Just so we're clear: this movie has Superman and taking a man he knows to be weak as your average human, crushes his hand, and throws him into a bottomless pit. That's not even mentioning Lois Lane also knocking a now-de-powered villain off a cliff. In short: Superman does and has killed the exact same guy on film before - so what's all the controversy about?
In Man of Steel Supes is clearly tormented by his actions and needs Lois for comfort; in Superman II, Supes and Lois smile through their double homicide and crack wise. Is the latter okay because it's more of a fantasy world with a John Williams theme song playing when Superman does his dirty deed? Is Man of Steel's treatment of death and destruction more unpalatable than cheers for a re-powered Superman crushing a man's hand and Lois Lane cracking one-liners before killing someone? I don't get it.
What is there to split hairs about? Superman killed Zod in both films - so how does the notion of "Superman Does Not Kill" even hold water? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below - and/or vote in the poll:
Man of Steel is now in theaters.
Superman II has been around for thirty-three years. See it if you haven't.
Dark Superman Image Courtesy of Eliaskhasho on DeviantArt