Was it justified?

you prefer a man of steal or a man of nakedness?

Stealing only works as a justification for murder.

>genocidal war criminal
Yes. Even if he arrested Zod somehow, they would have put him to death anyway.

> Does what comic Batman won't and doesn't get murder hungry.
> DCEU Batman does it and loves murder too much to stop.

It's not murder. It was completely justifiable.

what he want was a home

Absolutely it was justified.
Just at the cost of telling a good story.

Yes.

>man of nakedness
When he looks like your pic, definetly

yes

No

What else could he honestly do in that situation???

Attached: c7c.png (612x491, 98K)

DC movies are never justified

I'm just glad they're bombing hard now so we'll never have to see them or trailers and tv spots for them ever again

No one had complained here. And it was in cold blood.

Attached: C124gX6UkAA71U1.jpg (1090x700, 95K)

Shut up, laddertard

And there lies the problem, we shouldn't be asking if a morally perfect man is doing the right thing. Hell, Supes' main conflict in this movie was if he even wanted to be humanities savior in the first place, which granted is realisticly hard to ask a normal man with Superman powers, but that'd be boring. I mean I would kill Zodd, but Superman should be better than me, he should be the best of all of us.

Based

Attached: 2504415-1771580_1485679_ac_775__39_.jpg (509x640, 69K)

"If we met a morally perfect man we'd tar and feather him and then murder him."
Why else do you think Snyder had Clark reading Plato's Republic? That's the relevant sentiment from that text.

Yes of course it was, he wasnt just gonna sit thru that family bbq

I've said it before, but honestly Cavill Supes would be more popular if you replaced his suit with the Morrison New 52 action comics t-shirt/cape combo.

no, by snapping his god damn neck!

In the context of the movie, yes. His only methods of permanently getting rid of Zod peacefully (Phantom Zone) were gone, and to everyone's knowledge there wasn't any other way yet (like Kryptonite or Red Sun lamps). And Zod, who is quickly getting a better grasp of his powers and might soon become more powerful than Superman outright says he'll never stop. So it's either Supes ends it by killing (ideally now), goes on in a futile effort to try and get him to stop peacefully (which causes more deaths), or dies.

Whether you think it's right for the writers to have forced Supes into that corner in the first place is an entirely different matter, but general consensus seems to be that they should not have.

Why is Superman threatening that poor tranny?

Are you stupid? It was the only practical choice.

Yes.

However it was not what I wanted to see in a big screen Superman movie, and the movie was much worse for having it:

>MoS was a warning about refugees
Snyder must have taken the Raimipill

Only because of the script

Yes, but he's not MY superman

The way it happened was not justified. The movie had made these two unstoppable gods fight for 30 minutes, just to end on a scene that ignored either one's multiple abilities for a simple standoff, involving some randos nobody cares about, in a manner that everyone watching would've dealt with different, all for an unsatisfying payoff. The scene was bad, the scene was so bad that it ruined whatever good was in the rest of the movie. Literally everything that was laid out before was just meaningless garbage. The fight with Zod could've just been that final scene. This is why everyone thinks all the destruction was too much, why the death count is unjustifiable and why people call the killing of Zod murder. The standoff was so bewildering and the characters involved, even the humans, so artificially limited that it didn't make sense.

The fight should've ended when Superman and Zod are in space, Supes should've just slamed Zod back into earth and killed him that way. The stakes were already high, people were already dying, all the excuses people make to defend the neck snap already applied at this point. No stupid standoff, no stupid humans, no stupid neck snap.

I don't understand how Superman was strong enough to snap Zod's neck, but not strong enough to simply move his head so the eye beams wouldn't hit anyone.

Fight was dragging on and this was the only solution the script would allow

>If we met a morally perfect man we'd tar and feather him and then murder him
This also the basis for Christianity.

I don't understand why he hesitated

Based Boyd

...and what would he do AFTER he moved his head? That wouldn't end the danger.

