The Double Standards Against Superman

[Shikamaru]

The thing that bugged me most about Pa's death was the obligatory "Well,you're not my dad!Nyaaaaah!" argument that they had just minutes before his death.Just to add that extra unneeded angst.Is it so wrong for the hero and father figure to be on good terms before their death?Do we really need them to argue just before they die for the sake of "drama"?The Spider-Man films were also guilty of this.

I don't think it's fair to criticize the movies for that because that has always been an essential part of Spider-Man's origin. Peter's guilt adds to his lesson that he needs to get his **** together and be responsible.

 

[blumatic]

Good guy Greg meme here.


*************************************




Me too. I'm talking about his death. The way Clark realizes that he might be super-powered but he cannot defy death. And this is remembered when Lois dies.



How so?

Worst of cases, it leads to conflict.

But then again, Jor-el encourages Clark to use his powers for good in MOS (if I'm not mistaken), and Jor-el discourages him to do the same thing. So you see, their advice is also contradictory.



Once reason and coherence are out, the impact is gone.

But even in the story... what was this "impact"? Did Pa Kent's death stop Clark from using his powers? No. Pa Kent's death had NO impact to be seen.



It was more because when Lois died, Superman felt he couldn't allow it to happen again. It wasn't just Lois dying but the fact that he felt he couldn't defy death, just as it was the case when Pa Kent died.



You wouldn't have had that moment after Lois's death when Superman decides to go against Jor-el's word because he won't let death take another of his beloved people again. Not dramatic enough? Maybe so.

But again, if Pa Kent hadn't died in MOS, would the story change that dramatically? Clark would have gone and save people with his super-powers as he was doing before Pa Kent died. Which was what he did after Pa Kent died. Meaning, it made no difference at all.



******************************





I have asked many times how it works. Nobody has told me exactly why, all they have done is re-telling that's an impact, that's a huge sacrifice. Yes, that's what it's supposed to be. But does it work in the movie? How does it actually change Clark's life?

Lois death had nothing to do with PA Kents death. If they were then it destroys the lesson he supposedly learned at the funeral.

In STM Superman can rewind time and resurrect the dead. It's even more silly.

 

[blumatic]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Superman accepting that he can't save everyone is a key point of many stories. In STM, they use Pa Kent's death to show the first time he's been faced with that struggle on a personal level.

It doesn't mean nothing. It means a heck of a lot. It just isn't some violent and traumatic event that he has to feel guilty about or want vengeance over.

And yeah, they moved on from that moment... like they should, if the heroes journey isn't built around it (which I would prefer it not be).

I just find it dismissive that it was never revisited. There was never an event again where he couldn't save someone because he couldn't do it all. It had no impact. What's the point of a lesson if it doesn't come up again. And it's all destroyed since he really did have the power to bring Lois back to life by disobeying a very legit rule by Jor El.

If instead of Lois, it was some neighborhood friend that died in the earthquake and Superman couldn't do anything about and he reflects on the words he said back then, you have full circle.

A good story means you have full circle. You can't leave it hanging. Address it in the sequel if need be.

 

[LaughingMage]

A good story means you have full circle. You can't leave it hanging. Address it in the sequel if need be.

actually, no. A good story does not have to have full circle development. In fact I'd say it is lazy writing to go full circle. It's an easy way out. That's actually something I really like about The Pa Kent development in STM. It's the motivation for Clark to disobey Jor-El. He's not going to let the same thing happen to Lois like he did to Pa and he's willing to break the "rule" and take the final step to become "the father" by making his own decision. (Granted they should have shown the consequences of that in STM II but that was out of Donner's hand in the end) You can find the same thing in Campbell again. It's the final phase of the "Heroe's Journey" where he destroys the old order of things and establishes an new status quo. The sad thing is, that the going back in time ending shouldn't even have been in STM. It was actually the ending to Superman II but the Studio interfered with both movies and changed the order of things. My guess is, that Donner would have addressed the consequences of Clarks actions in Superman III if he had gotten a chance to do it.

 

[LaughingMage]

Lois death had nothing to do with PA Kents death. If they were then it destroys the lesson he supposedly learned at the funeral.

In STM Superman can rewind time and resurrect the dead. It's even more silly.

