I seem to recall Superman grabbing Zod by the balls, lifting him up and tossing him down a chasm in the Fortress of Solitude. Then as he flew Lois out, he used his heat vision to bury the Fortress which undoubtedly killed the Phantom Zone prisoners if they had survived the fall.

@wavemotioncannon: Perhaps MOS is more appealing to a non Superman fan given its content. But to a Superman fan like myself, it misses several core concepts that are integral to the character.

@ultimatesmfan:Thanks. And no I haven't seen Morrison's view yet on MOS.

@_black: Everything just felt compressed and moved too quickly. For a 2 and a half hour film, it still felt rushed. They need to include less things in the next film and focus more on individual characters. Not just cram everything in and not give people or events enough screen time.

@captainlantern76: For that Cap I refer you to my reply to said comment

@amazingangel As I said in my review, it was at that moment where the film broke my heart. Even if the ending was anti climatic, I would have much preferred that to Superman breaking his code and killing Zod. I'm all for Superman choosing Earth over Krypton. What I am not for is a betrayal of Superman's character which is what Man of Steel was.

@lilben42: I couldn't disagree more. I thought it was an overhyped, overrated, just about decent introduction to Superman. As for your 'modern take' on Superman, that's just wrong. The modern Pre Flashpoint Superman was not present in this film. The one who was friendly, confident, charming and possessed an unshakable ethical compass. What Man of Steel did was a perversion of what the core concept of Superman is as an idealised version of what humanity can be. And there was a choice between killing Zod. He could have flown high into the air, punched Zod, kicked him, thrown him away. You see where I'm going? Those 3 came from the top of my head and it dumbfounds me that the writers were not willing to think of another way for Superman to stop Zod. There's always another way to killing. Being a Superman fan has taught me that much.

@mpfly88: That's a very poor misinterpretation of Superman 2 I'm afraid. In the Donner edition of Superman 2, the US Arctic Police (yes stupid name) arrest Zod, Ursa and Non. They weren't killed by Superman. That would have irked me as well but fortunately that's not the case.

a bit more...there were a little under 3000 deaths on 9/11

a scientist estimated that around 129,000 people were probably killed during the final battle in MoS

http://www.avclub.com/articles/science-estimates-that-the-damage-done-by-man-of-s,99165/

@lvenger: And then what? Zod decides to give up and leave Earth? No he would continue to try and kill humans. No matter what he did to Zod without any way of subduing him it would ultimately it would come down to two choices. I liked the ending it wasn't the typical superhero movie when the hero magically sends the villain away without giving up anything. Yeah it was very over hyped, it was good but not great. Basically it could've been much better. I wanted Superman to look more happy.

I want one person to give me a reasonable alternative to him dealing with Zod aside from killing him. If you want to say Superman would find another way then please tell me his options. The Phantom Zone was sealed, no Earthly prison could have held him and tossing him into space would have only been non fatal as long as he stayed within our solar system since without tha Sun his powers would go away and he would die anyway. So how in the world set up by this movie could Superman have contained him and kept him from killing innocent people for any time at all?

Superman hasnt been like that since the silver age. And i dont even think thats what he wanted he just wanted Superman to lighten up and really be a symbol of hope. I didnt see him inspire any hope throughout the entire movie.

@lvenger: You know what makes the Zod death scene even worse. The only reason Snyder and Goyer put that in there was to give a reason for Superman's no-kill code. So, now instead of refusing to kill because of a positive ideal for the future, Superman refuses to kill because he feels guilty.

I was liking your review until Nolan came up,I think you're giving him unnecessary flak.His contribution to this movie was his name and and story/or atleast a basic draft of it.

@lilben42 That's not how Superman should work. There were never two choices. A whole host of alternatives have popped up on the Internet and I've given my own suggestions. He always finds another better way in the comics but he didn't here.

@joshmightbe Superman is instructed by Jor-El's conscience in the scout ship on how to build a Phantom Zone portal. Or Amy Adams remembers what Jor-El told her and tells Superman how to do it. Or he seals Zod in his scout ship in one of those cryogenic pods. Or he puts him in an environment similar to Krypton on the scout ship. Or he flies him to another solar system with no yellow sun. Does that cut it for you? If you really think there was no other choice, you don't get Superman's no kill code at all. The myriad of suggestions that have sprung up for dealing with Zod debunk Snyder's false claim that there was no other choice. If we can think of alternative ways to end the film, there is clearly another choice. This final scene missed the core of Superman's character and ruined the film for me. It wasn't what I wanted out of my favourite fictional character at all. So sorry but there were other ways to deal with Zod I'm afraid.

