Disturbing New Theory on Why People Were Unhappy With the Killing of Zod

[DA_Champion]

Man of Steel was a polarising movie, with a lot of people either hating it or loving it. The biggest point of controversy, following the movie, was that Superman killed Zod at the end. The fanbase was split along two lines. One camp said "Superman doesn't kill" and included a minority that said the killing should be handled better. The other camp said he had no choice in that situation, and that he has killed many times before.

I was firmly in camp 2, and like somebody with Asperger's syndrome might react, I didn't understand the point of view of the first camp. To me, Superman has killed many times before: he killed Doomsday, Hank Henshaw, and Zod in the comics, Zod in Superman II, Nuclear Man in Superman IV, he killed that T-1000 in Smallville, he killed that Druid monster in Lois and Clark, and he killed a couple creatures in the new animated movie All-Star Superman. In addition, other comic book movie characters have killed recently: Batman in the original Batman and he kills Two-Face in TDK; Captain America; all of the avengers kill Chittauri, Hulk in his first movie, Green Lantern killed Parallax, et cetera.

There is one major difference: Superman killing Zod in MoS is acknowledged as a plot point. We see a scene leading up to it, we see a justification in that family of 4, then we see him anguished after and we see Lois comfort him. In no live-action hero sequence has any hero contemplated a killing this significantly, it's the first time a killing matters. This is the one difference relative to all those other examples: the killing is acknowledged as a plot point. It is deliberate on the part of Snyder/Goyer as they want it to be the origin of the no-killing rule. And... this, the fact the killing was acknowledged, is ultimately what bothered people.

Audiences are ok with heroes killing, since none of those other examples ever bothered anybody in serious amount and let's all be honest, we never heard so much about the ending of Superman II until the last few months. What audiences want, is for the killing to be swept under the rug. They're ok with killing as a plot device, they just don't want it acknowledged, at all. If Superman had flicked Zod into a black hole with no angst whatsoever, the issue would have been extremely obscure and not been a point of criticism. I think... that makes us collectively shallow, and for that we will eventually get the movies we deserve.

I've been bothered by this question for a while, and now I finally have an answer that I think is correct. It's a satisfying theory in that it adequately explains audience reactions, albeit it is not a happy theory.

[BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow]

You make a good point.

In Batman Begins Ra's points out how Batman can't do what's necessary. We are reminded of the no kill rule. Ra's doesn't die by Batman's hand but he could have saved him. In The Dark Knight the drama is all on Two-Face about to kill Gordon's kid. Batman killing Harvey is not seen as bad. "It's the fall that killed him!" In The Dark Knight Rises Batman punches a gun from Catwoman's hand "no guns, no killing." We're reminded of this when Catwoman kills Bane with the Batpod. But then Batman himself guns down Talia pretty much with the Bat. "IT's THE FALL THAT KILLED HER!"

I've said it before but there's a constant struggle with comic books adapted to movies. Movies and action movies more specifically have a long tradition of seeing the villain die at the end. It's cathartic and satisfying for the viewer and absolves the movie maker from all the "sins" shown on screen. It's even bigger on exploitation movies. You watch something like "I Spit On Your Grave" where the main character goes through a lot (understatement) but because she gets her revenge you can argue it was worth it.

When we're dealing with superheroes killing I find that it's only valid to use comic books as a comparison. Not that movies are totally unfaithful and undeserving of our time but they are still held to the standard of the medium.

Everyone who bring up the comic book examples seem to forget the aftermath of the killings. When Superman killed the pocket universe kryptonians he was really shaken up. He got depressed and abandoned earth for a time being.
When Superman killed Doomsday he himself "died". Superman was out of commission whether it was his choice or not, he was fighting for his life and on his "dying" breath he asked if the people of Metropolis were alright.
There's another story where Superman kills: "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow". In it after Superman takes a life he is so devastated about it he actually gives up his powers and seemingly dies. Superman thought he crossed the line and was undeserving of the power.
In "Kingdom Come" Superman refuses to kill The Joker (even after he's killed Lois and the Daily Planet staff). In comes Magog who kills The Joker and becomes a public hero. Superman becomes unpopular. The triggerhappy Magog eventually kills a villain and causes the destruction of the state of Kansas.

