in the city. Now granted, perhaps the fight could have gone better, surely people couldn't have forgotten that this type of battle and collateral damage takes place all the time within the comics. Heck, if I had a nickel for every time I saw someone mentioning in the past on how they hoped that we'd get a fight with superman on the big screen like the ones that we've seen with him in the animated shows/films, I'd be pretty rich right now. So why is it that Superman is getting bashed for doing something that has taken place several times within the comics and animated shows? Not to mention, given the context that Clark had no prior experience in dealing with foes that had powers like him and wasn't really "superman" until the very end of the film, you'd think that people would be more understanding. Furthermore, the whole death scene with Zod.... as much as we would like for Superman to find the other way, some times, there just isn't the other way. No matter what decision Superman made, he was going to lose something in the end and he chose the lesser of two evils. Personally, I applaud them for having the guts to put him in that realistic situation because to say that there's always another way is just B.S. imho. It's not like Superman will go out and start killing off his villains, I mean just look at the reaction that he had from having done so to Zod in the first place. Bale's Batman has killed as well, despite having three films dedicated towards him having a "no kill policy" during moments where it was do or die. He pushed Harvey to his death in order to save Gordon's Son and he killed Talia and her driver in order to apprehend the bomb before it exploded in Gotham. And I don't seem to recall anyone having issues with seeing Jor-el kill within MOS, which was a first I think as far as I know of in any takes featuring the character. And don't get me started on how many times I saw someone say that they wanted Superman modernized for today's audience, only to cry foul and say that they should have kept him the same. Seriously, as a Superman fan, it frustrates me to no end on how much flack the character gets at times for no reason. I can understand if people had issues with MOS because it's not a perfect film and it could have been better. But seeing the character made fun of and bashed for things like this, it' s just freaking annoying and so hypocritical.