@entropy_aegis His tone was what damaged the film for me. Nolan has a set tone to his films and that doesn't suit Superman

@eternal19 I know, that is a shame. There should never need to be a reason for Superman not to kill. It should be an integral part of his moral character.

@lvenger: Well could you tell me some other ways that he could've handled Zod because I am drawing blanks.

Too much to read. Sorry you didn't like it. Keep in mind that Superman will always have different interpretations.

A good review., I don't agree with all of it, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. My own feelings are that this film is upsetting a lot of Superman traditionalists, but at the same time winning an army of new fans. Perhaps its a sad take on our society that the old boy scout thing is viewed as outdated and it was felt, perhaps rightly, that a more serious deadly superman would be more realistic and convincing in a cynical world!!

@lvenger: Found this on IGN and thought it explained everything perfectly.

"So Superman is a God and can save EVERYONE. Lets also forget the fact that he didn't have to fight Zod at all. Instead standing beside Zod watching the world inhabitants die. Superman did not cause most of the destruction. Zods machine did. Many of the buildings Superman destroyed were because Zod threw him into them. Hardly his fault. When he flew Zod towards Smallville it was hardly intentional. He was acting out of fear (for his mother), and anger. He is not a soldier. He has had no training. He made mistakes due to inexperience. He was mostly making it all up as he went. When he fought with Faora and the hulking kryptonian he made a couple of attempts to fly away, but the bigger guy just kept snatching him out of the air and slamming him into the concrete. Superman does save a soldier falling out of a crashing helicopter. He likely would have saved the copter as well except for the fact that he was immediately attacked by that damn big Kryptonian. He also saved the colonel from getting shanked by Faora, and saved a fighter jet from getting torn to pieces by Faora only to have a Kryptonian ship show up and blow them up anyway. Shit gets hard when your the only one capable of doing anything. He saved countless lives destroying the world engine even though there was a very good chance he to could have lost his life in the process. It's kind of hard stopping to save lives when you have a super pissed, super human dogging your every move. I guess maybe Superman should have called a timeout. He risked his life fighting the remnants of HIS people, sent them through a black hole, then killed his last link to his heritage leaving him as the soul survivor. Yea he didn't care at all."

Haven't watched it yet but I've seen already seen that people have had their expectations set too high.

@farkam: At the end of the day...I think that is the reason why people are disappointed and expected this to be something that it isn't...yet.

@lvenger: He had no time to do any of the stuff you mentioned also even if he knocked Zod out he'd probably wake up in time to prevent Superman from getting him off the planet of locking him in the scout ships cryogenic chambers which would lead to Zod escaping and causing more death and destruction.

If you paid attention you'd know Jor-El only taught Lois how to do what they did to send the rest back to the phantom zone, they made it pretty clear it was a one time deal. If he had managed to get him off world anywhere he would have dropped him would have been a death sentence anyway since He would have had to drop him off without knowing whether or not it was a world Zod could survive on because he hadn't been off world at that point and would have no idea how to even find a world capable of sustaining life unless you wanted the movie to end with him dragging around an unconscious Zod through space for a few decades while he looked for some planet he could drop him off on.

@lvenger:

Howzit !

I'm with you all the way on this, just wish they hadn't changed the costume......didn't feel like Supes to me, not with the costume anyway.

JAUZMAN Peace ;)

I wasn't referring to the comic - I was referring to the fact that he can't instantly become the Superman we know and love. No reference to the comic whatsoever.

Yeah, Superman was raised by the Kents in the film like he always - but you can't always expect a child to be heavily influenced by their parents...

I liked Man of Steel. I thought the cast did a wonderful job in their roles and found it very entertaining. I thought Pa Kent sacrificing himself to save the family dog was a little strange, and am still kind of upset he snapped Zods neck. At least he was tore all to pieces, most heroes now get a rush killing their would be rogues, and he didn't have much choice giving the circumstances. I have always said that Batman pretty much writes himself, and making a great Superman movie is very tough - this was much better than I expected and I look forward to a sequel (preferably with John Williams sound track) :)

@dh1986: No one has complained about Iron Man, Captain America or Thor killing people, nor the fact that Hulk has been the only Super Hero who hasn't actually killed anyone in his own movie in years. Seriously go watch he does a bit of property damage but no one not even the main villain dies because of Hulk.

