Um, dude, he grew up on a farm.

It's not that he doesn't kill, it's that he really does NOT want to.

Kind of like Batman.

Now excuse me while I drink some lemonade from my Man of Steel water bottle.

Well... We certainly know he's pro-choice. I mean, he did destroy an entire ship with about 100 fetuses on board. And, really, I think the character would have felt great guilt after the entire thing. So what's up with him being Mr. Smiley afterward?

Then... Ugh... It sucked.

I loved it, beginning to end.

As far as Zod's death, it is not as if Superman gleefully pops Zod's head off like a champagne cork - it is very obvious he doesn't want to do it and is anguished by it afterwards.

It's the last victory Zod can hope for, and he succeeds. I'm ok with that.

Superman doesn't kill.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. He will if he has to. That's a modern kid-friendly thing they've foisted in some of the storytelling but he most assuredly will. It's used in lazy writing as a crutch on a nearly all-powerful character. He's killed in the past at least four Kryptonians -- all executions -- and it's all 100% canon.

He killed the Zod of a parallel Earth, in a universe where that place's Superman didn't stop Zod. In turn that Zod killed every single human being on Earth. Superman executed him with Kryptonite.

Three Kryptonian criminals killed most of the inhabitants of another planet. Superman executed them as well with kryptonite.

I loved it and I'm a Superman fan boy of many decades. The no-win, unwinnable situations are the best ones for the character.

I agree with much of what else you say.

Oh, and here's MGK's take - which I agree with, and is said with more detail and skill than I did:

http://mightygodking.com/2013/06/18/man-…

@4,

The idea that he can't/won't kill other Kryptonians seems ridiculous to me. What else is he supposed to do with them? Stand by and hope they all go out in an explosion?

The sentiment I'm seeing, which sounds right to me, is that Superman doesn't kill as a rule, but he has killed, Zod notably, and let others die. He doesn't walk around just torching everybody with heat vision, but vanquishing an enemy which is simply unstoppable otherwise doesn't seem completely out of character.

I just thought it was a great movie.

I'm a little less attuned with the comic book stuff, but still didn't mind the neck snap, given that Zod had made it crystal clear that Superman had literally no other choice. I do agree with Paul that it wasn't earned here, and certainly didn't fit the somewhat grafted on Christ stuff (was having to kill Zod the "sacrifice" that parallels the crucifixion? Seems like Supes got off easy).

Perhaps it would have been better if Zod's death had happened in the next movie, after we had seen a whole movie in which Supes was willing to go to great lengths to avoid killing those we knew that he could. That would have given the reversal a little more emotional import. Frankly, I had no idea whether he had the ability to kill another Kryptonian and just refrained from doing so, especially given how evenly matched and equally invincible the other Kryptonians seemed to be. That he would not kill two run-of-the-mill bullies early in the movie does not really speak to whether he would kill a supervillian who has said he will exterminate every single person on earth otherwise.

All that being said, I liked the movie, and look forward to the sequel.

Thanks for the civil discussion, everyone! This is very cool.

Joe @4: I made reference to the Byrne sequence (even linked to scans of it) in the post. I prefer MoS's ending to Byrne's execution of the Phantom Zone criminals, which I thought was a pissy act by an artist who was already on his way out (if I recall correctly, that was the very last issue of Byrne-era Superman, right?). And even then, at least the creators after Byrne tried to deal with the killing by showing the repercussions. (Again, as I recall—I read those books when they came out, so this is maybe not correct—he had long-term psychological problems that eventually led to him leaving Earth for a while.) And when Superman killed in Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" that was the end of Superman. At least the movie showed Superman's guilt for a second, before everything got handwaved away with a weirdly stapled-on jovial last scene.

Marooner @8: I agree with what you're saying about it not feeling earned. It's weird to have the first movie break the main character's cardinal rule. (Unless, as I said, this is all a buildup to the second movie being the point where the cardinal rule is instated.)

And Pithy @5: MGK's not always right, but he's always smart. I get what he's saying, but I disagree with him on the collateral damage part. The Avengers made an effort to show the final battle taking place in a real city with real people, and it showed the heroes fighting to save the real people (and it showed a memorial to those who died during the battle). I prefer the way it was handled there.

Basically, almost all of my complaints could've been fixed with a tighter script and slightly more humane direction.

Paul -
I do see what you're saying - it is definitely a hallmark of a Superman movie to have Kal-El going to extremes to stop collateral damage. And while it could have been inserted into the script, the story as it was presented really didn't give Superman any opportunity to stop and save anyone - he was saving people by going toe-to-toe with kryptonian titans.