No because he didn't do it sooner

It wasn't literally about Zod using his eye beams to specifically murder those 3 or 4 people in a corner, it was about Clark making the hard decision to stop attempting to stop Zod non-fatally and accept that the only way he can save the human race is by killing Zod

This. Exactly this.

This is why I hate the "man of murder" memes. The scene doesn't suck because it's "murder" (it's not murder). The scene sucks because we're supposed to feel as though Superman having to kill Zod is somehow meaningful to his character and arc or challenges his pre-established morals, when none of the themes set up during the film had anything to do with Clark's feelings about killing or wanting to avoid killing or if it's sometimes necessary to kill to save a life. It only happens because it's "edgy" and "mature" to have the hero kill and be sad about it, but we don't even know WHY he's sad, because the film never bothers to even establish that Superman considers avoiding killing to be central to his worldview or identity on the first place. The film goes on about his struggles about whether he should use his powers or not, whether he should reveal himself to the world or not, but never talks about whether he should kill or not, so having to kill isn't the payoff to any sort of arc already established.

Just fly up.

Or turn his body away from the targets. If you can snap his neck, you can overpower him.

Or just cover his eyes with your hands.

There were a lot of options that didn't involve Snyder masturbating about moral ambiguity.

I thought this movie was not even worth discussing.

Just give him a wet willie to gross him out.

6 fucking years, no single apologize

Attached: MoS cocky.jpg (1920x1080, 161K)

No, Superman could've killed Zod anytime during the big fight. Like I said before, the threat was already there, people were already dying, Superman already knew he had to stop Zod at any cost and that he was running out of time. Snider's just wanted a standoff, I guess he thought the audience couldn't recognize the stakes if they didn't have self inserts being directly targeted.

You're retarded, trying to sound clever by throwing out those methods that don't actually solve the problem.

None of those stop him from still trying to kill people, or the fact he was getting stronger as time went on.

Thus is why the scene was so dumbfounded, it made it seem like saving these randos was the reason Zod had to die, when destroying the whole city was enough already. Zod should've died during the big fight.

The cape film that still can't be topped in ingenuity and earnestness.
Godspeed, Snyder and Nolan.

Attached: MartinAnsin_ManofSteel.jpg (667x1000, 317K)

Attached: 1385483340458.jpg (1200x900, 740K)

But he had already killed people, thousands of them. Directly and indirectly. If Superman didn't kill him then, then it is completely acceptable to say Superman could've tried more non-lethal methods. He had already done so. Every time Superman attacked, if it wasn't with lethal intent, the it was to try to subdue Zod. Why not in this situation? Superman had already let thousands die. Why didn't Superman want to kill him before? Again, thousands were already dead.

Was it because it was in the script? Did they both read the script and knew what had to happen? Was this just a bad movie, with bad scenes and bad writing?

Superman already decisively won (or gained a massive upper hand) when he got Zod on that choke but Zod's ideals won't let him surrender.
That's the underlying context of that scene.
The whole melee was chaotic and the clashing of two god-like beings fighting for their world (Zod lost the chance for his so in turn will destroy Clark's in spiteful retribution).

The real question is why are there people dumb enough to question if it was justified.

killing the DCEU before it was even born?

I mean, you can't deny they knew what the rest of it would be like

they knew what they were doing, they tried to save us from themselves

Zod lost his motivation long before the fight, the terraforming machine was already destroyed. He had already let Superman know that humanity was going to be destroyed one way or another. Humanity was already in danger. Was the danger not real until Zod did his monologue?

Don't get me started on the chokehold. The whole point of being a demi-god is that shit like a chokehold doesn't stop you. What, was a super-chokehold all that was needed to stop Zod? Then why not super-choke him unconscious? Why not super-break his spine? Why not super-haymaker to the jaw? If Zod needed to die, then why not super-smash his head in? Would super-strangling work? How about super-kidney punches? That shit can kill a regular human pretty good.

The standoff was a bad idea.

>The standoff was a bad idea.
Not to me.
It's the culmination of their fight and serves the point of Superman forced in making hard choices he wouldn't initially do.