@dh1986: I mean aside from the dudes flying that one gun ship but that's still not technically his fault since it was self defense.

@joshmightbe: Hypocrisy man. This stuff makes me scratch my head... I don't know, some people were expecting to see All-Star Superman right from the start. And it isn't going to happen that way. This is a journey of a outcast learning his way to become the hero people idolize so much.

@sandman_: I still say I'm starting to feel like an old man having to continually explain Superman history to people who've never actually read a John Byrne story (And no I'm not referring to the OP here)

@joshmightbe: Superman has different interpretations throughout the years and am certain that almost all of them have killed. Some even showed no remorse. MOS Superman did what he had to do, he had the fate of the planet on his shoulder. This is why being Superman is not easy. People have not problem when other heroes do it, but when its Superman all hell breaks lose. I guess when you are The King people expect to much from you.

Pretty good review. It's nice to see this point of view actually explained instead of just "NONO MOVIE SUCKS SUPERMAN IS DEAD".

However, I heavily disagree on a lot of stuff, and you can already imagine what that "stuff" is exactly. I guess I could try to defend some of these points but people are already doing it so it would be kind of redundant. One important point not much people have brought up is that at the end of the day this movie wasn't made for Superman fans, it was made for general audiences just like every other movie out there, otherwise all comic book movies would horribly bomb since I'm sure a lot of comic book fans would prefer super faithful movies that don't change much about the characters. And general audiences don't want to see perfect Superman, at least not right away, they want to see character development, they want to see Superman fight and struggle to become who he's meant to be one day. I mean, I'm sure a lot of people would think it'd be awesome if, in a sequel to this film, Clark ended up in a very similar situation to the one he ended up with Zod here but instead of killing this enemy he actually finds another way because he learnt from last time and doesn't what that to happen again.

I guess I'm a bit more lenient when it comes to Superman killing villains, though. I don't like it and it definitely shouldn't be something he does all the time but when it's well executed (like here) I'm not completely against it.

@lvenger: No they were killed by Superman. The arctic police scene didn't make it in the final cut. Superman threw Zod down a deep chasm and then buried the fortress. Sorry but they're dead.

@lvengeri pretty much agree with you on all accounts. although i liked the movie a bit more than you 8 out of 10 i was extremely pissed at the death scene. 1st off the family could`ve ran instead of just standing there 2nd Superman could`ve covered Zod`s eyes or just tossed Zod away or just flip Zod over his shoulder or move at super speed and get the family out of there. hate that he killed Zod. Superman killing Doomsday (which he has done before) i understand but anyone else makes no sense and is completely out of character. poorly executed and written scene.

I personally only found the movie average. I would rate it 6/10 , thats about it.

I went to the movie with a whole lot of friends, among whom me and Mark are the only 2 guys really vested in comics, Mark more so then me given he is more of a DC guy and actually runs his uncle's comic book shop full time for living.

We both found the movie average.

Everyone else with us found the movie superb, they would easily rate it 9/10.

Thats the whole view i think, once you have a image in your head of what Superman is meant to be the movie kind of craps over your belief, else the movie in itself without thinking too much about Superman is pretty impressive.

@k4tzm4n: I did not find Superman killing Zod as what made me dislike the movie, its the idea that Superman would let his father die, when it was pretty clearly he could save Pa Kent, was a disappointment. Yeah ok the dad asked him not to save him, the world wasnt ready yet, he had bigger roles in the future yada-yada-yada, but i just can shake off that ,as a hero, heck the supposedly perfect hero, letting innocent die, let alone his own dad, just because saving him would have negative consequences to him and his destiny in the future, i dislike that idea utterly.

@lvenger: Dude I aggree totally with a lot of things you mentioned, howver i Just wanted to touch upon a few things and kinda defend the movie.

