Screenwriter David S. Goyer Says He Thinks Superman Should Be Able to Kill; Might Be Writing JUSTICE LEAGUE

     September 24, 2013


While this summer’s Man of Steel went on to gross over $660 million worldwide, the film divided some longtime fans of the Superman comics with its controversial ending.  It marked a significant departure from canon, and while screenwriter David S. Goyer and director Zack Snyder definitely set out to make a wholly new Superman, many comics fans felt they took it too far.  Now Goyer has spoken up a bit about their approach and veering from the comics, adding that he disagrees with some of his fellow comic book writers on a key trait of the Superman character.  Moreover, he went on to hint that he may very well be writing Warner Bros.’ Justice League film.  Hit the jump to read his comments.

Man-of-Steel-Henry-Cavill-imageSpeaking at the BAFTA and BFI Screenwriters’ Lecture (via Digital Spy), Goyer explained why he had no problem turning Superman into a killer in Man of Steel:

“We were pretty sure that was going to be controversial. It’s not like we were deluding ourselves, and we weren’t just doing it to be cool. We felt, in the case of Zod, we wanted to put the character in an impossible situation and make an impossible choice.

This is one area, and I’ve written comic books as well and this is where I disagree with some of my fellow comic book writers – ‘Superman doesn’t kill’. It’s a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don’t believe in rules like that. I believe when you’re writing film or television, you can’t rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film.”

man-of-steel-michael-shannonGoyer went on to defend their narrative choice by adding that they didn’t want to give Superman an easy out:

“So the situation was, Zod says ‘I’m not going to stop until you kill me or I kill you.’ The reality is no prison on the planet could hold him and in our film Superman can’t fly to the moon, and we didn’t want to come up with that crutch.”

Furthermore, Goyer fully expects to explore the repercussions of that decision in further films, like 2015’s Batman vs. Superman:

“Also our movie was in a way Superman Begins, he’s not really Superman until the end of the film. We wanted him to have had that experience of having taken a life and carry that through onto the next films. Because he’s Superman and because people idolise him he will have to hold himself to a higher standard.”

Man-of-Steel-Henry-Cavill-imagePersonally I didn’t have a problem with seeing Superman snap Zod’s neck, but I can understand how longtime fans of the comics might see that as a betrayal of the character.  I’m interested to see how/if Snyder and Goyer plan on addressing both that decision and Superman’s disregard for collateral damage in the next film.

In a separate piece by THR (via CS), Goyer was asked whether he would be working on WB’s long-promised Justice League movie, to which he responded, “Might be, can’t say.”  Not an outright denial, but not a confirmation either.  Then again, Goyer is currently knee-deep in prep on Batman vs. Superman, so I imagine he’s taking things one step at a time.

What do you think, dear readers?  Can you understand where Goyer was coming from or do you still think having Superman murder Zod took things too far?  Sound off in the comments below.


Around The Web
  • tarek

    …and be killed.
    If not, it is an uninteresting superhero

    • Kevin

      Batman’s not interesting?

      • tarek

        Sure he is. He is human. he can suffer and die. that’s why he is an interesting superhero.
        Was talking about superman

      • Kevin

        Oh, thought you meant a hero who couldn’t kill was uninteresting. I agree. Superman’s OP.

  • David Hargis

    Actually, I think killing is the easy out. It’s harder to solve such issues through non-lethal means. Clark had already ‘allowed’ his Jonathan Kent to die, now he kills Zod, who’s next. The only thing this version of Superman proved is that he’s capable of crossing the same lines that villains will in order to solve his problems.

    • HeSaidSheSaidReviewSite

      “The only thing this version of Superman proved is that he’s capable of crossing the same lines that villains will in order to solve his problems.”
      Killing a mass murderer isn’t remotely close to being the same as…you know being a mass murderer.

      • Lex Walker

        “Killing a mass murderer isn’t remotely close to being the same as…you know being a mass murderer.”

        Well it is if you kill all the mass murderers. Technically you’re then killing mass murderers en masse, making you a mass murderer. Whoa.