You're really hung up on the lesson part, completely ignoring the function of the scene in the movie's narrative structure. I didn't want to do it but since it seems I have to, I'll explain it. In the "Heroes Journey" comes a time where the hero has to leave his home in order to fulfill his purpose. Now, he can do that willingly or reluctantly. If the hero is reluctant there will be an event that upsets the heroes known life and which gives him the push to heed the call of his destiny. In STM case this "kick out of the door" is Pa Kent’s death. Clark's former life is fundamentally disturbed and he can't go back to it any more so therefore the only way he can go now is forward on his journey heeding "the call" of the spaceship and crystal. It's pretty much "Writing 101". Now, granted, one can argue that it might perhaps be a bit clumsy and could have been expressed better (i can think of a few ways to sharpen the narrative) but we do not know how much of the whole first part was left on the cutting floor. Sadly, STM was really hacked up bad by the Salkinds.

 

[blumatic]

You're really hung up on the lesson part, completely ignoring the function of the scene in the movie's narrative structure. I didn't want to do it but since it seems I have to, I'll explain it. In the "Heroes Journey" comes a time where the hero has to leave his home in order to fulfill his purpose. Now, he can do that willingly or reluctantly. If the hero is reluctant there will be an event that upsets the heroes known life and which gives him the push to heed the call of his destiny. In STM case this "kick out of the door" is Pa Kent’s death. Clark's former life is fundamentally disturbed and he can't go back to it any more so therefore the only way he can go now is forward on his journey heeding "the call" of the spaceship and crystal. It's pretty much "Writing 101". Now, granted, one can argue that it might perhaps be a bit clumsy and could have been expressed better (i can think of a few ways to sharpen the narrative) but we do not know how much of the whole first part was left on the cutting floor. Sadly, STM was really hacked up bad by the Salkinds.

PA Kents death did not start Superman's journey. His words of his great power not being enough to save his dad goes against him going out there trying to find answers.

The crystal simply called to him. I got no sense that he was avoiding his destiny or he was seeking to answers. He just had to go north. No rhyme or reason.

Listen it's a flaw in the film. The words were Clark spoke were strong. But no effect and not revisited. What's ironic is that the "powerful" words of Clark is rendered mute when he listens to Pa Kent and ignores Jor El to save a dead Lois.

 

[blumatic]

actually, no. A good story does not have to have full circle development. In fact I'd say it is lazy writing to go full circle. It's an easy way out. That's actually something I really like about The Pa Kent development in STM. It's the motivation for Clark to disobey Jor-El. He's not going to let the same thing happen to Lois like he did to Pa and he's willing to break the "rule" and take the final step to become "the father" by making his own decision. (Granted they should have shown the consequences of that in STM II but that was out of Donner's hand in the end) You can find the same thing in Campbell again. It's the final phase of the "Heroe's Journey" where he destroys the old order of things and establishes an new status quo. The sad thing is, that the going back in time ending shouldn't even have been in STM. It was actually the ending to Superman II but the Studio interfered with both movies and changed the order of things. My guess is, that Donner would have addressed the consequences of Clarks actions in Superman III if he had gotten a chance to do it.

So Superman decides to become God and change alter the course of human history. That's pretty selfish.

He remembers that PA Kent words "You were here for a reason" and he saves Lois. Mind you Superman seemed pretty please of his action prior to Lois dying. Because he saved everyone else. But Lois died. Then lesson should have been that he can't save everyone. But no, those words were not mentioned. He lost his girl and wanted to alter the history of earth to ease his own pain.

How can you say full circle is lazy. It great writing. You plant the seed and you reap what you sow. That's what made the Nolan Batman trilogy so great. Seeds were planted and those issues would rise again, either to drive home a point or used for a clever twist.

For example the worst part for me in TDKR was when Bruce was in the pit. It was obvious he was going to get out and it was uneventful. But the pit scene was really used to set up the surprise of Talking AL Ghul. Full circle.

PA Kent dies, Clark can't save them all. And...... Nothing

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Lois death had nothing to do with PA Kents death.

Yes, it does. Lois's death reminds Clark about his dad's death. Which is why he decides to push his limits and save her life.

If they were then it destroys the lesson he supposedly learned at the funeral.

What lesson would that be? I don't remember any lesson. He just learned his limits.

In STM Superman can rewind time and resurrect the dead. It's even more silly.

Nothing to say, chief. It posed too many question. Basically because it makes you wonder if anytime anything goes wrong, Superman would just go back in time.

BUT... in the context of the movie it meant that he expanded his boundaries. He hadn't found out all his super-powers when he was a child and Pa Kent died, and later he didn't know how fast could he fly (he says so in Lois's interview). So after Lois dies he learns something else a about himself... he can go beyond what he believed it was his powers.