So what I'm getting at is that while Superman might have been forced to kill Zod I don't think the movie didn't deliver on the aftermath. Actions like that have consequences. Good and bad. Henry Cavill yelling was fantastic but the movie should have continued on that note. We should have seen a Superman vowing never to kill again, someone even vowing he'd get rid of his powers or leave earth as to not draw more dangers on it's way. Lois could talk some sense into him and when the final scene at the Daily Planet comes up it would have some more impact. Superman putting on the glasses and deciding to stay in one place, to finally find his place among humans would also be made to be part of Superman's efforts to become a better being. As of now Clark Kent seemed to join the Daily Planet just because that's what he does in every other iteration.

Now I'm sure the sequel will bring up consequences and give Clark something to think about...but it doesn't exactly help Man of Steel into becoming a better movie.

[Backward Galaxy]

I don't understand why you feel the need to make that Asperger's comment.

I also don't understand why you feel the need to explain someone else's reaction by dismissing what they said to explain their reaction. Killing Zod was handled extremely poorly. It was done to introduce a character with a strict no-killing policy to new fans. It was brushed off after one scream as if it never happened and had no consequences to speak of. It was handled on an extremely personal and physical level which heightened the violence of it. And it teaches the absurd lesson that a person needs to kill someone before they can adopt a no-killing rule in the first place. He's also not Batman (and I rallied against his killing Two-Face in TDK). He's not an Avenger. He's not a soldier (Cap, who is perfectly justified in killing enemy combatants). And I've explained many times why I don't think he killed anyone at the end of Superman II.

I disagree with your theory.

[DA_Champion]

I don't understand why you feel the need to make that Asperger's comment.

I have some of the symptoms in general, but in this case I'm rejecting an argument that I think is backed by social conventions.

I also don't understand why you feel the need to explain someone else's reaction by dismissing what they said to explain their reaction. Killing Zod was handled extremely poorly. It was done to introduce a character with a strict no-killing policy to new fans. It was brushed off after one scream as if it never happened and had no consequences to speak of. It was handled on an extremely personal and physical level which heightened the violence of it.

That's exactly part of my point, the physical violence of it was heightened and that made people uncomfortable.

And it teaches the absurd lesson that a person needs to kill someone before they can adopt a no-killing rule in the first place. He's also not Batman (and I rallied against his killing Two-Face in TDK).

You railed against two-face's killing, fine, but the number of people who railed on that killing is far, far smaller than the number who railed on the Zod killing, even though more people saw the TDK. I'm analysing general audience reactions, not your reaction specifically, though I know there are many overlaps :-)

He's not a soldier (Cap, who is perfectly justified in killing enemy combatants).

If Cap is justified in killing enemy soldiers ...

And I've explained many times why I don't think he killed anyone at the end of Superman II.

And I've explained why I think you're incorrect. I think it's the perfect counterexample. Superman dispatches an enemy in Superman II, but the audience is protected from acknowledging the explicit reality of it.

We don't see what happens to Zod in Superman II. We don't see Superman agonise over it, we see no consequences... we seem him smile and laugh as he breaks Zod's hand and then push a defenceless man down a hole. The gravity of the situation is removed, and thus nearly nobody complained.

[DA_Champion]

You make a good point.

In Batman Begins Ra's points out how Batman can't do what's necessary. We are reminded of the no kill rule. Ra's doesn't die by Batman's hand but he could have saved him. In The Dark Knight the drama is all on Two-Face about to kill Gordon's kid. Batman killing Harvey is not seen as bad. "It's the fall that killed him!" In The Dark Knight Rises Batman punches a gun from Catwoman's hand "no guns, no killing." We're reminded of this when Catwoman kills Bane with the Batpod. But then Batman himself guns down Talia pretty much with the Bat. "IT's THE FALL THAT KILLED HER!"

I've said it before but there's a constant struggle with comic books adapted to movies. Movies and action movies more specifically have a long tradition of seeing the villain die at the end. It's cathartic and satisfying for the viewer and absolves the movie maker from all the "sins" shown on screen. It's even bigger on exploitation movies. You watch something like "I Spit On Your Grave" where the main character goes through a lot (understatement) but because she gets her revenge you can argue it was worth it.

When we're dealing with superheroes killing I find that it's only valid to use comic books as a comparison. Not that movies are totally unfaithful and undeserving of our time but they are still held to the standard of the medium.