      • Dustin Philipson

        kill 1 (kl)

        v. killed, kill·ing, kills


        a. To put to death.

        b. To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions.

        2. To put an end to; extinguish: The rain killed our plans for a picnic.


        a. To destroy a vitally essential quality in: Too much garlic killed the taste of the meat.

        b. To cause to cease operating; turn off: killed the motor.

        c. To tire out completely; exhaust: “The trip to work, and the boredom and nervousness of jobs, kills men” (Jimmy Breslin).

        4. To pass (time) in aimless activity: killed a few hours before the flight by sightseeing.

        5. To consume entirely; finish off: kill a bottle of brandy.

        6. Sports To prevent a hockey team on a power play from scoring during (a penalty).

        7. To cause extreme pain or discomfort to: My shoes are killing me.

        8. To mark for deletion; rule out: killed the story.

        9. To thwart passage of; veto: kill a congressional bill.

        10. Informal To overwhelm with hilarity, pleasure, or admiration: The outstanding finale killed the audience.

        11. Sports

        a. To hit (a ball) with great force.

        b. To hit (a ball) with such force as to make a return impossible, especially in a racquet game.


        1. To cause death or extinction; be fatal.

        2. To commit murder.

        3. Informal To make such a strong impression as to overcome: dress to kill.


        1. The act of killing.


        a. An animal killed, especially in hunting.

        b. A person killed or to be killed: “Infantrymen . . . had seen too many kills suddenly get up and run away or shoot at them as they approached” (Nelson DeMille).

        c. An enemy aircraft, vessel, or missile that has been attacked and destroyed.

        3. Sports A kill shot.Phrasal Verb:

        kill off

        To destroy in such large numbers as to render extinct.Idiom:

        in at/on the kill

        Present at the moment of triumph.

        Advertisement (Bad banner? Please let us know)

        mur·der (mûrdr)


        1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

        2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.

        3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

        v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders

        1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.

        2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.

        3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.

        4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.

        5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.


        To commit murder.Idioms:

        get away with murder Informal

        To escape punishment for or detection of an egregiously blameworthy act.

        murder will out

        Secrets or misdeeds will eventually be disclosed.

        [Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; see mer- in Indo-European roots.]

        American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
        copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published
        by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

        murder [ˈmɜːdə]


        1. (Law) the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another Compare manslaughter, homicide

        2. Informal something dangerous, difficult, or unpleasant driving around London is murder

        cry blue murder Informal to make an outcry

        get away with murder Informal to escape censure; do as one pleases

        vb (mainly tr)

        1. (Law) (also intr) to kill (someone) unlawfully with premeditation or during the commission of a crime

        2. (Law) to kill brutally

        3. Informal to destroy; ruin he murdered her chances of happiness

        4. Informal to defeat completely; beat decisively the home team murdered their opponents Also (archaic or dialect) murther

        [Old English morthor; related to Old English morth, Old Norse morth, Latin mors death; compare French meurtre]

        murderer n

        murderess fem n

      • Lex Walker

        Why did you post this?

      • Grayden

        “To Murder” and “To Kill” are two different things.

        It’s extreme grammar-nazism.

      • Lex Walker

        Except Superman isn’t a legal authority, so at the very least his killing of Zod and or other villains (assuming he doesn’t go into a fight expecting to kill hem) is still second-degree murder.

      • joeybot

        But narratively, woudn’t it be interesting t have Superman somehow solve this problem in another way, so he doesn’t become “like them?”

      • David Hargis

        I’m sure Zod’s career started out with justifiable homicide as well. The whole point of heroes like Superman is that they are held to a higher standard. If they were like us, we would be screwed. How long before Superman enters a war zone and starts applying the same brand of justice? In Zod’s mind, he’s perfectly justified. That’s the problem with the shades of grey, they make it hard to see.

        The writer’s could have showed us someone better. They decided to show us that their Superman is all too human, but with the power of a god, and just as destructive. We can quibble the fine details, but killing is killing. It’s a line, just because Zod went farther across doesn’t mean Clark’s crossing it should be excused.

        I don’t, however, really blame the character. I blame the writer, and I blame DC Comics for allowing it to happen. Their new Superman doesn’t compare to the old one. Not even close.