Everyone needs to understand one key element when critiquing this film, you need to realize that "different" is sometimes the best thing for a dynamic character like Superman. You cannot go into this movie having any hopes or expectations for the story to be told like the comics and previous movies. Zack Snyder has mentioned on numerous occasions that he wanted to create a story that develops Superman's character in the modern world and in a way that the whole world can relate to. This first movie chose Zod as the villain because Groyer, Nolan and Snyder needed to establish not only an external conflict for Superman to fight but an internal conflict of who Superman wants to be. Should he choose his genetic heritage and take the values of Krypton? Or should he mask in the values Jonathon and Martha raised him in HERE on Earth as HUMANS? The final climax where he decides to end Zod's life was a symbol for his true devotion to Earth and its people. Even I was a bit hesitant to accept the fact that Superman of all heroes decided to turn to the dark side. But I realized he's not going to the dark side. He's not about to go on a killing spree and he won't go ending Lex Luthor's life in the near future. Groyer stated in an interview (and I'm paraphrasing) that after this ordeal with Zod, Superman will indefinitely never end any life ever again due to the fact that he now realizes he has completely wiped the last bit of Krypton away from existence. In the comics and previous films, the Kents taught Clark the true value of life and how precious it is. However in this interpretation, Synder decided to focus on Johnathon and Martha's devotion to protecting Clark's life, and it would take this incident with Zod to teach Clark the value of a life. He chose to end Zod's life because Zod represented the last bit of Krypton that needed to be wiped clean or else innocent human lives would be at risk.This was created similarly to how the film, Batman Begins, was developed. In Batman Begins, Batman had to face his ultimate fears before attacking the crime wave of Gotham and that's why Scarecrow was the only villain for that particular movie. Zod was a soldier that would never stop and never let go of Krypton. His last words after Superman begged him to stop were "Never." He chose to embed himself with human heritage rather than savor the last bit of Krypton and this is why Superman is the Earth's mightiest protector. In a modern view of things, Snyder has developed a story that we can all relate to and understand. In the end, what other alternatives did Zod leave Superman? He had no way of trapping Zod, he could not send him away anywhere, and Zod even stated the only way this will end is if Superman dies or if Zod dies. I know it's unsettling to believe that Superman could break his tradition; but that's exactly what this movie was meant to do... break tradition. It's insignificant if they threw away his red underwear because what really matters is Zack Snyder and his team have created a legendary take on Superman that has never been done before. So take any hopes of previous Superman ideas and try and see this movie with the clarity it deserves. Every scene within this movie describes what Superman truly represents, and that is his true devotion to Earth.

Trust me when I say I was SO disappointed at first and I did not even want to clap at the end of the movie; however I let it sink in and I wanted to think about why the creators of the movie decided to make the movie this way. They knew the impact it would have on the viewers, so I wanted to try and take a look back on this movie with fresh eyes.

@lvenger:

I definitely agree with everything you said. I initially gave it a 7. After watching it a second time, I felt a 6.5 would've been more fitting. But I stuck by my 7 simply because of the cinematography. Visually, it's the best cbm film ever made. From the tie fluttering over clark's shoulder at the end, seeing his hand in first person eclipsing the sun after that octupus thing battle, and the flashback scene that began showing their dog and then kid clark with a red cape on. Some of those scenes were simply BEAUTIFUL. But unfortunately, that's all MoS is in my opinion. I heard a perfect, and pretty funny quote that captures how I feel about it: It was a visual feast, but unfortunately the feast was filled with empty calories.

@theincrediblesuperhulk8642: Well back during the Golden Age Superman killed quite a few people, the blue boy scout thing didn't start until the CCA stepped in.

Okay.

I did manage to watch this film and until then, I avoided reading comments anywhere -- I saw that one staff member on here wrote a pretty happy review and I saw that another wrote a somewhat opposite view. So for all intents and purposes, it was even stevens.

First half of the movie, I really enjoyed. The woman who played Superman's mom -- Lara -- I think it was a spectacular casting choice, if only for the physical similarities between her and Cavil. There wasn't so much she could do with what little screen time she had but hey, it was all about the dad anyway. And that's not a complaint by the way, I still really liked it -- the death scene with her I thought was very well done.

The flashbacks were good -- the bullying and him not responding and Kevin Costner was fantastic (again, my opinion). Having him die the way he did -- well, I kinda knew it was going to happen (considering it was a flashback when Lois and Clark were standing in a cemetery by his grave) and that shake of the head -- yeah, I got the feels. Sure, afterwards I thought it shouldn't have mattered considering that he could save his father's life and who cares what everyone thought (the group under the bridge) everything was so chaotic that denying anything happened could have been a possibility. But gravitas was needed and the loss of Clark's father and the reasons for it, resonated enough.

