So me and my friend sid decided to argue about the choices made in man of steel, specifically the end. While hes going to defendZack Snyder Im going talk about why he's wrong.
So recently comicbooks first superhero has returned to the big screen, but in an extremely darker tone. But even with the tone that doesn't match the character, and the not so great writing it wasn't really a bad film. But then there's the, superman kills zod. This is something that really spoils the movie and here's why
DC comics which are supposed to the "dark" and "gritty" do have one staple. A large part of their characters do not kill, they believe in finding another way. Granted that doesn't mean they don't kill , but the one rule there is is that batman and superman do not kill.
Now to tackle the argument that he had no choice in the situation I simply say this, of course he had no choice the writers wrote him into that situation. Which brings up the fundamental problem, the writers, the director, they simply don't understand the character. Richard donner Co-wrote a superman story a few years ago, which was basically the same plot with the introduction of Zod and his invading army all the way to getting sucked back into the phantom zone. The way that story ended was perfect.
Versions that have a killer superman tend to be evil superman. And even still theyre more lamenting.
The point of superman is that he doesn't kill and that he'll always find another way, because he can because of his godlike powers. He's suppose to inspire people and give them hope, not something to worship. He doesn't see himself as a god, but a simple man who just wants to do good. He became a journalist partly to be in the know but to also be able to spread the truth.
With Batman v Superman we can only hope that this movie drops certain misconceptions that they think the audience wants. And hopefully they remeber one Important thing
Here's a counter argument from my friend sid