        Just one fan’s opinion.

    • Loso_Rocks

      I don’t think Supes was “ok with” killing Zod. He felt like he had to do it but doesn’t necessarily mean he enjoyed it. Who knows, maybe this is the event that makes him realize that killing isn’t something he wants to do again.

      • diles1

        yeah I think that is what they are going for.

      • David Hargis

        That’s certainly possible. But, justifiable homicide is still homicide. I don’t see this as much of a character flaw as it is a mistake made by the writer. Was he also justified in blowing up the drone the government was using to spy on him? He certainly could have disabled it and set it down in the General’s front lawn and accomplished the same thing.

        In this interpretation of the character, he’s essentially a vigilante who’s asking everyone to trust him, when, in the circumstances the has film set out, that’s next to impossible.

    • ʝoe Ģnaśher ßloggs

      I think you missed the point. The fact that he opted to kill Zod instead of allowing him to continue killing humans proves Kal-El’s affinity towards his adopted home rather than his own race. He even said earlier, “you had your chance”. Saying that he only proved his capability in crossing the line is too simplistic. It was a character defining moment.

      He took the option not in defense of himself (like when he was bullied as a child) but to protect others. This is Superman.

      • radiationman

        I disagree, Superman is all about justice…and killing is never an option. People constantly bash Superman as being too powerful, and boring but I believe it is the very idea of having all this power to destroy and not using it that makes for a complex character. He stands for what is right and good in this world and we need superheroes that represent that. Not heroes that will kill because it’ll help someone, but rather do everything they can to operate within the scope of the law.

      • ʝoe Ģnaśher ßloggs

        I agree with you but in the context of MOS something radical needed to happen in order for him to arrive at that belief.

        He went to the darkside and realized he didn’t want to go there again so decided to stand for something else. This is why he will struggle with characters who are cunningly evil – Lex. Akin to Batman’s struggle with Joker.

        Remember Kal-El didn’t become Superman until nearly the end. He is evolving as a character.

  • DanielMillllllll

    Personally I found Zod’s death to be an interesting choice with which to start this new Superman. This is a Superman we actually get to see grow as Earth and Metropolis’ protector. His motivation from here on out is clear; he owes us. Batman vs. Superman should begin with a Clark/Superman who is out to prove he can be a savior for us. With all the destruction from MoS we’ll probably have a Luthor who demands the aliens head, or justice for the city. But if said Superman begins to be that savior, that protector, the people will realize that he can be more than a blessing. That while the legend began with destruction and horror, it’s continued with a sense of hope. And if he truly feels remorse for the city, or even Zod, he owes the rest of his life to making some good come from those events/choices.

    • Kevin

      Savior as in fights bad guys when they attack, yes.

      • DanielMillllllll

        The definition of savior is someone who saves. Fighting/Defeating bad guys who attack = saving us from bad guys who attack.

      • Kevin

        Ok, as long as you don’t mean it as “an ideal to strive towards” “follow you into the sun”, Superman is better than human beings thing.

      • DanielMilllllll

        The definition of savior is someone who saves. Defeating/Stopping bad guys who attack = saving us from bad guys who attack.

  • axalon

    Can we please get someone other than David Goyer to write DC movies? He’s a fine writer, but some variety would really be great.

    • Doug_101

      I would say that Goyer is a good idea man, but he should probably have a co-screenwriter to keep him honest.

      • DNAsplitter

        You are spot on with that comment. I enjoy his writing but thinks he needs others to help patch up his weaker areas ie actual dialogue.

      • Stefan Bonomo

        Yeah, exactly. Like how he wrote the story for Batman Begins, and then co-wrote the script with Nolan, and then for Dark Knight and Rises, he just stayed as a story writer and let the Nolans write the script.

        If Chris is not gonna have a hand in Justice League, then I think Jonathan should at least co-write the script.

      • Dev1359

        This, Goyer is great at creating new worlds and concepts but he’s weak when it comes to translating them into screenplay form.

