Justice League Zack Snyder Directing Justice League - Part 6

[Tra-El]

Except that is purely symbolic at that point, as the Codex became useless after the Ship was destroyed. So, having the Codex in his DNA is no more significant than simply having Kryptonian DNA. Both provide just as much connection to his heritage. Actually, his Kryptonian DNA is MORE of a connection as it actually affects him.

What does "being prepared" mean in this case? Being prepared to carry out an action is a separate matter from the emotional consequences and fallout.

Most of Snyder's intentions are symbolic, but though the Geneisis Chamber was destroyed by Superman in that moment, reminscents of Zod's ship did have carried over components of the chamber, which was how Lex created Doomsday in BvS in the water infested placenta of the fallen ship so by authorization of a Kryptonian command key, the birthing process could have still be manipulated enough to fuse life of certain Kryptonian DNA.

The Codex was supposed to come full circle in the revival of Superman in Snyder's JL. Shame that sequence and his ressurection and what Cyborg tapped into was changed in the final cut. It would have served a purpose that has a history to Superman's heritage other than just being forgotten about. Maybe a new director will play more on the Codex for a future film. It's there for the taking if they want to harpen back to Krypton.

As for Superman mentally prepared, one of the main themes in MoS was about having the ability to make choices as Superman was Krypton's last son to be born naturally. Jonathan and Jor-El both taught the importance of making a choice. In the battle with Zod, Clark was finally at peace in making the choice to choose between Earth and Krypton's fate. He chose Earth because Krypton was a fabrication of a dead world that was nevermore.

 

[heatvision38]

I am happy that we got many scenes of Clark with his Mom, thanks to Snyder, starting from MoS, BvS to JL, no other Superman movie was able to film as many scenes with them.

This scene frustrated me in the movie because as soon as it gets emotional, as soon as they hug, it cuts away to the rest of the team. Scenes like this you can feel the KT "under 2 hour" mandate.

 

[heatvision38]

Probably. When Zack was announced to helm Man of Steel, I dug very deep in following every story and video of Zack explaining the why and how's of his style of film making. There was great content from the MoS press tours with Zack letting us in on the way he articulate's and crafts his films.

I remember coming across one where he said no matter how his films are received, good or bad, he initially wants people and audience's to dissect the meaning of what he was trying to say in a scene. He said he wants people to walk out and say "Hey, what did you think of this? I think it's this.." but the other person says "no, no this is what it meant.." so in a lot of ways, with fans STILL breaking down his DCEU films to this day has left that mark.

Zack is an interesting person for sure. He has a lot to offer regardless of the reception of what his films may say otherwise.

Being that Zack is an art history major and he thinks along these terms, very symbolically, it makes sense, just like art is meant to be interpreted, he wants his movies to have a similar quality.

 

[chintai80]

i like how he makes the violence uncomfortable.
that's the point.
no glory.

yea, maybe it's cool batman's going around dropping his batmobile on a thug's face...but that's still a batmobile dropping right onto a thug's face.

are we suppose to cheer and be ok with that?
or are we suppose to question that?

that's what i like about it.
snyder's not always 100% successful in conveying his message, imo.
and i get why it probably puts some fans off.
but i like that it pisses me off at times too.

"superman or batman would never do that!"

exactly.

 

[kguillou]

I am happy that we got many scenes of Clark with his Mom, thanks to Snyder, starting from MoS, BvS to JL, no other Superman movie was able to film as many scenes with them.

No joke, this moment, out of the many many moments I wanted to see in JL was my most anticipated: seeing Clark reunited with his mom and the love of his life. This was the moment that I knew was gonna make me melt into a pile of man goo. And they took that moment and...sigh...

 

[GothamBat]

 

[random_havoc]

I am happy that we got many scenes of Clark with his Mom, thanks to Snyder, starting from MoS, BvS to JL, no other Superman movie was able to film as many scenes with them.

To bad Snyder ruined it by making her the anti-Uncle Ben. "You don't owe them anything". Umm, I prefer the "with great power comes great responsibility" as opposed to the "Let a busload of kids die maybe" and "with great power comes no responsibility, feel free to be a terrible person it's ok" of Snyder's ma and pa kent.