****************************

I just find it dismissive that it was never revisited. There was never an event again where he couldn't save someone because he couldn't do it all.

Yes it was. He couldn't save Lois because he didn't know how powerful he could actually be.

It had no impact. What's the point of a lesson if it doesn't come up again. And it's all destroyed since he really did have the power to bring Lois back to life by disobeying a very legit rule by Jor El.

I think you're talking abolut MOS?

Because in that movie Pa Kent's death was supposed to stop Clark from using his super-powers to help people. Only it didn't. Like, at all.

If instead of Lois, it was some neighborhood friend that died in the earthquake and Superman couldn't do anything about and he reflects on the words he said back then, you have full circle.

If it was a neighbor, then he wouldn't have what he needed to go beyond what he believed were his limits.

A good story means you have full circle. You can't leave it hanging. Address it in the sequel if need be.

Well, I hope in MOS's sequel we can learn whatever happened with Pa Kent death's impact on Clark.

 

[blumatic]

Yes, it does. Lois's death reminds Clark about his dad's death. Which is why he decides to push his limits and save her life.



What lesson would that be? I don't remember any lesson. He just learned his limits.



Nothing to say, chief. It posed too many question. Basically because it makes you wonder if anytime anything goes wrong, Superman would just go back in time.

BUT... in the context of the movie it meant that he expanded his boundaries. He hadn't found out all his super-powers when he was a child and Pa Kent died, and later he didn't know how fast could he fly (he says so in Lois's interview). So after Lois dies he learns something else a about himself... he can go beyond what he believed it was his powers.



****************************




Yes it was. He couldn't save Lois because he didn't know how powerful he could actually be.



I think you're talking abolut MOS?

Because in that movie Pa Kent's death was supposed to stop Clark from using his super-powers to help people. Only it didn't. Like, at all.



If it was a neighbor, then he wouldn't have what he needed to go beyond what he believed were his limits.



Well, I hope in MOS's sequel we can learn whatever happened with Pa Kent death's impact on Clark.

How does Lois remind Superman of his Dad. How? He flew to the sky in anger. I'm not sure he knew what he was going to do until he heard voices.

Just because he's upset about the deaths of two people he loves doesn't mean there is a connection. There is no mention of Kents death. At all. Neither by words nor by picture.

You can say his love or crush for Lois drove him mad. But PA Kents death was not a frustrating thing to him. I can't buy that he was so fed up with Lois' death and the death of others that he tested his limits.

That's all kind of strange.

 

[Jaxon]

So when he turned back time in STM were there 2 supermans in the same time line?

I see a time paradox flaw...

 

[sf2]

So when he turned back time in STM were there 2 supermans in the same time line?

I see a time paradox flaw...

Thing is nobody care.
Superman saved the day n nobody died. N they love it that way.

Unfortunately in MOS, superman saved the day but thousands died.

 

[LaughingMage]

PA Kents death did not start Superman's journey. His words of his great power not being enough to save his dad goes against him going out there trying to find answers.

The crystal simply called to him. I got no sense that he was avoiding his destiny or he was seeking to answers. He just had to go north. No rhyme or reason.

Listen it's a flaw in the film. The words were Clark spoke were strong. But no effect and not revisited. What's ironic is that the "powerful" words of Clark is rendered mute when he listens to Pa Kent and ignores Jor El to save a dead Lois.

Of Course it does. Its the thing that fundamentally changes his old life, pushing him to heed the call. Like I said so many times, read this book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces and you can see how Pa's Death is a classic narrative device. As for flaws, yes there are. Stuff could have been made a lot clearer when it comes to the whole thing still it's far far far better than that facepalm moment in MOS. It was really emotional instead of poorly writen melodrama.

 

[LaughingMage]

So Superman decides to become God and change alter the course of human history. That's pretty selfish.

Jupp exactly. That's what the "Hero" does in a narratological context. He essentially becomes the new authority. His actions redeem an old, flawed order.
How can you say full circle is lazy. It great writing. You plant the seed and you reap what you sow. That's what made the Nolan Batman trilogy so great. Seeds were planted and those issues would rise again, either to drive home a point or used for a clever twist.</br> Because it's so awfully convenient. Granted, it's tried and true and can be used to great effect but it also can lead to extremely lazy writing where everything if tied together in a neat little bow, like for example the Joker killing Bruce's parents or Brainiac being a Kryptonian AI or making "someone" responsible for Kryptons destruction and so on and so forth.
For example the worst part for me in TDKR was when Bruce was in the pit. It was obvious he was going to get out and it was uneventful. But the pit scene was really used to set up the surprise of Talking AL Ghul. Full circle.</br> The worst part for me about me TDKR was, well the TDKR. Gawd, that movie annoyed me.

