Board Thread:DC Universe Discussion/@comment-3974095-20130611233337/@comment-3094698-20130626231608

yeah i get that i havent seen it so cant really comment properly about it but the way its been marketed is so wrong to me. sure it might be a different kind of movie but its still a comic book movie and its not just this film i have a problem with, its the same with nolans batman. i dont think nolan wants to be connected to something as "low" as comics so he markets the things as far away from them as possible and that just gets to me because at the same time youve got marvel movies which go at it all guns blazing with them being comic books and it just makes dc look bad in my mind.

as for the end i have two problems: 1) if he is willing to kill zod at the end to save 4 lives why not kill zod sooner and save thousands? 2) its always said that the first life is the hardest to take so really it should be easier for clark to kill someone else and that cuts all the dramatic tension in future movies, why should he bother coming to a different solution when he can kill the guy and save himself the hassel? and if he doesnt kill the guy then it goes against his characterisation in this movie. not to mention that it was this kind of behaviour that led to the justice lords in the justice league animated series and that goes against 75 years of comic book characterisation because superman doesnt kill even when he has no other choice. killing someone is not something superman does and to make that the dramatic conclusion of the story is wrong. so my two problems are why not use leathal force sooner and save countless lives? this makes sequels almost impossible because everyone will just say why doesnt he kill him and get it over with; ok 3 problems since superman doesnt kill and making him kill someone, even to save a life, goes against everything the character stands for and just screams of doing it to seem xtreme and kool like snyder always does.