Everyone who bring up the comic book examples seem to forget the aftermath of the killings. When Superman killed the pocket universe kryptonians he was really shaken up. He got depressed and abandoned earth for a time being.
When Superman killed Doomsday he himself "died". Superman was out of commission whether it was his choice or not, he was fighting for his life and on his "dying" breath he asked if the people of Metropolis were alright.
There's another story where Superman kills: "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow". In it after Superman takes a life he is so devastated about it he actually gives up his powers and seemingly dies. Superman thought he crossed the line and was undeserving of the power.
In "Kingdom Come" Superman refuses to kill The Joker (even after he's killed Lois and the Daily Planet staff). In comes Magog who kills The Joker and becomes a public hero. Superman becomes unpopular. The triggerhappy Magog eventually kills a villain and causes the destruction of the state of Kansas.

So what I'm getting at is that while Superman might have been forced to kill Zod I don't think the movie didn't deliver on the aftermath. Actions like that have consequences. Good and bad. Henry Cavill yelling was fantastic but the movie should have continued on that note. We should have seen a Superman vowing never to kill again, someone even vowing he'd get rid of his powers or leave earth as to not draw more dangers on it's way. Lois could talk some sense into him and when the final scene at the Daily Planet comes up it would have some more impact. Superman putting on the glasses and deciding to stay in one place, to finally find his place among humans would also be made to be part of Superman's efforts to become a better being. As of now Clark Kent seemed to join the Daily Planet just because that's what he does in every other iteration.

Now I'm sure the sequel will bring up consequences and give Clark something to think about...but it doesn't exactly help Man of Steel into becoming a better movie.

It would have definitely been a ballsier and more cohesive ending if the movie had ended right at the point of Henry Cavill screaming for example, or with some aftermath of the destruction being discussed. I would have personally enjoyed and respected the movie more, because I appreciated seeing consequences, in particular where I had never seen consequences before. As you say it would also be a more natural ending.

However, based on my thesis, I think audiences would have hated that movie even more or alternatively liked it less. I'm saying that people are ok with a hero killing as long as it's not acknowledged, and I think if it had been acknowledged further the Rotten Tomatoes score might have been 46% rather than 56%. People complained that there was no joy in the movie, and if they remove the scenes where Lois flirts with Clark at the end, then they would be complaining even louder.

I'm predicting that it may be in Goyer and Snyder's best interests to minimise the aftermath of the killing of Zod in MoS II. They have to discuss it now, but the more it becomes a major plot point, the more fans and critics will dislike the movie. If I'm them, and I'm only focused on career, I limit the aftermath to a few minutes at most. I don't think it can be done in a manner that will satisfy audiences.

[Backward Galaxy]

I have some of the symptoms in general, but in this case I'm rejecting an argument that I think is backed by social conventions.

It just seemed like it was in poor taste, but I guess if you were explaining something about yourself I took it out of context. I know people with Asperger's and it felt like a weird thing to say.

That's exactly part of my point, the physical violence of it was heightened and that made people uncomfortable.

It made people uncomfortable because there was nothing else like it in the film. Man of Steel picks and chooses where it wants to play by the rules and where it doesn't. Over 100,000 people most likely died in the Battle of Metropolis and it is completely brushed under the rug. It's like nobody cares. We don't see anyone crushed by stone. We don't see limbs. We don't see people jumping out of skyscrapers before they fall and splattering all over the ground. We don't even see anyone with any broken bones. And when all the destruction is over, we cut ahead to Clark getting his first job, and everyone's happy and going about their business. It's BS.

The same goes for that scene where Clark breaks Zod's neck. We haven't seen anyone's bones broken. It's just been people punched and thrown around like beanbag chairs. There's been almost no individual peril that Superman himself has prevented directly, aside from Lois Lane's. They sanitized genocide and went ultra-violent on an individual and blatantly staged level in a way the rest of the movie didn't. And then, they didn't address any of the consequences.

You railed against two-face's killing, fine, but the number of people who railed on that killing is far, far smaller than the number who railed on the Zod killing, even though more people saw the TDK. I'm analysing general audience reactions, not your reaction specifically, though I know there are many overlaps :-)

Superman is not Batman. Batman is not Superman. There's also much more precedence for Batman killing. He blatantly killed villains and henchmen in Burton's two films. It's entirely possible that people were just used to it.