I do wonder if the devastation in Metropolis (which he didn't really stop) will actually be a plot-point in a sequel. I can totally see it being a cornerstone for a pro-earth Lex Luthor. There is a great little exchange in the Avengers when Cap confronts Fury about the Hydra weapons, and Fury says it was all in reaction to Thor showing up. I can see that same sentiment fueling a very interesting and sympathetic Lex Luthor.

@9

I felt like the moment leading up to killing Zod and the release afterwards was very well done and it made the movie for me. I thought the catharsis was beatiful. I really, really enjoyed Man of Steel.

Henry Cavill, to me, emoted a story being told in those few seconds leading up to killing Zod. He didn't want to do it but he had no choice. He was fighting against everything about himself just to kill Zod because not to meant more people would die. And when it was over he mourned it, viscerally.

I defintely see your take but I like the complications of a Superman being forced to do something every fiber in his being is preventing him from doing.

I didn't really mind his execution of Zod for many of the reasons other people mention, but I was very, very disappointed by the amount of collateral damage in the second half of the film. The only thing that might save it in the sequel for me is that one of my friends mentioned that a lot of property marked "Luthor Industries" was destroyed (I didn't catch this myself), which is enough for me to give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll do something like what 11 is suggesting. But taken on its own, Man of Steel could've been so much more than what it was.

@11 and @13: I agree. Let's put it this way: If the sequel doesn't touch on the destruction of Metropolis in some significant way, they've really dropped the filmmaking ball.

@12: Cavill was excellent in that scene—he was excellent throughout—but I would've liked to see the no-killing thing set up a little cleaner. I agree with Marooner @8 that it might have been a better scene in a second movie. Again, I write this without knowing what the second movie is going to be like, so my complains may well be proven to be unfounded.

Paul, right on all Byrne points. If Nolan wasn't involved I may be skeptical, but I have no doubt Superman so... viscerally choosing Earth over Krypton will play a role on his character in 2 & 3.

In a way I'm really glad they did so much of the character's heavy lifting in film one. Hell, Lois already knows who he is--and they thumbed their noses at her "dumb reporter" joke by having her track the shadow of Clark all the way back to the Kent farm. Everything done gives them more space to maneuver in sequels.

For score keeping nerds, an incomplete list of folks Clark either killed or really, really tried hard to kill:

Four Kryptonians, Mongul, Doomsday, and Darkseid. All beings of equal or greater physical power than him. Each could kill millions. Have I missed any?

As much as I loved it, I felt there was a good 30-45 minutes missing from this film to get into a better theatrical run time. Like Watchmen, a directors cut would probably solve many of peoples issues with things not being touched on enough. I really hope one is coming.

I worried about all the innocent people in those buildings, but for the sake of enjoying the film I decided that because the alien gravity laser the size of a sky scraper had been around for almost a day at that point, the city was long evacuated.

My other thought was that this is Clark's first big-boy fight. Zod was his equal, and Zod was trying to murder him. He was just unprepared for what that meant to the city. He's not Superman yet. That's why they called it 'Man of Steel'. Henry Cavill's line delivery of 'Mom?' explains it all better than I can.

I haven't read a lot of Superman comics, but the character's inertness always bothered me. He was good because he was good.

In the classic origin story Clark Kent for the most part never felt pain or discomfort. He had his secret nature, but getting outed had consequences for him and his family, but not the world. He was raised in a loving home, had friends, went to college, was handsome, got a great job at a prestigious newspaper, had the power of a god, and from that came a morally and ethically ideal man. He protects the weak and innocent because that's what he does.

Henry Cavill's Superman knows what it's like to be one of us. His experiences of helplessness and social isolation give him a stronger motivation to feel empathy for humanity. His desire to be accepted by his adopted species provides a stronger motivation to be a paragon of justice and good. The fact that his power terrifies everyone motivates him to use the power only to help people. He's still do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. Man of Steel just gave the character personal reasons to be a moral paragon.

This is the first iteration of Superman I've encountered that I've found interesting or empathized with. Man of Steel also had the best Louis Lane I've seen.

They should have run the 'I'm getting hired at the daily planet' bit after a few seconds of black.

The movie was boring. Between the quintessentially hackneyed Christian symbolism and the gratuitously hackneyed destruction of New York, I spent the last thirty minutes of the film wishing every single character would die. Because, then, at least something unpredictable would have happened.

Basically, everyone who watched it gave it an 8 out of 10 or a 9 out of 10.

Ignore the other people - most of them didn't even watch it.

Thanks for the warning Paul.

It was difficult for me to believe that the director of the reprehensible 300 could have any clue at all about what Superman is all about. Apparently he doesn't.

I think I can skip this.