    • Shane Walker

      I kind of agree. He’s done great things, but the whole comparing Superman to Christ thing was so overblown and in your face that it turned me off to the movie in a big way. If you want to be subtle, then be subtle. That was amateur writing at best.

  • Ian

    UGH. I don’t want Goyer anywhere near anymore DC movies.

  • Kevin

    Can we not have any more pretentious expositions about why Superman/Batman is so important, please? Show, don’t tell, its a movie after all.

    • BobGrey

      And all this time I thought I was the only one who felt the same way.

      • Marissa

        Agreed. I’m not old enough to remember, but films used to be kept in such secrecy. I wish it would’ve stayed that way.

  • Raptor Jesus

    MOS was this years ‘Prometheus’.

    Stupidity piled upon stupidity with no cohesive narrative and no character development. And a third act that just went on and on and on…..

    Profoundly disappointing.

    • Batt Damon

      MoS makes Prometheus look like 2001

    • GrimReaper07

      That’s the best description I’ve seen of the movie yet. I’d only add that MoS is way way worse.

  • Person

    I really can’t find anything wrong with Zod’s death. They needed a way to justify Superman’s “I don’t (like to) kill” stance, like they did with Wayne/Batman in Batman Begins (the “revenge vs. justice” conversation after Chill gets shot). And by establishing that Superman now has a moral obligation not to kill, it makes it far more interesting to see how the hell he’s gonna defeat Lex Luthor later on; if this super-alien can’t just kill the puny bald human, what’s he gonna do?

    For the record, I thought Man of Steel was fine. I had some minor quibbles here and there (I need to see it a second time to see how it still holds up), but coming out of the theater on June 14th, I was very happy with it.

    • Kevin

      I tend to agree. Batman let Rhas Al-Ghul die at the end of Batman Begins and no one said anything. Although, I did not enjoy Man of Steel.

      • ʝoe Ģnaśher ßloggs

        Not saving him is equal to killing him?

      • Kevin


    • Sean Chandler

      I didn’t have a problem with the decision so much as the execution. Superman was just involved in a massive fight where he’s flying through buildings and causing mayhem and he doesn’t show concern for individuals. Then suddenly he’s very concerned about an individual. By doing a slight re-write of the final fight and the other fights, they could have established Superman will do anything in his power to save as many individuals as he can.

      • Person

        I considered that to be part of him being new to the whole superhero thing. Like it didn’t occur to him how much destruction was really being caused and how many lives were being lost until he saw it face-to-face at the moment of Zod’s death. That’s when it became real and human for him and he decided to make the decision to kill Zod. I’m sure people can poke holes in that though.

      • Sean Chandler

        That’s a decent rational for him as a person but it doesn’t lend itself to great storytelling. If you want the characters final choice to have the greatest impact you want the events prior to build to that moment. The previous events should subtle foreshadow where we’re headed.

        As it is in the movie the moral dilemma is just thrown on us.

        I say this as a big fan of the film. I feel with some slight rewrites they could have had a much better film.

      • Person

        But it all did lead to that moment, didn’t it?

        Zod escaped from the Phantom Zone (kind of a fluke, but still), is just as powerful (if not moreso) than Superman, leveled most of Smallville and Metropolis (and the other places those terra-forming things landed), and even his accomplices could only be killed after certain humans were willing to sacrifice themselves in doing so. It was all building up to the realization that Zod had to surrender (not happening) or die..

        Much like Batman had to make tough choices constantly and learn from the consequences (best example is probably Rachel vs. Harvey), Superman has to do the same thing. And even then, he only killed him because he had no choice. With a human villain, he’ll have that choice, and he’ll have to say “No,” otherwise he’ll become feared as a menace, which is exactly what Pa Kent warned him of.

        The end of Man of Steel gives the sequel a lot of interesting things to do, both in terms of story and character. I just hope they don’t fall into the Marvel trap and make MoS2 basically a two-hour trailer for Justice League (which is basically what iron Man 2 is).