 

[Spider-jedi]

To bad Snyder ruined it by making her the anti-Uncle Ben. "You don't owe them anything". Umm, I prefer the "with great power comes great responsibility" as opposed to the "Let a busload of kids die maybe" and "with great power comes no responsibility, feel free to be a terrible person it's ok" of Snyder's ma and pa kent.

thats funny. im not a fan of his choices but i think he was going for something different. yes in the comics they have always pushed him to be a hero. but ZS was trying to show a more human side by her been selfish. If you saw your kid been treated that way by the world it hard not to say forget them all.

i didnt like it either but let not just piss on the guys work

 

[Spider-Fan]

Yeah, at that point in the story, the media was basically trashing him non-stop and she was sick of it. All she is basically telling him is do what you think is right and will make you happy. Best phrasing, no. But, I can understand what she was saying.

 

[random_havoc]

Yeah, at that point in the story, the media was basically trashing him non-stop and she was sick of it. All she is basically telling him is do what you think is right and will make you happy. Best phrasing, no. But, I can understand what she was saying.

She literally lists all the good things he can be and then says "or don't. You don't owe them anything". It's the exact opposite thing that Uncle Ben said. If the "great power" line is at all admirable then she is a bad person for telling her son the opposite.

As for the previous poster, yeah he was going for making her more human, but instead he just made her a worse person. They could have made Captain America "more human" by the same logic if he'd flipped off the president in Civil War except that part of what makes many comic characters what they are is that they are people who are constantly trying to do the right thing. Snyder just doesn't like those kinds of characters, which one of the reasons why he was so wrong to write/direct these characters.

 

[Spider-Fan]

She literally lists all the good things he can be and then says "or don't. You don't owe them anything". It's the exact opposite thing that Uncle Ben said. If the "great power" line is at all admirable then she is a bad person for telling her son the opposite.

As for the previous poster, yeah he was going for making her more human, but instead he just made her a worse person. They could have made Captain America "more human" by the same logic if he'd flipped off the president in Civil War except that part of what makes many comic characters what they are is that they are people who are constantly trying to do the right thing. Snyder just doesn't like those kinds of characters, which one of the reasons why he was so wrong to write/direct these characters.

BvS is a flawed movie with many problems, but I think this is an example of taking what she is saying too literally. She doesn't say be a bad person, she says:

Be their hero, Clark. Be their angel, be their monument, be anything they need you to be... or be none of it. You don't owe this world a thing. You never did.

This is not saying go out and be a terrible person. She says in this same quote, be their angel, etc. What she is saying is he can be everything they want him to be, or be his own person. That he doesn't have to be someone he is not to satisfy others. That is not "Go be an awful person." She is saying "Go be youself." Do I see how you got that conclusion? Yes I do, but it's not what the quote means. This is a good example of twisting words to fit your own critique.

 

[misslane38]

To bad Snyder ruined it by making her the anti-Uncle Ben. "You don't owe them anything". Umm, I prefer the "with great power comes great responsibility" as opposed to the "Let a busload of kids die maybe" and "with great power comes no responsibility, feel free to be a terrible person it's ok" of Snyder's ma and pa kent.

She literally lists all the good things he can be and then says "or don't. You don't owe them anything". It's the exact opposite thing that Uncle Ben said. If the "great power" line is at all admirable then she is a bad person for telling her son the opposite.

As for the previous poster, yeah he was going for making her more human, but instead he just made her a worse person. They could have made Captain America "more human" by the same logic if he'd flipped off the president in Civil War except that part of what makes many comic characters what they are is that they are people who are constantly trying to do the right thing. Snyder just doesn't like those kinds of characters, which one of the reasons why he was so wrong to write/direct these characters.

All Martha is saying is that Clark shouldn't let the world define him or tell him what to do. He shouldn't be Superman or be who society wants him to be because he feels he's obligated to or because he's subject to society's whims. He should do it because he believes in the cause, and because he operated as Superman with this attitude before this crisis, means to Martha that he previously was doing something as a gift to people out of love and hope (he never owed people his services).

 

[Spider-Fan]

All Martha is saying is that Clark shouldn't let the world define him or tell him what to do. He shouldn't be Superman or be who society wants him to be because he feels he's obligated to or because he's subject to society's whims. He should do it because he believes in the cause, and because he operated as Superman with this attitude before this crisis, means to Martha that he previously was doing something as a gift to people out of love and hope (he never owed people his services).

Exactly. Superman in this movie's arc was questionning his path, so Martha is basically saying to him he has to be true to himself. Let him define Superman, not others.