And I've explained why I think you're incorrect. I think it's the perfect counterexample. Superman dispatches an enemy in Superman II, but the audience is protected from acknowledging the explicit reality of it.

We don't see what happens to Zod in Superman II. We don't see Superman agonise over it, we see no consequences... we seem him smile and laugh as he breaks Zod's hand and then push a defenceless man down a hole. The gravity of the situation is removed, and thus nearly nobody complained.

This is a tired debate at this point, but I'll reiterate, since we're in a new thread. The world of Superman II is not our reality. It doesn't abide by the same rules. There are not the same consequences. It was specifically built with different rules in mind. The logic of that world is that Superman doesn't kill or murder. Ergo, we know without being explicitly told that the Kryptonians aren't dead. Thus, he has nothing to agonize over. That scene is literally:

1: Superman takes their powers away
2: Superman hurts Zod's hand
3: Superman wins

You are assuming facts not in evidence because it supports your argument. You are completely disregarding context and the concept of world building to tell stories.

[DA_Champion]

It just seemed like it was in poor taste, but I guess if you were explaining something about yourself I took it out of context. I know people with Asperger's and it felt like a weird thing to say.

My apologies if anybody is offended. You are right. I should have used less loaded terminology.

It made people uncomfortable because there was nothing else like it in the film. Man of Steel picks and chooses where it wants to play by the rules and where it doesn't. Over 100,000 people most likely died in the Battle of Metropolis and it is completely brushed under the rug. It's like nobody cares. We don't see anyone crushed by stone. We don't see limbs. We don't see people jumping out of skyscrapers before they fall and splattering all over the ground. We don't even see anyone with any broken bones. The same goes for that scene where Clark breaks Zod's neck. We haven't seen anyone's bones broken. It's just been people punched and thrown around like beanbag chairs.

I can't imagine how badly the film would have tanked if they had shown all of this explicitly. Look at all the heat they're getting for pushing the envelope as far as they have.

Also, Snyder isn't Tarantino. I'm sure QT would have shown us dismembered bodies. Snyder showed us hollowed office towers. I'm not sure you're right in referring to the latter as being sanitised. I think the latter is more interesting, actually. In any case, there's no need to show both.

There's been almost no individual peril that Superman himself has prevented directly, aside from Lois Lane's.

He protected a lot of people. He saves the people in that oil rig. He saves the kids on the school bus. He helped a lot of people in Smallville. In Metropolis, he tried to take the battle into space. The movie ends with him saving that family of 4.

And then, they didn't address any of the consequences.

They laid out the consequences, and they have a 3-film contract and thus plan to address them in future films. It's a valid choice in this case to serialise the storyline.

Unfortunately, it may be better for Goyer and Snyder to nearly completely sweep it under the rug, and to never address it. That really irritates me.

This is a tired debate at this point, but I'll reiterate, since we're in a new thread. The world of Superman II is not our reality. It doesn't abide by the same rules. There are not the same consequences. It was specifically built with different rules in mind. The logic of that world is that Superman doesn't kill or murder. Ergo, we know without being explicitly told that the Kryptonians aren't dead. Thus, he has nothing to agonize over. That scene is literally:

1: Superman takes their powers away
2: Superman hurts Zod's hand
3: Superman wins

You are assuming facts not in evidence because it supports your argument. You are completely disregarding context and the concept of world building to tell stories.

At best it's an ambiguous ending that different kinds of audience members will be able to interpret as they want, sometimes without realising that they are interpreting. And I'm sure the director knew that many would interpret it as "Zod dying".

I don't recall that "logic of the world" laying out that Superman would never kill, but hey, it's been a few years.

[Backward Galaxy]

I can't imagine how badly the film would have tanked if they had shown all of this explicitly. Look at all the heat they're getting for pushing the envelope as far as they have.

Also, Snyder isn't Tarantino. I'm sure QT would have shown us dismembered bodies. Snyder showed us hollowed office towers. I'm not sure you're right in referring to the latter as being sanitised. I think the latter is more interesting, actually. In any case, there's no need to show both.

Many people have pointed out that the film poorly communicated the idea that Superman was attempting to save individual people during the Battle of Metropolis and his fight with Zod. I'm not the only one to make that assertion.

He protected a lot of people. He saves the people in that oil rig. He saves the kids on the school bus. He helped a lot of people in Smallville. In Metropolis, he tried to take the battle into space. The movie ends with him saving that family of 4.