The oil rig and disappearing acts and that unshaven face and Wolverine-esque flannel lumber jack wearing highjacker got a little bit of an eye-roll from me but again -- okay. There was some nifty coincidences going on as well -- like how Clark was working on the base but on the night Lois shows up, that's when he decides to go investigating...meh -- again -- okay. It's a movie. The story of Superman is huge so there needs to be some leeway.

Lois figuring out who he was? The super quick way it was done worked for me -- of course someone with Lois' investigative journalistic abilities would figure it out -- it doesn't mean it was easy - I got what the director wanted to get across. So -- okay. Superman is 33 years old? Okay -- I can deal with that -- I will ignore that was Jesus' age when he died but okay -- would have liked to have seen maybe some more flashbacks of him in college maybe? The conversation about him continuing the tradition in farming while in the truck with with parents was way too dismissive and pat. Nah -- don't do that, this is Superman. Pretty sure he should have an education past high school -- or at least something. That's me -- didn't kill the movie but it sticked as something that didn't settle well for me.

The bad guys were freaking awesome. Zod, the girl -- well acted. Could do without the evolution/morality shtick but by then, I had already experienced the church scene so I knew what was happening. I was surprised though -- I really didn't think they would go in that direction in such a blatant way -- really clumsy. If anything, I was surprised the movie didn't have more rah rah American military hoohah. It was there, but I expected a lot more.

The destruction of Metropolis -- wow. Just -- wow. Not impressed and frankly, I mentioned this to others, but it shouldn't have been full of people anyway, considering that most people would be loathe to go to work if their plant would be potentially under attack. Way too many people around. I didn't even realize about the Jenny/Jimmy switch. Like, at all (I feel stupid now) and the scene where she was trapped and Perry wouldn't leave her -- the acting was perfect, the scene itself, not so much. Like -- come on -- the timing -- again -- lol -- but hey, it's a movie.

Zod losing his mind was perfect. Very, very well done. The battle was not unreasonable -- for me, the guy had to die, no doubt about it. His very existence was for preserving Krypton so Zod was going to become a machine for destruction and vengeance. How he died -- meh. Not too happy. For me, I just had this incredulous look on my face -- I really just wanted to yell at the freaking stupid group of people to just RUN already! Like -- come on??!!!

So, Superman killed him. Oh well. I would rather Zod be killed in a different kind of couldn't-be-helped kind of way -- I dunno -- a volcano -- something, lol. Kind of like -- Superman had to choose between him and say, his mom? Anyway, what's done is done -- I did really appreciate his reaction to his killing -- I did feel it. Lois being conveniently there ----- **sigh** ---- okay, again, it's a movie.

More Lois time was needed -- more sassy Lois was needed -- more smirky Superman was needed in fooling her and all that jazz. I would have much preferred that kept that dynamic between them. I think it's kinda cute how this smart, Pulitzer prize winning journalist wouldn't know that the nice guy she works with was really the great Superman that set her heart fluttering kinda deal. Sure, corny and fromagy -- but I liked it.

Sorry for the huge post -- lol -- I really, really enjoyed your review and it's pretty much how I felt about the movie and I am not a Superman fan. I am a noob in that sense but I was getting into Superman (comic-wise) over this past month already and I will continue to but it won't be because of the movie.

I would say 7/10 as well.

:)

@lilben42: Seen it already. Disagree heavily with it. My review covers a lot of their points anyway.

@bezza:I wouldn't like to live in a society where Superman conformed to that society's wishes rather than strive for something better. Never in a million years.

@captainlantern76 But you see, you're missing the key thing about Superman Cap. He is who he is because of the Kents. If it weren't for the Kents raising him with an unshakeable moral compass then he wouldn't be Superman. Granted he'd still have the powers but he wouldn't be the moral pillar he is. Besides can you or any of us honestly say that our parents haven't somehow shaped the person we will become?

@sandman_ Perhaps but any interpretation should always stay true to the core of the character. That's something MOS failed at.

@killemall Glad I'm not the only one who finds this film not to be all it's cracked up.

@mpfly88 So you're going to basically ignore the facts I'm throwing at you in favour of your own false interpretation? Have fun with that.

@novi_homines I did like some things about it as well. It's just far from the awesome film I was expecting it to be.

