Man of Steel Ending Controversy & The Superman II Hypocrisy


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 IISupes 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:

[poll id="630"]


Man of Steel is now in theaters.

Superman II has been around for thirty-three years. See it if you haven't.

Sources:  Empire Magazine podcast (viaThe Playlist),  Thrillbent (via Cinema Blend), Collider

Dark Superman Image Courtesy of Eliaskhasho on DeviantArt

Justice League Zack Snyder Cut
Justice League’s Snyder Cut Has Won Over DCEU Critics

More in SR Originals