  • Unique Jenique

    I wasn’t disappointed in Superman killing Zod, I was disappointed in the way it happened. The family cowering in a corner felt a little…dare I say it…cheesy. After all the people Zod had probably killed while flinging Superman into buildings it’s the one family Superman can actually see that causes him to take action. Sure, I expected the destruction to happen. But I think it would have been really cool if Superman had flown people to safety, moved them out of the way, or something whilst he was fighting Zod. That would have been so cool, and I think that was some people’s biggest issues with the movie. The end was so destructive, you almost had to blame Superman for that very destruction. IF they do it right, hopefully MOS2 will touch on that and have people in a sense of fear over Superman. Let them blame HIM for that destruction. If they go that route and Superman has to face the repercussions of his actions, then the ending in MOS will not feel as bad.

    • Josh

      Those are fair points and I 100% agree they should further Superman’s character arc in those ways. Though allow me to defend Superman and the destruction for a moment. He wasn’t even in Metropolis for the majority of it and couldn’t have saved anyone.

      • Sean Chandler

        For most of it yes, but he was there fighting Zod and showed no concern until that moment. In the original Superman 2, Zod exploits Superman’s compassion for individuals and nearly defeats him.

      • Josh

        Well, it’s not like any serious damage was done during their fight (aside from that one building), and we never actually saw anyone in danger until that point, which, the way I see it anyways, is when Superman finally gives up on his own reasons for fighting Zod and does what he does for the good of the people. It’s a baby step, but it is only the first movie, whereas Superman II was not. Like I said, they should definitely show some repercussions in the sequel, but I think the first movie did what it needed to do.

  • DNAsplitter

    I know I’m in the minority here but I enjoyed MOS. I thought it was a good film with some flaws in it – not enough joy or character development but enough to keep me satisfied. I thought it was a great set up to help explore Superman’s foundation of what makes him the hero we all know him to be. Taking the route of adding Batman in the mix for the sequal is probably the smartest move that WB could make at this point and something that as fans we have all been teased with for the past 10 years. It’s a smart build up to the Justice League and something wasn’t explored by Marvel (although it would be cool to have a Captain America vs. Daredevil). I only hope that with the other films (Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern) that they use the appropriate tones to match their personalities and not have them all dark and serious. WB just now needs to hire quality talent to help bring them to life. 2015 cannot get here soon enough.

  • GrimReaper07

    Superman killing Zod was nowhere near what made the film terrible though.

  • jinjja

    Goyer writing Justice League? Warner Bros. REALLY needs to be practical and make some sacrifices with their “loyal” guys (in this case Goyer) and not give them EVERYTHING that’s important, if they wanna have a successful DC universe. Find somebody else, please. David Goyer is NOT Joss Whedon. Zack Snyder is NOT Christopher Nolan. You really have to be practical.

  • brNdon

    Anyone who has a problem with Zod’s death needs to go back and watch Superman 2.

    • Leo

      The reason why it doesn’t bother people in that movie that much is because Superman 2 is entertaining and engaging.

      Whereas Man of Steel is a lifeless, unengaging, poorly-written mess. Superman killing, Metropolis being leveled to the ground, probably thousands of people dead – these things really stand out when the movie fails to make you care about the story.

      • dungeons and draccus’s

        Shut up you old turd.

      • UTINI

        Sorry your beloved MOS is a POS. But it is.

      • ʝoe Ģnaśher ßloggs

        No it isn’t.
        There, I disagreed with you.

  • JimmyOlsen

    Superman killing Zod in the first movie isn’t necessarily bad. The problem is, and this is where I find Goyer’s above comments kind of troubling, is that if you have a Superman who’s willing to kill, it takes all tension out of any future films. Oh Luther’s going to kill a family with his schemes (Superman snaps his neck), oh Brainiac or Darkseid’s actions are going to result in some people getting killed (Superman snaps their necks). For any future movies to have any real tension you need Superman to be broken up about killing Zod, and then he vows never to kill again. THEN you have some real tension because Supes has gotta vanquish his foes through non-lethal means.

    • Lex Walker

      Lois is hassling Clark about his small town roots (Superman snaps her neck). Hotdog vendor gives him incorrect change (Superman snaps his neck). Man takes his seat on the subway (Superman snaps his neck). Where does it end?!