@lykopis Totally agree Lyko. Read through the entirety of that long comment and I definitely agree with your sentiments. You bring up good things that I overlooked before :)

He had no time to fly Zod away or throw him away from the family? Zod's heat vision hadn't reached the family yet. Ergo there was still time I'm afraid. And did you see how fast Superman can fly? I'm pretty sure he can knock out Zod in time to fly him to the Arctic to seal him away. Oh and why did the family just cower in fear rather than running away? Superman had Zod in a lock and his heat vision hadn't reached them yet. There was time for them to run away.

That was never made explicit. Lois could have taught Superman how to do it again and the ship has a bunch of unearthly material that could have been used to build the Phantom Zone portal. I was thinking of sending him to one of the Kryptonian outposts but I admit that was a long shot. In any case, some plot convenience could, no, should have been written in to account for imprisoning Zod. I know you're a Superman fan as am I so you should be aware of the number of times Superman has been faced with killing a foe yet finds another way to stop them? It's part of his ethical compass. And without Superman's ethical compass, you don't have a proper interpretation of Superman.

I know this isn't directed at me but I'd like to give my reasons for being fine with thay but not Superman killing Zod. Technically Hulk did kill some Chitauri in Avengers if you think about it. Thor and Cap are in my top 10 favourite superheroes and whilst they are principled, they certainly don't have the same moral compass as Superman. Thor is a warrior from Asgard so evidently he's been trained to kill if needs be. Similarly, Cap is a soldier and whilst he said he didn't want to kill anyone, he has made it clear he'll do it if necessary. And Stark is well, a bit brash so I can't expect him not to kill. But Superman is cut from a different mould to these guys. He's the ideal we all strive towards to be better. And killing isn't a way to make ourselves better IMO

@lvenger: I meant morality-wise. Besides, maybe the Kents have more flaws in MoS that we just didn't see...

Very nice review, I agree with most of what you have said.

The most frustrating thing that has come out of this movie are the fans who insist that he had no other action but to kill. It's really sad they can't see past that. As you said, they are undoubtedly other options that would have worked in the film, and inspired hope and shown us him being the hero we know him to be.

It doesn't even bother me that he killed zod so much....I can buy it for this take on the character, but ultimately this is not the take on the character I wanted to see.

Man of Steel 2 is going to be a lot more crucial in judging the franchise and if they can understand the characters or not.

@lvenger: Then we are in a stump. Agree to disagree I suppose.

@lvenger: Not exactly. Maybe for how you see it, but not how everyone sees it. Agree to disagree?

i agree with the ratings you gave to the film, but i really don't think the major problem was the destruction or the fact that Superman has killed zod.

A major problem were the dialogues and the reaction of some characters in some moments.For example,when kal "discovers" he is an alien his reaction is reeeeally...minimal. Now i get that someone who can fly,see trough walls and shoot laser beams from his eyes can realize he is not human...but that was still a poor reaction. I also really hate when Clark tells to his mother he finally has discovered about his past,his planet and his real parents and she just says "wow!"....what the hell??! how can "wow" be her only reaction, how can she not ask him who he is, where he comes from,or how he could discover such a thing?

i also have felt that the Clarlk-Lois relation was too forced,too hasty. I think that it could be developed better in the next movie,while during the first movie, they should have created just some tension between them.

But still i have absolutely no problem with the destruction or with the fact Supes has killed Zod at the end.

The destruction between 2 huge terraforming machines and a bunch of pissed Kryptonians was just inevitable,plus it gave a sense of drama to the film.Of course i don't have to mention all the times metropolis is (often) devastated in comics.

Then i just don't get why there is to be a problem with Clark killing zod. Many can simply say or think that Superman doesn't kill, but this is not entirely true.Shure he doesn't usually kill,and at the end of the "old" continuity he probably won't kill his foes....even if they are going to destroy all the universe....but Superman HAS killed before both in comics (canon stories) and films.Even during "superman returns" kal has actually killed 5 or 6 men by pushing that island into space...now i don't know if people just don't remeber that film,or if they simply doesn't care about it. Superman , his pre-52 version, has killed 3 (and not just one) kryptonians in cold blood using some k-nite. After doing that he was shocked,broken,but thanks to that experience he swore he will not kill again no matter what.....of course he had still to meet Doomsday.But speaking of MOS..what could he do? there were no more ways to cast him away in the phantom zone, there was no more way to recreate the Krypton environment, there was no way to imprision him, there was no other way to save that family.....actually Superman was fortunate in being able to stop and kill him: at the end Zod was just as strong as him, and more skilled than him. This Superman is not trained or skilled,or clever, as the one we have in comics: he had to do what he could do,and at the end he has saved the whole planet... by a hair.

