I thought it was he had to kill Zod to prevent Zod from killing people.
DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
It was his justification for why he had to write it that way. It's not like it was a real event that's being documented, it was a choice he made during production.
Nolan was against Superman killing Zod, preferring to just have Zod also be sucked into the Phantom Zone. Snyder's (and Goyer's, let's not forget him in this) argument was that Superman had to learn to value life and that killing felt bad.
Now, as stupid as that argument was to begin with, it became completely apparent that it was bullshit when Superman continued killing in BvS and ZSJL.
In retrospect, I enjoy the Snyderverse as a kind of Elseworld or alternate take on the DCU, but Snyder, as nice as the guy may be in person, has on occasion tried to bullshit people instead of just coming out and saying "I just prefer my heroes to kill the bad guys".
That was how I saw it too. Zods eye beam was moving towards innocent people and he couldnt stop it. What else was he suppose to do? Let it kill them? You can argue that it was bad writing, but there is no arguing that given a choice Superman would put innocent people first over a villain. And I say all this as someone who despised Snyder's Superman.
If the original plan for the DCEU had continued it would've basically just been Injustice but post-apocalyptic. It would've been worth it if it was all setup for the Justice League from another universe showing up to fight Cavil's Superman and defeat him.
See @Awesome Possum's post, quoted below. She nails it.
Everything a writer includes in their story is by their personal choice.
Um, you were agreeing that @Awesome Possum was wrong, and I was addressing that part of your post. I didn't "leave out" anything that had to do with that aspect of your post. @Awesome Possum is not wrong, here.
It's a fictional story, you can make Superman do whatever you want him to do because you control every single variable. If you don't want Superman to kill, you don't put him in a situation where he has to kill. This is just another failed attempt to make an edgy Superman and "serious drama".
And there it is. Not holding my breath, but that ought to settle it.
Superman isn't real, he does whatever the writer wants him to do.
As a literary critic and a life-long student of fiction, it kind of blows my mind that people debate stories as if they actually happened rather than discussing them as a creative work based on a writer/creators intent and purpose.
You can agree or disagree with Snyder's purpose in setting up the ending scenario, but you can't really treat it as a choose your own adventure. I think my two problems with Superman killing Zod is that it went against my view of who the character is, and we never really got to see how this affected Superman as a character. If Clark were dealing with his actions in Superman V. Batman then that could have been an acceptable pay off in my opinion--but it was never really Snyder's intent to do that.
And I'd like to add that that is purely my subjective opinion, and that I did find a lot to like about Snyder's DCU.
He said on a Star Trek board.
No kidding. And in this case a fictionalized character was given a choice. You might not like that choice being written, but so what? Not every movie needs to be written where characters aren't given that type of conundrum. Ever hear of the Kobayashi Maru?
Last edited:
Fictional characters aren't making choices. I don't disagree with the character, I disagree with the writing and think it was made for stupid reasons. Namely a lame attempt to look edgy, it's the same choice made by someone writing grimdark My Little Pony fanfics.
And as I said earlier, you can disagree with the writing all you want. You don't want a character who is against killing to have to make a choice between a villain and an innocent person. But IMO that's just a cop out and playing it safe. Sometimes characters need to be put in dilemnas that are a no win. Again, Kobayashi Maru, The Wrath of Khan etc.
Fictional characters aren't making choices. I don't disagree with the character, I disagree with the writing and think it was made for stupid reasons. Namely a lame attempt to look edgy, it's the same choice made by someone writing grimdark My Little Pony fanfics.
Last edited:
I don't think that Superman is against killing in the same way Batman is. I just don't think it served any purpose in the story other than a juvenile attempt to make Superman look edgy by people who don't understand Superman beyond him being a male power fantasy.
He just wasn't the right choice for Superman.
I think he’s pretty against it, or should be. If truly placed in a situation with no choice, he might do it. But putting Superman in a situation with no alternative but to kill is not making very creative use of the character, IMO. Part of the appeal of Superman is that he finds a way, not that he’s defeated by circumstance.
The Silver Age Superman practiced an absolute injunction against killing.
When Alan Moore wrote "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" as the final official (if "imaginary") story of the Silver Age continuity, the resolution of the story turns upon his response to choosing to kill Mxyzptlk - he exposes himself to gold kryptonite, thus sacrificing his powers in atonement for breaking his oath against killing.
When Alan Moore wrote "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" as the final official (if "imaginary") story of the Silver Age continuity, the resolution of the story turns upon his response to choosing to kill Mxyzptlk - he exposes himself to gold kryptonite, thus sacrificing his powers in atonement for breaking his oath against killing.
Similar threads