      • JimmyOlsen

        Exactly, if he’s done it once and doesn’t repent–maybe Batman helps him realize this???–then how do you justify a Superman in future movies that doesn’t always kill his villains. Chances are Lex Luther’s schemes aren’t just going to effect the habitats of wild otters or some other loveable animal–he’s going to end up killing families, and Goyer’s Superman doesn’t like that.

      • Lex Walker

        I also really like the idea of an incredibly petty Superman who just doesn’t know where to draw the line about when it’s acceptable to take a human life. I mean, his dad committed suicide for a dog, clearly Clark has not been raised to think too much of a single life. The logical absurd progression is him killing Lois for drinking the last of the milk or borrowing his stapler.

    • MIXTER

      But Supes already did feel broken up about killing Zod. It was there right in front of us, thats why he yelled/screamed after he did it. He was forced to kill and he didn’t want to have to.

  • Alboone

    The two main problems of the film is that we don’t see the impact of superman’s presence to the world. There is not one scene that explores that angle. And the last 40 minutes of destruction really hurt it. It sort of became a drinking game thing of “how many buildings go down?”

  • Alboone

    The snapping of Zods neck saved that last act IMO.

  • George

    Usually I do not rag on artists for any creative process, even if I don’t like what they do. But I cannot stand David S. Goyer as a writer. Other than his help with writing the Dark Knight Trilogy, look at his other projects. “Jumper,” “The Unborn” and “Blade: Trinity”(okay and the other Blade movies, but were those really that good?)
    This guy is very overrated, in my opinion.

    • JBug

      I agree, but I can’t ignore TDK. It seems inconsistent.

  • AManWithAKilt

    It didn’t bother me so much that Superman killed (though I understand why people are upset) but it did bother me how Metropolis is destroyed and, by implication, the death of offscreen people. It was played entirely for spectacle without an ounce of consequence to it, and Superman doesn’t even seem to care. I watched the Avengers again not long after and it struck me how much more deftly Whedon handles the climax in that movie.

    • JBug

      Snyder and emotion like oil and water. If there’s anything Whedon can do, it’s emotion. He can make any movie fun (see Cabin in the Woods).

  • Strong Enough

    Superman JUST killed The Joker in an Injustice comic. He killed plenty of times.

  • Mixed Race rich kid NYC

    Does anyone remember superman riding his bike through a damaged metropolis looking for a job
    The destruction of metropolis will teach him about responsibility
    I bet he ignored some dead bodies along the way

  • Mike Hunt

    Superman was fighting to stay alive, Zod was just as physically strong as Kal, and did what he had to do. When you try to please everybody you get a film like Superman Returns!!

  • MCP

    I really enjoyed MoS and can’t wait til “whatever the 2nd movie will be called”. It’s time for a change and I’m on ship!

    Also, everyone should watch the Flashpoint Paradox animated JL movie that came out a little ago. Some serious killing going on there, though paradoxical. Plus, it’s got Flash doing his usual shtick. Good stuff!!

  • Jamesy

    I didn’t really have a problem with Superman killing Zod, I get that they were trying to create something different and respect that. And it’s an interesting point to move on from, learning from the repercussions and having the people fear him, that’s the human aspect that I think keeps people interested. Otherwise its just an alien who is perfect and knows he is who can only be defeated by Kryptonite..where’s the fun in that? Its been done before, it would make for a pretty dull movie in terms of character. Sure fans might not have thought it was the “real Superman” or wasn’t in keeping with the character, but what would you rather, an overgrown boy scout again? But I think DC have to bring in some new blood, Goyer has some interesting ideas and I think that’s where his talent an idea man. When he’s left to write on his own the story and characters suffer, but who else could they bring in? If Goyer is pitching ideas and writing with Snyder, and Affleck is there to steer the ship and keep an eye on things i’d be fine with that. I doubt WB would just use Affleck as an actor when they also have a talented writer/director in him, put him to use.


    Superman killed Zod twice! Look back at superman 2! But in SM2, it was worse because he watched with a grin on his face as Lois killed Ursa, and he didn’t exactly save or warn NON either. Superman 4 he left Nuclear man buried alive on the Moon.