@lvenger: Actually I am just going to say one more thing. When Superman killed Zod it wasn't just a black and white thing. He was giving up so much more than just his moral code. The whole movie Superman was struggling with his identity. He basically has two lives to choose from. He could choose Krypton ( A place that he has probably wondered about all his life and probably wanted to go sometimes.) or Earth ( The place he was raised and wasn't accepted most of his life.) In the end he makes his decision. He gave up his own personal desires for ourselves to live. Goyer/Snyder could have went the typical way and made Zod get sucked into the phantom zone or his powers stripped from him but they decided to do a more powerful ending. And sure Superman could have kept fighting Zod risking more lives. Superman breaking his code for the greater good of mankind makes him selfless. I think alot of big Superman fans are used to Supes finding a way to avoid that decision in the comics and refuse to see Superman break that rule.

I do have a preference for characters who have a slightly wobbly Moral compass but its the principle of changing the character to suit what someone else wanted regardless of years of continuity that annoys me. You used the example of Kaine and Backlash. Both of them have gone through some awful stuff and done some awful things hence the reason they have a Moral compass that is slightly out of the norm. Hence why they have developed their own form of warped morals.

What they did to Superman was like turning Kaine into Peter. Kaine is a killer when he has to be and that won't change over night having him suddenly take on Spider-man's set of morals would completely destroy years of continuity and take away everything that I like and thought was special about the character. I saw the exact opposite happen with Superman. Here we have a character brought up to be the epitome of good because he knows how powerful he truly is and would never ever use misuse his power due to how he was raised and the set of morals he's imbued with. Basically in 3 seconds they managed to destroy everything that Superman stands for. I would feel the same way if they made Kaine really really good for no apparent reason or Peter Parker really really evil. Just because I have a preference for morally ambiguous characters doesn't mean I want everyone to be like that. Spider-man (Peter Parker) of course is one of my favorite characters and he would never kill to save his life (unless Slott is writing of course.....). The point is in my eyes they destroyed the whole principle of the character and I would feel this way about any character I like portrayed on-screen regardless of their Morals.

People seem to be forgetting the most damning part of the film, Superman straight up robbed stuff out the back of some womans car.

@sandman_: Fine but I still don't see why people are happy with this. At least more happy than I would have liked about such a character acting out of character.

@lilben42:I fail to see how it makes him selfless. It betrays the very core of the character's ethical compass and reduces him to the level of other lesser heroes when he is the ideal to strive towards. Nowhere in this film did I want to strive to be this version of Superman and you always need to be inspired in a Superman film. Goyer and Snyder failed on delivering a truly powerful ending IMO, instead choosing to betray the very things Superman stands for.

@strider92: Very well said mate. I can really see where you're coming from. Such changes shouldn't be made in paragons of virtue like Superman nor shaded characters like Kaine. Spot on morality is a must when making a superhero film. Antiheroes are more willing to use lethal force and the more traditional superhero is less willing to be lethal.

@jonny_anonymous: I know, that got on my nerves too! I know he's travelling at that point and is basically homeless but come on Supes , you're better than that!

@lvenger: He's a guy that can survive unaided in outer-space and yet he needs to steal some clothes because of a bit of rain, what's that about? Couldn't he have went to a clothes bin or charity shop?

Superman was a day old... and his first enemy was freakin Zod himself and a crew of Kryptonian. Geez!!!

Anywhere else (Animated cartoon, old universe, New 52), he had to deal with low life criminals first and that's how he got to control his powers and get better at using them. You people need to stop comparing this version to the comic books or Christopher Reeves' Superman who had years of experience before fighting super-powered beings...

@jonny_anonymous: Now that would have been the more Superman like thing to do.

@gabranth: Allow me to correct your lack of Superman knowledge. Reeve's Superman was no newer to the game than Cavill's Superman was. Both were in their mid 30s when they became Superman. In any case, a Superman that betrays his ethical compass is not a Superman that can be idealised or used as a symbol to strive towards. Which is what the film was trying to do.

@lvenger: Yea and it also has the side message of it doesn't matter how big and strong you are sometimes you have to rely on the charity of others

@jonny_anonymous: Again that would have been the more appropriate thing to show in a Superman film. It's amazing what this film missed out on representing Superman correctly on.