 

[Dr.]

I have asked many times how it works. Nobody has told me exactly why, all they have done is re-telling that's an impact, that's a huge sacrifice. Yes, that's what it's supposed to be. But does it work in the movie? How does it actually change Clark's life?

In the standard mythology, the Kents decide (for obvious reasons) to keep Clark’s abilities hidden. Of course, the understanding is that when Clark comes of age he will “come out” and do great and noble things with his powers. But until then, maintaining the family secret is vitally important. And somewhat conveniently, the moral/life-and-death implications of Clark waiting until he’s ready are simply avoided by narrative conceit. Any super-saves (a neighbor trapped under tractor, etc.) are modest enough that they can be performed clandestinely.

Clearly, MOS challenged this “convenience” by fashioning a dramatic choice: saving lives vs. keeping the secret. Now you can argue (as in the Zod scenario) that Superman stories shouldn’t be dealing with such hard dilemmas; they should be inspiring wish fulfillments, about always “finding a way.” But given that MOS decided to explore this area, the actual construction was fairly straightforward and coherent. By sacrificing his life, Jonathan set in motion a series of events that would culminate in the existence of Superman (which is the end goal of any Superman origin story). And at the movie’s dénouement (at the graveyard) Clark understands the wisdom of his father’s sacrifice.

Again, one can criticize this somewhat darker interpretation of the mythos. But the internal “narrative logic” works just fine.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

In the standard mythology, the Kents decide (for obvious reasons) to keep Clark’s abilities hidden. Of course, the understanding is that when Clark comes of age he will “come out” and do great and noble things with his powers. But until then, maintaining the family secret is vitally important. And somewhat conveniently, the moral/life-and-death implications of Clark waiting until he’s ready are simply avoided by narrative conceit. Any super-saves (a neighbor trapped under tractor, etc.) are modest enough that they can be performed clandestinely.

Clearly, MOS challenged this “convenience” by fashioning a dramatic choice: saving lives vs. keeping the secret. Now you can argue (as in the Zod scenario) that Superman stories shouldn’t be dealing with such hard dilemmas; they should be inspiring wish fulfillments, about always “finding a way.” But given that MOS decided to explore this area, the actual construction was fairly straightforward and coherent. By sacrificing his life, Jonathan set in motion a series of events that would culminate in the existence of Superman (which is the end goal of any Superman origin story). And at the movie’s dénouement (at the graveyard) Clark understands the wisdom of his father’s sacrifice.

Again, one can criticize this somewhat darker interpretation of the mythos. But the internal “narrative logic” works just fine.

I agree. Very much so. Another thig that the film had as a plus in my mind was that there are consequences to every action and I think that in Pa Kent's world view and it's something he's trying to both live out and impart to Clark is that all actions have consequences and finding the "right" thing to do can be hard and more like threading a needle. I appreciated this greatly.

 

[LaughingMage]

Again, one can criticize this somewhat darker interpretation of the mythos. But the internal “narrative logic” works just fine.

Agreed, it's the execution that is sloppy and flies in the face of human nature.

 

[blumatic]

Agreed, it's the execution that is sloppy and flies in the face of human nature.

And interfering with human history does not fly in the face of human nature?

Only issue with MOS is the plot holes and Pa Kents death. Those were mishaps.

Every thing else was fine. Kal was not a vengeful character. He always sought to do good and the right thing. His own execution was sloppy and destructive but then again when faced with multiple aliens and two destructive earth altering spaceships all by yourself, without a team and no experience, well it's not shocking that things were a mess.

The world around Kal was dark. Maybe it was too dark that it tainted the hero. But my point of view is that it should be explored in sequels. I think we can all agree that this film was not wrapped neatly for a traditional superhero film. I like that personally. Well I did until WB decide to throw Batman in the next film.

Ugh.

 

[Dr.]

Agreed, it's the execution that is sloppy and flies in the face of human nature.

Then we don&#8217;t agree. I was stipulating a possible philosophical disagreement with the scene. But as presented, I thought the execution and &#8220;human nature&#8221; stuff was just fine.