>Zod lost his motivation
Not exactly, it changed.
From pleading for Clark to not eternally doom Krypton to vengeful spite because he has nothing to lose anymore.

Your argument to practicality is sound but has given way to the filmmaker's liberties to convey a scene.
It kinds reminds me how someone complains a superhero's costume is impractical or when someone blurts out in the middle of the film, "Why didn't X just shoot Y?" when the themes of the narrative wouldn't be as effective if done that way.

Attached: man-of-steel-ken-taylor-poster.jpg (1000x565, 521K)

The practicality arguments are for the people who say there were no other practical alternatives to the scene. My arguments are not on how superhero movies don't make sense, they are about how scenes in superhero movies don't make sense. When it comes to narrative, there are still a lot of problems with the standoff scene. We already had a climax, the battle. Instead of using the death and destruction as motivation for Superman's actions, and by extension us getting a satisfying conclusion, they stopped the action, had a little chat, Zod even had time to monologue and threaten a multiracial nuclear family for a second climax. The audience was already exhausted by this point, we didn't need more danger, we didn't need more fighting, we didn't need more overdramatic score with suspiciously large amounts of percussion instruments. This is why a lot of people don't like what happened at the standoff, they thought it was over, Superman won, he had Zod in a chokehold. "BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE." This is why people always bring up the alternatives or the character incongruities, the culmination didn't feel like the conclusion, if the conflict HAD to end with Superman killing Zod, then what was all that fighting about? Why not kill him then?

>hard choices
The whole movie is about making hard choices. Again, why is this one small family the reason Superman has to make hard choices? Why not when people were blowing up, when buildings were falling on them? Why does the story need a second, smaller climax?

>from pleading to vengeful spite
That had already happened before the fight. The necksnaping scene was about Zod litteraly doing to a small family what he had already done to countless people before. What, does it not count if you can't see the screaming, panicking masses?

Raping him so hard his neck got snapped?

I hated this movie and thought Superman was a brooding idiot, but I never got the drama behind this scene. Zod was a maniac who couldn't be contained. Even if Superman wasn't forced to make this choice due to immediate circumstances, killing Zod would probably be the only option without some phantom zone macguffin.

Anything that gives us memes is justified

I didn't care.

Attached: kneelbeforezod.jpg (1280x660, 314K)

It's somethin', innit? One minute in Kansas livin' on a pancake so we come to the mountains. All downhill from here; down to the floodplain, arm at the bottom of the world. I remember one season the water came bad. I couldn't've been twelve. Dad had out the shovels and we went at it all night. We worked 'til I think I fainted, but we managed to stop the water. We saved the farm. Your grandma baked me a cake, said I was a hero. Later that day we found out we blocked the water alright - we sent it upstream. A whole Lange farm washed away. While I ate my hero cake, their horses were drowning. I used to hear them wailing in my sleep.

No. The real Superman would’ve covered his eyes, told someone to bring a lamp with a red light bulb, and then hold Zod until he’s fully depowered and arrested. There was no reason for the fake Superman to kill Zod, no matter how you look at it. Thoroughly dumb scene.

Attached: B140EFE5-CC4D-4E23-85EE-EC70031B0B56.jpg (544x666, 139K)

Why didn’t Zod just terraform Mars?

>Why not then?
Superman didn't want to kill the last person in his entire race, he wanted him to stop, leave or the very least imprisoned for his crimes.
You are implying that Superman should've killed Zod earlier because just he kills him in the end of the fight?
The family isn't what ultimately caused Superman to execute Zod, it's his unwillingness to surrender despite the fight already over IN CONTEXT.
You are implying that the film downscaled the epic by focusing its climax onto a small family that Zod, in his petty warbling, was going to fry because he can when so many have died beforehand.
No, it doesn't.
It's a microcosm of the entire battle between the last men of Krypton.
And I don't even want to get started with the whole "a TRUE Superman should'ves and couldve's"

Attached: TheManofSteel.jpg (640x960, 30K)

What's terraforming?

Attached: mos.jpg (1280x720, 53K)