Board Thread:DC Universe Discussion/@comment-3974095-20130611233337/@comment-1895174-20130627231156

Zodisgod wrote: Bartieandquick+6 wrote: Both of you are right here. I personally liked how Superman killed Zod, because it was dramatic and good for the character and can serve as a plotline in sequels. But I also see where you're coming from about why Superman just didn't kill him or take him away before the big building-to-bulding fight scene. That scene really wasn't necessary to the film AT ALL, and was pretty much there just to "excite" the film when it reality it just made the constant action get old. Superman and Zod should have just had a minor scuffle, no throwing through buldings or flight necessary, and then had Zod try to fry Lois, Perry, and those 2 characters. Before he could, Superman would jump and get him in a chokehold, and after a few seconds of struggle, cue flashback to the Kent family watching a news story about Lionel Luthor being found dead, and how his son Lex will take over as CEO (This would work as both a reference to Smallville and Lex being in the universe), and then Martha saying that there's a rumor Lex killed him. Then Johnathan would say that no life, ever, is worth taking and somehow there's always a way to save even the darkest of people. It would then go back to the chokehold scene, where Clark is trying desperately to find a way to stop Zod but is then forced to kill him. Boom. Drama and character development without unnecessary action. that is a very good idea since it would give more characterisation to the act and make it more understandable and it would add a sequel hook; as it stands its just something done for the sake of it and it does go against 75 years of supermans characterisation, the superman i know would find any possible alternative to killing someone. It doesn't stand as something "just something done for the sake of it", nor does it go against 75 years of Superman's characterization. Have you seen the film yet?