It&#8217;s hard to imagine Clark (upon sober and measured reflection) allowing his father to, say, face a firing squad on his behalf. But the events surrounding the tornado were structured in such a way that a fatal outcome wasn&#8217;t apparent until the very last moments. I&#8217;d call that good execution.

 

[charl_huntress]

Wow...this has been a fascinating debate. I actually had to read the whole thread over two days because I really wanted to see what everyone had to say.

Ummm...all I can really add is when I was watching the movie (since I was not spoiled) I had no idea he would kill Zod. Like that didn't even factor into my mind that would be a choice Superman would consider. Even in the comics, he has always held back on his strength. He "takes it easy" on the bad guys because one super punch could kill them. This is the Superman I am familiar with so when it happened I was stunned. I actually had to pause the movie and think about it. I'm still processing it which was why this thread is fascinating. Yet, I have seen Superman kill in comics, so perhaps that is why I'm not so unnerved by the choice the writers made for him in this story.

How can Superman regret killing Zod to save that family?

And why wouldn't he do it again?

Good point. I do understand this. Some might call what he did a righteous kill, but then that flies in the face of what has truly been a core of the Superman ethos. For Supes there are no righteous kills. Yet this leads to me this...

So, I think that Superman, in Man of Steel, is essentially an acceptance of that view. It's embracing what the modern state of how we view the battle between good and evil. That, sometimes you MUST kill to do good.

If that is the case then I am sadden they would go there with it because that is certainly not my personal preference for the character. I am actually hoping in some way they highlight that he does regret killing Zod. But they would have to really sale that, which might not be what they want to do at all .

 

[blumatic]

Wow...this has been a fascinating debate. I actually had to read the whole thread over two days because I really wanted to see what everyone had to say.

Ummm...all I can really add is when I was watching the movie (since I was not spoiled) I had no idea he would kill Zod. Like that didn't even factor into my mind that would be a choice Superman would consider. Even in the comics, he has always held back on his strength. He "takes it easy" on the bad guys because one super punch could kill them. This is the Superman I am familiar with so when it happened I was stunned. I actually had to pause the movie and think about it. I'm still processing it which was why this thread is fascinating. Yet, I have seen Superman kill in comics, so perhaps that is why I'm not so unnerved by the choice the writers made for him in this story.



Good point. I do understand this. Some might call what he did a righteous kill, but then that flies in the face of what has truly been a core of the Superman ethos. For Supes there are no righteous kills. Yet this leads to me this...



If that is the case then I am sadden they would go there with it because that is certainly not my personal preference for the character. I am actually hoping in some way they highlight that he does regret killing Zod. But they would have to really sale that, which might not be what they want to do at all .

Generally, Killing, no matter what the circumstance should not be celebrated by the killer.

Kal did not like that he had to do it. Just because a circumstance arises and action taken by a hero that he usually wouldn't take doesn't change the character. Especially considering that not killing is not in the mythos of Superman.

Kal Screaming in regret makes the scene respect the character. No matter how sad people view that ending.

What's terrible is in Superman 2 after Superman saved the world, he goes back up north with his full powers and bullies the guy that beat him up when Clark had no powers. That's petty.

But it was a funny scene.

 

[charl_huntress]

Kal did not like that he had to do it. Just because a circumstance arises and action taken by a hero that he usually wouldn't take doesn't change the character. Especially considering that not killing is not in the mythos of Superman.

This may be an issue because this whole "Superman does not kill" is I believe much more indicative of post-crisis. It's a rule that has only really been a stated thing that all the characters believed within the last 30 years or so. There have been periods where Superman did kill. However, currently, I would say that's the generally accepted golden rule for the character.

Kal Screaming in regret makes the scene respect the character. No matter how sad people view that ending.

As you mentioned, no one should scream for joy at killing (unless you're playing a video game), and maybe that was the point the writers were trying to sale. Though, I do understand the point being made that for all intents and purposes it was a righteous kill, so if presented with that choice again then why wouldn't Supes take the same action? Remember he is supposed to be a superhero...not a Jack Bauer, so whatever is done in the sequel has to shine some light on why perhaps that wasn't a righteous kill. Or better yet, why he establishes his core philosophy (which I hope will come) that he will not kill under any circumstances ever again.

As for the ending...I found it quite "joyful". It wasn't sad to me either. I thought it was a bright start to a new future and he had on the glasses. I was cheesing my ass off. I had no problems with the ending and didn't see it as sad.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

I personally think that many fans have built up this character more than it needs too. Too high of pedestal.