But we don't see him saving people in the buildings that are collapsing. We don't see him saving people on the street as buildings are collapsing. We don't see him sacrificing his body to stop Zod from hurting individuals during their final battle.

They laid out the consequences, and they have a 3-film contract and thus plan to address them in future films. It's a valid choice in this case to serialize the storyline.

I vehemently disagree. For one, it's an incomplete story now and that makes the first film a waste of my time until the second one comes out. Secondly, I wasn't aware that I was getting half a story going in when I made the decision to spend money on it. Third, they aren't guaranteed a sequel just because contracts are signed. Routh had a contract for multiple films. And finally, the "happy ending" aspect of the film doesn't indicate that these plotlines will be addressed. Goyer told us that they will be, but the film makes it seem like they won't be. The film makes it seem like everyone has moved on. It's bad filmmaking.

At best it's an ambiguous ending that different kinds of audience members will be able to interpret as they want, sometimes without realising that they are interpreting. And I'm sure the director knew that many would interpret it as "Zod dying".

How can you be sure of that?

[newbaggy]

The real problem with the scene is that it falls between two stools. Yes, an audience can be shallow and accept people being killed right,left and centre without a qualm if the story is told with a deliberate air of artificiality. Watch a Roger Moore "Bond" movie, and we accept 007 dispatching baddies with a merry quip because its just an entertaining bit of "let's pretend" - pure escapism without real consequences. There are plenty of movies and TV shows where the audience enjoys watching things that in real life they would find morally repugnant because it isn't real life. It doesn't follow that these people are morally deficient; merely that they can tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

The difference comes when a filmmaker deliberately chooses to highlight the morality of killing and how it affects characters. There is a huge difference between the "Moore Bonds", where deaths are thrownaway like those groanworthy one-liners, and what happens in from the very beginning in Casino Royale. There, when Bond confronts the duplicitous Dryden in his office, the latter realises Bond murdered his contact, and we see a flashback of how it happened - a nasty, brutal fight in a public toilet. It isn't fun or glamorous, and when Bond holds the man's face underwater in a washbasin until he loses consciousness, we see it is incredibly unsettling - echoing Ian Fleming's line that "cold-blooded murder is a filthy business." Dryden himself says to Bond: "Made you feel it, did he?" However, as he continues "Don't worry. The second is even eas..." Bond calmly shoots him, adding "Yes. Considerably." At which point, we know that Bond has lost a little of his humanity - he can kill without a qualm. The point is reiterated later in the movie, when Vesper witnesses Bond killing a bodyguard who attacked them. Vesper is clearly horrified by the act, and later, Bond finds her sitting, fully clothed, in the shower, still crying, still trembling, muttering about how she can't clean the blood from her hands. Again, we see how Bond, apparently untroubled by his actions, seems to have lost some humanity in becoming a "double-0."

Casino Royale has a clear sense of its characters' morality, so that it can explore the shades of grey, the "necessary evils" that even the "goodies" engage in (something that continues through Quantum of Solace and Skyfall). Even while rooting for certain characters, the audience is encouraged to question their behaviour. Equally, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight carefully set-up a "through line" that defines the morality of Batman. In particular, it is made clear, from Bruce refusing to take part in a League of Shadows execution to the Joker setting up the "two ferries problem" in order to force a group of people to murder, that killing means succumbing to evil. A killer is tainted by the act of killing, corrupted by it. From a storytelling point of view, what is important is that, as with the "Craig Bonds", the morality of killing, and how it pertains to the characters is established early on, thus allowing the audience to view their actions in that light.

In the case of Man of Steel, the morality of Clark Kent/Superman is barely established prior to the climax. Pa Kent's comments seem muddled and contradictory, born out of fear rather than an innate sense of decency. Meanwhile, Clark/Superman seems so empty-headed most of the time that there seems little sense of considered thought - he just seems to react to events. As to the death itself, Snyder has tried to dress this up in interviews after the movie came out as a major point in establishing Superman's morality, specifically his "no killing" rule. But the movie does not do this. It gives Superman a reason to kill in the shape of the family that Zod would otherwise incinerate, but "the ends justify the means" was invalidated as a moral defence decades ago. He kills Zod, and lets out an anguished yell (unconvincingly acted by Henry Cavill), but the set-up and response do not clearly create the impression that killing was so repugnant to him that he will never kill again. Lois runs to comfort him, but again it never registers as more than "Clark is upset, I must comfort him." To cap it all, the next thing Superman is shown doing is punching a Predator drone out of the sky. At best, Cavill's Superman comes across as someone who does what he does, and doesn't apply too much thought to morality.