 

[Mandon Knight]

 

[random_havoc]

BvS is a flawed movie with many problems, but I think this is an example of taking what she is saying too literally. She doesn't say be a bad person, she says:



This is not saying go out and be a terrible person. She says in this same quote, be their angel, etc. What she is saying is he can be everything they want him to be, or be his own person. That he doesn't have to be someone he is not to satisfy others. That is not "Go be an awful person." She is saying "Go be youself." Do I see how you got that conclusion? Yes I do, but it's not what the quote means. This is a good example of twisting words to fit your own critique.

No it's not. She says he doesn't owe the world anything. Does great power come with great responsibility or not? If you have the ability to save someone from getting hit by a car but don't because you had a rough day and are feeling down, are you a bad person? is someone who tells you you don't have to save that person, a bad person? Absolutely. That one sentence is the anti-uncle Ben.

You could go even deeper on the morality issue and point out that what Uncle Ben said is basically quoting the Bible "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them." (James 4, forget the verse). What she is saying to Clark is morally wrong. And do parents do things wrong? Sure, but the heart of his parents in the comics is they are the ones who taught Superman right and wrong, they're WHY he's the good man that he is. NONE of that is shown in the movies. They're not good people, let alone do they teach him to be. No wonder Snyder was so stupid as to think he had to have Superman kill someone to explain why Superman has a rule about not killing people. Snyder didn't understand he got that rule from decent people who taught him to be a decent person, because he clearly didn't understand the role Superman's parents in the mythos whatsoever

 

[Spider-Fan]

No it's not. She says he doesn't owe the world anything. Does great power come with great responsibility or not? If you have the ability to save someone from getting hit by a car but don't because you had a rough day and are feeling down, are you a bad person? is someone who tells you you don't have to save that person, a bad person? Absolutely. That one sentence is the anti-uncle Ben.

You could go even deeper on the morality issue and point out that what Uncle Ben said is basically quoting the Bible "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them." (James 4, forget the verse). What she is saying to Clark is morally wrong. And do parents do things wrong? Sure, but the heart of his parents in the comics is they are the ones who taught Superman right and wrong, they're WHY he's the good man that he is. NONE of that is shown in the movies. They're not good people, let alone do they teach him to be. No wonder Snyder was so stupid as to think he had to have Superman kill someone to explain why Superman has a rule about not killing people. Snyder didn't understand he got that rule from decent people who taught him to be a decent person, because he clearly didn't understand the role Superman's parents in the mythos whatsoever

At no point does she say don't help people. People within the movie keep applying what THEY think Superman should be, and this is what she is talking about. Some see him as a savior, others a demon, think he needs government regulation, etc. Opinions of him are all over the board. She is saying he doesn't have to go by what they want Superman to be and to stay true to himself. Aka, he can make Superman the savior they want him to be, or make Superman something else. Ultimately he doesn't owe what Superman should be or mean to anyone but himself. That's the message. So no, you're misinterpreting the quote.

 

[misslane38]

No it's not. She says he doesn't owe the world anything. Does great power come with great responsibility or not? If you have the ability to save someone from getting hit by a car but don't because you had a rough day and are feeling down, are you a bad person? is someone who tells you you don't have to save that person, a bad person? Absolutely. That one sentence is the anti-uncle Ben.

You could go even deeper on the morality issue and point out that what Uncle Ben said is basically quoting the Bible "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them." (James 4, forget the verse). What she is saying to Clark is morally wrong. And do parents do things wrong? Sure, but the heart of his parents in the comics is they are the ones who taught Superman right and wrong, they're WHY he's the good man that he is. NONE of that is shown in the movies. They're not good people, let alone do they teach him to be. No wonder Snyder was so stupid as to think he had to have Superman kill someone to explain why Superman has a rule about not killing people. Snyder didn't understand he got that rule from decent people who taught him to be a decent person, because he clearly didn't understand the role Superman's parents in the mythos whatsoever

You are twisting this. Obligation (owe) and responsibility are not the same thing. America has a lot of power, but is it responsible for America to be the world's savior who interferes in other nations' affairs? Ben was talking about using power wisely and responsibly. Martha is merely saying Clark doesn't have to conform to a particular demand or definition the public assigns him. She's not saying don't help people, but don't help people only in the way they tell you to or the way they allow. Look at June Finch on Charlie Rose. She concludes that maybe Superman shouldn't even act to save a dying child without some sort of oversight. In fact, Finch on Charlie Rose and the montage add relevant context:

We, as a population on this planet, have been looking for a savior. 90% of people believe in a higher power. And every religion believes in some sort messianic figure. And when this savior character actually comes to Earth, we want to make him abide by our rules? We have to understand that this is a paradigm shift. We have to start thinking beyond politics. Are there any moral constraints on this person? We have international law. On this Earth, every act is a political act. Is it really surprising, that the most powerful man in the world should be a figure of controversy? To have an individual engaging in the state level interventions should give us all pause. Human beings have a horrible track record of following people with great power, down paths that lead to huge human monstrosities. We have always created icons in our own image. What we've done is we project ourselves on to him. The fact is, maybe he's not some sort of devil or Jesus character. Maybe hes just a guy trying to do the right thing. Were talking about a being whose very existence challenges our own sense of priority in the universe. If you go back to Copernicus, where he restored the sun and the center of the known universe, displacing Earth. And you get to Darwinian evolution and you find out, we're not special on this Earth we're just one among other life forms. And now we learned, that we're not even special in the entire universe because there is Superman. There he is, an alien, among us. We're not alone.

Are you, as a United State Senator, personally comfortable saying to a grieving parent,"Superman could've saved your child, but on principle we did not want him to act." I'm not saying he shouldn't act. I'm saying he shouldn't act unilaterally. What are we talking about here then? Must there be a Superman? There is.

What Finch says in the scene that directly precedes the Clark/Martha conversation also adds context:

How do we determine what's good? In a democracy, good is a conversation not a unilateral decision. So, I urge Superman, to come to this hearth of the people tomorrow. To see those who have suffered. The world needs to know what happened in that desert. And to know what he stands for. How far will he take his power. Does he act by our will, or by his own.

Notice how the issue is presented as black and white, a false dichotomy. What Martha is saying is that you don't have to be forced to make a choice one way or the other. Not to mention the fact that you can't say Superman isn't good because you (incorrectly) judge something his parent says. You judge him by his actions. Children defy their parents all the time. When Superman chooses to answer Finch's call, the point is made that good is a conversation. It is not one person's way or another person's way, but a back and forth where he, as Superman, isn't obligated to be and do what is demanded of him just because they demand it or want it.

Finally, Snyder didn't have Superman kill to learn about not killing, because he hadn't learned it before. He had him do it to show that it was a choice for Superman, and to teach Superman how he can be put in a position where such a choice is necessary and the only remaining moral thing to do. This is what I said before about this:

I also think what Snyder means by this moment informing or inspiring the no kill code in Superman has more to do with the mythology of Superman and the larger stakes of his heroic mission. With Batman, people trace his aversion to guns and killing to his parents' 'murder. With Superman, people had no such thing. I think the situation made Superman realize that he is capable of killing when there are no other options and innocent lives are at stake, and so the way it inspires his no-kill code is not only to make him more conscious of and more dedicated to proactive measures to prevent such no-win scenarios, but also to make him appreciate just how high the stakes have to be for him to justify it.

 

[The Guard]

Contextually, Martha is pretty clearly saying that he should decide what Superman represents, and how he operates. She is not telling him not to save people at all. The scene is presented in the context of the films' conflict, which is not about whether he should save people, but what he should represent for them.

That's why the writers present it via her phrasing the issue as three different things he can represent if he so chooses:

-Hero
-Angel
-Monument

and not as a moral issue. She's basically telling him that it's up to him whether he decides to be a symbol to the world now that he's revealed himself.

It's not an accident that the two scenes where he talks to his loved ones about the issues he's facing end up being placed in the context of the future of Superman as a symbol in the world.

It's not really in the context of "don't save people anymore", it's about whether he should "answer" to what others want or expect of him. I think it's pretty unlikely he'd just stop saving people in general regardless of what she says or wants. He's been doing it since he was a child.

 

[Spider-Fan]

You are twisting this. Obligation (owe) and responsibility are not the same thing. America has a lot of power, but is it responsible for America to be the world's savior who interferes in other nations' affairs? Ben was talking about using power wisely and responsibly. Martha is merely saying Clark doesn't have to conform to a particular demand or definition the public assigns him. She's not saying don't help people, but don't help people only in the way they tell you to or the way they allow. Look at June Finch on Charlie Rose. She concludes that maybe Superman shouldn't even act to save a dying child without some sort of oversight. In fact, Finch on Charlie Rose and the montage add relevant context:

We, as a population on this planet, have been looking for a savior. 90% of people believe in a higher power. And every religion believes in some sort messianic figure. And when this savior character actually comes to Earth, we want to make him abide by our rules? We have to understand that this is a paradigm shift. We have to start thinking beyond politics. Are there any moral constraints on this person? We have international law. On this Earth, every act is a political act. Is it really surprising, that the most powerful man in the world should be a figure of controversy? To have an individual engaging in the state level interventions should give us all pause. Human beings have a horrible track record of following people with great power, down paths that lead to huge human monstrosities. We have always created icons in our own image. What we've done is we project ourselves on to him. The fact is, maybe he's not some sort of devil or Jesus character. Maybe hes just a guy trying to do the right thing. Were talking about a being whose very existence challenges our own sense of priority in the universe. If you go back to Copernicus, where he restored the sun and the center of the known universe, displacing Earth. And you get to Darwinian evolution and you find out, we're not special on this Earth we're just one among other life forms. And now we learned, that we're not even special in the entire universe because there is Superman. There he is, an alien, among us. We're not alone.

Are you, as a United State Senator, personally comfortable saying to a grieving parent,"Superman could've saved your child, but on principle we did not want him to act." I'm not saying he shouldn't act. I'm saying he shouldn't act unilaterally. What are we talking about here then? Must there be a Superman? There is.

Not to mention the fact that you can't say Superman isn't good because you (incorrectly) judge something his parent says. You judge him by his actions. Children defy their parents all the time. Snyder didn't have Superman kill to learn about not killing, because he hadn't learned it before. He had him do it to show that it was a choice for Superman, and to teach Superman how he can be put in a position where such a choice is necessary and the only remaining moral thing to do. This is what I said before about this:

I also think what Snyder means by this moment informing or inspiring the no kill code in Superman has more to do with the mythology of Superman and the larger stakes of his heroic mission. With Batman, people trace his aversion to guns and killing to his parents' 'murder. With Superman, people had no such thing. I think the situation made Superman realize that he is capable of killing when there are no other options and innocent lives are at stake, and so the way it inspires his no-kill code is not only to make him more conscious of and more dedicated to proactive measures to prevent such no-win scenarios, but also to make him appreciate just how high the stakes have to be for him to justify it.

I def think Snyder was going for this, but he could have done a better job explaining it. I think that ends up being most of Snyder's problem: the ideas are there, but the execution and explanation are not always clear. We see him kill Zod, but we never have a moment he reflects on it or explains to the audience he has a no kill code now. He just expects you to pick up on that. I am all for not being overly expressive with dialogue in movies, but...when a fair portion of your audience is confused like they are, then there is a problem with how you communicated with them.

 

[chintai80]

I def think Snyder was going for this, but he could have done a better job explaining it. I think that ends up being most of Snyder's problem: the ideas are there, but the execution and explanation are not always clear. We see him kill Zod, but we never have a moment he reflects on it or explains to the audience he has a no kill code now. He just expects you to pick up on that. I am all for not being overly expressive with dialogue in movies, but...when a fair portion of your audience is confused like they are, then there is a problem with how you communicated with them.

agreed with this.
i like what snyder's mostly done, or at least his intentions.

but sometimes he has great ideas but his execution of it is slightly off (or terrible - according to some people).

 

[misslane38]

I def think Snyder was going for this, but he could have done a better job explaining it. I think that ends up being most of Snyder's problem: the ideas are there, but the execution and explanation are not always clear. We see him kill Zod, but we never have a moment he reflects on it or explains to the audience he has a no kill code now. He just expects you to pick up on that. I am all for not being overly expressive with dialogue in movies, but...when a fair portion of your audience is confused like they are, then there is a problem with how you communicated with them.

I see what you mean, and I wouldn't have been against more of an onscreen explanation, but I think Snyder wants to show rather than tell. First of all, it's the audience who is bringing the baggage of the no-kill code to the film. Superman in his film doesn't know it's such a big deal. He reacts in the moment, and not in a metatextual way that seems too self-aware of the canon context, and that reaction is to beg Zod to stop, so as to not force him to do the deed, and to cry in despair after the deed is done. Snyder's way of following up on the lessons learned is to show them in action, which is what he was doing with the threat against Martha's life in BvS. Superman doesn't just accept Luthor's ultimatum and seeks to reason with Batman.

 

[The Guard]

I think Snyder's intentions regarding the no kill code quite possibly simply resulted in a different outcome because of the backlash. I wouldn't be surprised if Snyder and the writers had every intention of following up on the "no kill code" angle in some fashion after MOS, but after the film's release, people whined and whined and whined about it so much that it was decided to just gloss over it a bit and move on without really dwelling on it.