People kind of worship Superman. And make him out to be some infallible saint. And what's funny is that the Donner films, adored by nearly all, does not make him to be a saint.

I never believed Superman as a messiah. I dont believe him to be better than us.

I see him as good guy with superpowers. Or as Christopher Reeve eloquently put "a friend".

I dont know if there is a double standard, but an over-romanticism of the hero, or too many interpretations.

I know Superman should be near perfect but I think when it comes to origin stories he should be flawed. And things should be difficult.

VERY GOOD POINTS.

I think people assume that he is supposed to be morally unquestionable with a black and white world view, and that is the problem.

 

[charl_huntress]

edit

 

[Steamteck]

The problem I think people have with Superman killing Zod is not necessarily the fact that he kills him but more the fact that it doesn't feel earned by the film. We did not get into the character's head enough throughout the course of the film. We don't know what his stance on life is, what morals he has, what he believes in, etc. The film thinks that it did just as good of a job of getting into the protagonist's head as Batman Begins and Iron Man did, and therefore thinks it can pull something like that off and have it be accepted. However, that is not the case.

And that is really what a lot of MOS boils down to: Great ideas not executed properly. There are so many things in this film that are poorly received not because of the ideas behind them but because of the poor execution. A lot of the times, people even get the wrong message out of it due to how poor the execution is in certain places. Case and point: Jonathan Kent. Many people assume Pa Kent never wanted Clark to use his powers to help people when in Snyder's mind, what Pa Kent actually believed is that Clark wasn't ready to reveal himself yet and had to be ready for that when the time was right. Otherwise, he would never have a chance of being accepted by our society.

Basically, the execution makes the film feels like this:
BOOM! Cool Krypton stuff and giant birds!
BAM! Cool flashbacks with brief touches on the symbol of hope and humanity!
WOW! Aliens are attacking the planet now!
HOLY ****! Superman and the army beat the **** out of everyone then Supes snaps the ****er's neck like a boss!
And now happy ending with people smiling!

...when Snyder's real intentions was to do something more like this:
Jor-El sends his only son from a hopeless world beyond saving to a hopeless world that still has a fighting chance.
Clark grows up not being sure of what his purpose in life is. Has the following beliefs, the following stances on things such as murder, the following internal conflicts, etc.
The lack of hope and of freedom that has lead to Krypton's eventual demise has now come to Earth. Clark does not know what to do and has to make a decision - a decision based on all the morals/beliefs/lessons we've seen him have + learn throughout the course of the film till now.
Clark decides he can't let Zod turn Earth into Krypton - not just into a physical Krypton but into the same hopeless/freedom-less world that Krypton has become.
Clark commits murder. Based on everything we've seen of his beliefs throughout the film, he reacts in the following way. However, his moral internal struggles have finally come to an end and knows what is right now. Clark looks at the sun, says "never again" to himself, and finally knows what type of person/hero he needs to be.
Clark joins the DP. His origin is complete and has finally become the Superman.

See except for your last point, which I think is still in development, I got your 2nd set out of the movie not the first so I feel like either you missed a lot or I project stuff into the film a lot.

 

[Dr.]

As you mentioned, no one should scream for joy at killing (unless you're playing a video game), and maybe that was the point the writers were trying to sale. Though, I do understand the point being made that for all intents and purposes it was a righteous kill, so if presented with that choice again then why wouldn't Supes take the same action? Remember he is supposed to be a superhero...not a Jack Bauer, so whatever is done in the sequel has to shine some light on why perhaps that wasn't a righteous kill. Or better yet, why he establishes his core philosophy (which I hope will come) that he will not kill under any circumstances ever again.

Because of the controversy, I wouldn’t put it past Goyer/Snyder to “explain”/second-guess themselves about the Zod issue in the sequel. But that, imo, would be a can of worms - for exactly the reasons you outline. As the scene was crafted, the Zod kill in MOS was - given the specific and dire circumstances - entirely justified. That is, it was neither a murder (“with malice aforethought”) nor a calculated execution. But if we deem it a moral action (which it was), then a similar action in the future (given similar conditions) cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, introducing a “no kill” vow implies that a terrible - and avoidable - mistake was made in MOS; and this would redefine the events in MOS as immoral. Like I said, a can of worms. My suggestion: don’t say a word about any new “vow” or “code.”