Ultimately, Snyder and Goyer like to play lip-service to examining moral questions without any sense that they can properly examine them in stories. Equally, the characterisation in Man of Steel is pitched at such a superficial level that questions of morality and ethics have little weight. For all its claims to "realism", Man of Steel is as artificial and superficial as The Spy Who Loved Me, but a lot less fun. So why do the audience worry about Superman killing Zod in this movie, when most of them didn't bat an eyelid at Zod being shoved down an ice crevasse in Superman II? Well, for one thing, the audience is predisposed to view Superman as unequivocally good - or, at least, someone who always tries to do the right thing. Christopher Reeve's Superman always came across as a good man, a friend, always on the side of the angels - he clearly was not a killer. Combine that with the jokey tone of much of Superman II, and the fact that you never see Zod die (he simply falls into the crevasse, and there was an unused scene in which Zod, Ursa and Non are shown being arrested afterwards by the "Arctic Police"), and most people give Superman the benefit of the doubt.

Man of Steel, by contrast, hammers the audience over the head with its supposed "seriousness", which means Superman's behaviour matters - or is supposed to. So, if Superman kills Zod, it must be a hugely significant moment in his life, that such a man could bring himself to kill. However, we don't go into that final fight with the sense that, even if he is struggling with coming to terms with being a hero, this is a good man in the way that Christopher Reeve's Superman was. It doesn't help that the character is thinly-written, or that Henry Cavill's performance is decidedly underwhelming for much of the movie, so that we never get much sense of what is going on in his head. The question of whether or not Superman should deliberately kill never really arises before the climax of the movie (whether he should have left his fellow students on the school bus to die in order to protect his secret isn't the same thing), so there is no proper build-up either. Hence, Zod's death doesn't become "Superman kills, and this is the point at which he realises that he must never kill again," but simply "Superman kills - it's what he does now." It doesn't matter what Zack Snyder wants to claim after the event, his movie does not sufficiently contradict the latter view. If you are one of the many people who has been left with the impression from various Superman comics/movies/TV shows that Superman, as a rule, does not kill, then that is shocking. Doing a story in which Superman only decides to adopt a "no killing" rule after he kills is pretty dubious anyway - society generally expects people to know that killing others is bad without killing someone first. If you want to tell such a story, your plotting and characterisation have to be extremely good. Neither is the case here, and the end result is that Superman is made into a killer for no storytelling benefit. It feels as if somebody decided that you cannot have a big action blockbuster end without the hero killing the villain, and the outrage comes from the sense that Superman's character was sacrificed simply to achieve a suitably violent ending.

[SuperheroFan87]

The real problem with the scene is that it falls between two stools. Yes, an audience can be shallow and accept people being killed right,left and centre without a qualm if the story is told with a deliberate air of artificiality. Watch a Roger Moore "Bond" movie, and we accept 007 dispatching baddies with a merry quip because its just an entertaining bit of "let's pretend" - pure escapism without real consequences. There are plenty of movies and TV shows where the audience enjoys watching things that in real life they would find morally repugnant because it isn't real life. It doesn't follow that these people are morally deficient; merely that they can tell the difference between reality and fantasy.

The difference comes when a filmmaker deliberately chooses to highlight the morality of killing and how it affects characters. There is a huge difference between the "Moore Bonds", where deaths are thrownaway like those groanworthy one-liners, and what happens in from the very beginning in Casino Royale. There, when Bond confronts the duplicitous Dryden in his office, the latter realises Bond murdered his contact, and we see a flashback of how it happened - a nasty, brutal fight in a public toilet. It isn't fun or glamorous, and when Bond holds the man's face underwater in a washbasin until he loses consciousness, we see it is incredibly unsettling - echoing Ian Fleming's line that "cold-blooded murder is a filthy business." Dryden himself says to Bond: "Made you feel it, did he?" However, as he continues "Don't worry. The second is even eas..." Bond calmly shoots him, adding "Yes. Considerably." At which point, we know that Bond has lost a little of his humanity - he can kill without a qualm. The point is reiterated later in the movie, when Vesper witnesses Bond killing a bodyguard who attacked them. Vesper is clearly horrified by the act, and later, Bond finds her sitting, fully clothed, in the shower, still crying, still trembling, muttering about how she can't clean the blood from her hands. Again, we see how Bond, apparently untroubled by his actions, seems to have lost some humanity in becoming a "double-0."

