Superman killed to save innocents. He had no other choice. None. This is a huge endorsement of the concept of defense of others. See “Just War” by Saint Thomas Acquinas for a deeper look. BTW this is also an almost uniquely American part of our law: even civilians can use deadly force to not only defend themselves but also others.
I had no problem with it. None. Quite the opposite in fact.
Excellent post. As a ‘by the way’; Superman killed Zod (and two others) by kryptonite poisoning in the comics circa 1987.
I agree, the only problem I had was the cussing. Was it necessary? No!
I just wonder how many people got killed in all those buildings in the fight at the end.
Superman shouldn’t have even kept Zod in the city, he should have flown off, Zod would have followed. Then he could have incapacitated him and Earth could have locked him up.
I am always disappointed when a hero does not get the kill on a true, evil villain so the villain knows he/she was defeated. The villain always seems to die anonymously by something falling on them or an explosion of their own making etc...
Also makes for a crappy sequel.
He also killed plenty of innocents smashing Zod into skyscraper after skyscraper. You may have missed my point. He had exactly as much choice as the writers gave him. There are dozens of ways he could have been been spared a killing story. What if the phantom zone projector had still been operational (as just one example)?
What I’m saying is, Superman was written into a situation where he killed - and you liked it. I didn’t and I explained why I didn’t like it.
You’re explanation as to why it’s OK - civilians do it - also speaks to the point I was making. Superman isn’t a civilian. He’s Superman. He’s *supposed* to be better than us. He’s supposed to be an inspiration - not a vehicle to vicariously enjoy God-like “justified” powers of destruction.
Save innocents? At least a half a million people would had to have died during his battle with Zod. Apparantly collateral damage doesn't bother him so much.