    MOS was the first time I seen Superman not want to kill, but had to to save others. And as for the damage to the city? I don’t remember seeing Superman flying into buildings to vandalize them, but I do remember Zod throwing him through them, and smashing them up with Supes following him to try and stop him. Oh yeah, and Zods world machine that was hammering the shit out of the city to try and turn it into a new Krypton.

    I wonder if we watched the same movie? I guess haters gotta hate!

  • JBug

    I don’t have a problem with Superman killing if he had too. I have a problem with writers making superman kill when they don’t have too. It was so obvious at that point in the movie that the writers were trying to accomplish something that it completely takes you out of the movie. I couldn’t help but think to myself “Goyer wants us to see Sup break the rules we all hold him to”. It was trying to hard to be different instead of letting the plot develop organically. Goyer overplayed his hand.

    You need to build more street cred to pull a move like that. Can’t do it in first movie when we have no emotions toward this awkward superman.


    i didn’t have a problem with zod’s death but honestly goyer is just not a very good writer. at all. look at every non-comic book film hes ever been involved in. the dialogue in man of steel was so hammy, now that affleck is involved he should have at least SOME part of the writing process, but no, warner bros can’t seem to completely move on from team nolan. shame.

  • Nerdgasm

    That’s all good and well. None of that is of importance if they do what they did this time and excel at making a joyless, rigid movie with uninteresting tasks for the characters to complete. Zod’s death can be over looked in fact it’s an awesome plot point to bring Batman into the picture and to have him not like Supes from the get go. Love it… awesome! BUT MOS was filled with pointless jabber and interactions. How many times do we go up in a spaceship? How many times does a character need to state “Bunch of people will die!”? And how long can we sit through a movie adn enjoy it when there isn’t either a) slight humor or B) over the top interesting characters driven by interesting decisions. MOS had none of that. Ben Affleck [whom I enjoy and can't wait to see dawn the cowl] and this whole WHY DID HE KILL?!?! issue is the least of the B Vs S movie…it’s simply making a bad movie better that’s what they should be working on.

  • dungeons and draccus’s

    I am totally fine with it. Goyer makes a convincing argument, and I think that indeed, it is a crutch. Superman has harmed more people than he’s saved considering that he never actually KILLS any of his villains. I actually liked Man of Steel a lot. It had many problems, but I look forward to the sequel (With dread. Why Ben, why?).

  • Merlin235

    I think there is a heavy dose of irony in this situation. The point with Superman is he is different than everyone else. Not just physically, but emotionally too. He will not kill. It’s like a rule, and no one can really comprehend why. Superman is constantly confronted by people asking “Why won’t you kill? The guy obviously deserves to die.” But Superman has (generally) held strong, held his line, and doesn’t kill. The irony is this: the fact that the writers believe they could create a situation where Superman MUST kill is in of itself a demonstration of what makes Superman so different from the writers themselves: he doesn’t actually believe in those circumstances.

    MOS did not sufficiently develop the situation into a no-win circumstance for Superman. Supes never made an attempt at drawing the action away from Metropolis. When Zod is threatening to kill that family in the climax, Supes could have just held onto Zod and flew up through the ceiling. In the writer’s minds, they thought they had trapped Superman, that they gave him a no win situation. But that just wasn’t the case here. There were a myriad of actions Superman could have taken both in the climax and in the lead-up to the climax that the writer’s never even addressed. The fact that the writer’s own actions displayed the difference between Superman and themselves was ironic and, in my opinion, the most amusing/enjoyable aspect of the entire film.

    • radiationman

      I think that was very well said. He could have simply placed his hand over zod’s eyes long enough for the family to escape…simple…
      but nooooo….Batman was the film it was because it was dark and gritty so we need a superman movie that is just as dark and gritty…and the only way to make the boyscout dark and gritty is to kill. Give me a solid representative of truth, justice and the american way any time.

  • Pingback: Hero Watch | Superman doesn’t kill()

  • Pingback: The Sunday Round-Up: Steamy Superhero Scandal | Teh Pwn Shop()