Casino Royale has a clear sense of its characters' morality, so that it can explore the shades of grey, the "necessary evils" that even the "goodies" engage in (something that continues through Quantum of Solace and Skyfall). Even while rooting for certain characters, the audience is encouraged to question their behaviour. Equally, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight carefully set-up a "through line" that defines the morality of Batman. In particular, it is made clear, from Bruce refusing to take part in a League of Shadows execution to the Joker setting up the "two ferries problem" in order to force a group of people to murder, that killing means succumbing to evil. A killer is tainted by the act of killing, corrupted by it. From a storytelling point of view, what is important is that, as with the "Craig Bonds", the morality of killing, and how it pertains to the characters is established early on, thus allowing the audience to view their actions in that light.

In the case of Man of Steel, the morality of Clark Kent/Superman is barely established prior to the climax. Pa Kent's comments seem muddled and contradictory, born out of fear rather than an innate sense of decency. Meanwhile, Clark/Superman seems so empty-headed most of the time that there seems little sense of considered thought - he just seems to react to events. As to the death itself, Snyder has tried to dress this up in interviews after the movie came out as a major point in establishing Superman's morality, specifically his "no killing" rule. But the movie does not do this. It gives Superman a reason to kill in the shape of the family that Zod would otherwise incinerate, but "the ends justify the means" was invalidated as a moral defence decades ago. He kills Zod, and lets out an anguished yell (unconvincingly acted by Henry Cavill), but the set-up and response do not clearly create the impression that killing was so repugnant to him that he will never kill again. Lois runs to comfort him, but again it never registers as more than "Clark is upset, I must comfort him." To cap it all, the next thing Superman is shown doing is punching a Predator drone out of the sky. At best, Cavill's Superman comes across as someone who does what he does, and doesn't apply too much thought to morality.

Ultimately, Snyder and Goyer like to play lip-service to examining moral questions without any sense that they can properly examine them in stories. Equally, the characterisation in Man of Steel is pitched at such a superficial level that questions of morality and ethics have little weight. For all its claims to "realism", Man of Steel is as artificial and superficial as The Spy Who Loved Me, but a lot less fun. So why do the audience worry about Superman killing Zod in this movie, when most of them didn't bat an eyelid at Zod being shoved down an ice crevasse in Superman II? Well, for one thing, the audience is predisposed to view Superman as unequivocally good - or, at least, someone who always tries to do the right thing. Christopher Reeve's Superman always came across as a good man, a friend, always on the side of the angels - he clearly was not a killer. Combine that with the jokey tone of much of Superman II, and the fact that you never see Zod die (he simply falls into the crevasse, and there was an unused scene in which Zod, Ursa and Non are shown being arrested afterwards by the "Arctic Police"), and most people give Superman the benefit of the doubt.

Man of Steel, by contrast, hammers the audience over the head with its supposed "seriousness", which means Superman's behaviour matters - or is supposed to. So, if Superman kills Zod, it must be a hugely significant moment in his life, that such a man could bring himself to kill. However, we don't go into that final fight with the sense that, even if he is struggling with coming to terms with being a hero, this is a good man in the way that Christopher Reeve's Superman was. It doesn't help that the character is thinly-written, or that Henry Cavill's performance is decidedly underwhelming for much of the movie, so that we never get much sense of what is going on in his head. The question of whether or not Superman should deliberately kill never really arises before the climax of the movie (whether he should have left his fellow students on the school bus to die in order to protect his secret isn't the same thing), so there is no proper build-up either. Hence, Zod's death doesn't become "Superman kills, and this is the point at which he realises that he must never kill again," but simply "Superman kills - it's what he does now." It doesn't matter what Zack Snyder wants to claim after the event, his movie does not sufficiently contradict the latter view. If you are one of the many people who has been left with the impression from various Superman comics/movies/TV shows that Superman, as a rule, does not kill, then that is shocking. Doing a story in which Superman only decides to adopt a "no killing" rule after he kills is pretty dubious anyway - society generally expects people to know that killing others is bad without killing someone first. If you want to tell such a story, your plotting and characterisation have to be extremely good. Neither is the case here, and the end result is that Superman is made into a killer for no storytelling benefit. It feels as if somebody decided that you cannot have a big action blockbuster end without the hero killing the villain, and the outrage comes from the sense that Superman's character was sacrificed simply to achieve a suitably violent ending.