That said, Superman's reaction in BVS to what Lex wants him to do regarding Batman is fairly telling. The man definitely doesn't want to have to kill again, and Cavill's performance of the moment of realization was every bit as powerful as him actually telling someone he doesn't want to have to kill again.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I see what you mean, and I wouldn't have been against more of an onscreen explanation, but I think Snyder wants to show rather than tell. First of all, it's the audience who is bringing the baggage of the no-kill code to the film. Superman in his film doesn't know it's such a big deal. He reacts in the moment, and not in a metatextual way that seems too self-aware of the canon context, and that reaction is to beg Zod to stop, so as to not force him to do the deed, and to cry in despair after the deed is done. Snyder's way of following up on the lessons learned is to show them in action, which is what he was doing with the threat against Martha's life in BvS. Superman doesn't just accept Luthor's ultimatum and seeks to reason with Batman.

I normally agree showing is better than telling the audience. But, Zod's death happens at the end of MoS, so the film doesn't really give you that moment of "A-HA!" to see his new found principles applied. I think that is why it is confusing to most. Within MoS, it doesn't come up again. There was a great opportunity to bring that up in the scene with Lois questioning him about the desert incident in BvS. All he had to do was say something like "I don't do that anymore. Not after Zod" and boom...quick and painless.

I actually don't disagree with him killing Zod. I actually think using that as a reason why he is hesitant to kill later down the line works very well. I just think it needed to be made more clear that was the intention. I caught it, but I can see where it was missed.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I normally agree showing is better than telling the audience. But, Zod's death happens at the end of MoS, so the film doesn't really give you that moment of "A-HA!" to see his new found principles applied. I think that is why it is confusing to most. Within MoS, it doesn't come up again. There was a great opportunity to bring that up in the scene with Lois questioning him about the desert incident in BvS. All he had to do was say something like "I don't do that anymore. Not after Zod" and boom...quick and painless.

I actually don't disagree with him killing Zod. I actually think using that as a reason why he is hesitant to kill later down the line works very well. I just think it needed to be made more clear that was the intention. I caught it, but I can see where it was missed.

Yeah I agree with this, Snyder likes subtly when it comes to saying certain things in his movies, which I personally like, but in this instance actually saying it aloud would have worked better.

 

[misslane38]

I normally agree showing is better than telling the audience. But, Zod's death happens at the end of MoS, so the film doesn't really give you that moment of "A-HA!" to see his new found principles applied. I think that is why it is confusing to most. Within MoS, it doesn't come up again. There was a great opportunity to bring that up in the scene with Lois questioning him about the desert incident in BvS. All he had to do was say something like "I don't do that anymore. Not after Zod" and boom...quick and painless.

It would've been painful for me as a viewer, though. I wouldn't want to hear Clark tell anyone -- promise anyone -- that he would never kill a threat like Zod again. He killed Zod because he was a deadly threat that could not be contained by the resources available to Superman at the time. If someone like that were to happen again, I would want Superman to kill again. I wouldn't want him putting his own desire to avoid feeling bad over the lives of others. Clark did the right thing and said the right thing to Lois: he didn't kill anyone in the desert.

The principles Superman would apply post-Zod would be the principle of doing everything you can to prevent a Zod situation from happening again, and if it happens again, do everything possible to avoid killing. BvS puts Superman in this position via Lex's ultimatum. Superman considers the possibility of killing Batman to save Martha, but he doesn't kill Bruce. That is the only principle to which Superman should hold himself accountable.

This was Snyder's intention:

"I wanted to create a situation where Superman has gotta do what he’s gotta do or he is going to see these people get chopped in half. And I think Zod knows that. It’s almost like suicide in a way, it’s like death by cop. If Kal has the ability to kill him then that’s a noble way for him to die. It’s echoes the ‘A good death is its own reward’ concept in a movie, and if there were more adventures for Superman in the future, you now don’t know 100 percent what he’s gonna do. When you really put the concept that he won’t kill in stone and you really erase it as an option in the viewer’s mind, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a code.

“But again you’ll always have this thing in the back of your mind. This little thing of… ‘How far can you push him? If he sees Lois get hurt or he sees something like his mother get killed… you just made Superman really mad. A Superman that we know is capable of some really horrible stuff if he wants to do it. That’s the thing that’s cool about him I think, in some ways, the idea that he has the frailties of a human emotionally but you don’t wanna get that guy mad…"