I agree with most of what you said and disagree on some parts. You made good points about James Bond but comparing him to Superman is a bit of a stretch.......a bit. Bond is a spy, he is supposed to kill. Vesper also asked in Casino Royale "Does it bother you, killing those people? " to which Bond replies, "I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did". Bond doesn't show remorse because it's simply part of the job.......at least we got a moment (poorly acted or not) where Superman screams in anguish basically saying "What have I done?" In the comic books Superman did indeed kill Zod one time in Superman #22 when Zod and his minions committed genocide on an inhabited world and Superman was forced to kill them. The end result was that he was so traumatized that it mentally messed him up for a while......to a point where he actually took on a new identity called Gangbuster which was a rougher alternate personality created by the trauma....eventually through therapy he was fine but was still haunted by what he did.
I don't think Snyder will take it that far in the movies. The point is that we have a record of him killing Zod in the comics. Not that I am justifying it, I'm simply pointing out that it's happened before. I'm divided against myself on the movie death. On the one hand I think Snyder was going for shock value or a move that would purposely piss off the fans by saying "this is MY Superman not yours". If you watch the scene there a hundred other ways Zod could have been stopped. Superman could have thrown him into the wall or blocked the heat vision with his hand. The other part of me says that he was written into a corner. As a rookie superhero it was written and given the appearance that there was no other way to stop Zod. Zod himself even said at one point "This will only end if one of us dies". I suppose it depends on how you look at it. If this does firmly establish his no-kill rule then fine but if he kills again next time, there's a problem.

[Anno_Domini]

I think it's disturbing that people are fine that Superman killed a powerless Zod, but this thread makes a valid point....some people, and that includes that "comic book fan" fanbase just do not want to SEE someone like Superman actually killing someone, and that goes for Batman too. To see either of them actually kill someone, to witness a scene, or in Man of Steel's case, to HEAR it, it's something that many probably never cared for, but it's odd that they are fine that it is at least acknowledged as with the case of Superman II.

[SuperheroFan87]

I think it's disturbing that people are fine that Superman killed a powerless Zod, but this thread makes a valid point....some people, and that includes that "comic book fan" fanbase just do not want to SEE someone like Superman actually killing someone, and that goes for Batman too. To see either of them actually kill someone, to witness a scene, or in Man of Steel's case, to HEAR it, it's something that many probably never cared for, but it's odd that they are fine that it is at least acknowledged as with the case of Superman II.

Yeah but Superman II is a bit dicey. The deleted scenes (that were used in the Donner cut) show the arctic police arresting Zod and the Kryptonians along with Lex Luthor. Lester's cut doesn't show that part. So one could conclude that the crevices were simply just dark and the drop was not too far.

[Anno_Domini]

Wow, those scenes sound horrible....so Superman flew down to the bottoms of the Fortress to pick up Zod after he pushed him down there? And Zod even SURVIVED that fall? Lol.

And those crevices had to be deep...look how tall the Fortress of Solitude is.

[Fish1941]

Henry Cavill yelling was fantastic but the movie should have continued on that note.

Why? This was a motion picture, not a comic book. The incident happened near the end of the film. And Superman's reaction to Zod's death pretty much told the story. And as much anguish he felt over killing Zod, he saved a group of innocent people in the process.

Zod was about as "defenseless" as a random shooter with a high-power rifle. How on earth did someone come to the conclusion that Zod was completely defenseless at that moment, when he was trying to kill a group of people with his heat vision (or whatever it's called).

If Synder continue to explore the emotional consequences of Zod's death in the next film . . . fine. If he doesn't, I'm not going to cry about it.

[maasaloo]

This thread is just a rehash of what we arguing about in the Love it or Hate it thread. god and DA know why were need to go over it again in a separate thread.

@Fish141- Goyer said there will be follow up and Zod's death with be dealt with in the next movie. Consequences for Clark?