Oh and of course an alien race is not just threatening the planet, but changing its core but folks got to visit the museum to stay up to date with the history. Pure BS.

Why is everyone forgetting that in the THEATRICAL CUT of the Donner/Lester Superman II, Superman drains Zod, Ursa, and Non of their powers, and then they are all thrown to their off-screen, no-doubt-grisly deaths (with a little help from Lois, that stone-cold-killer!), down some ice chutes into the depths of the Fortress of Solitude?! Without their powers, they'd be killed upon impact. Superman would then be responsible for their "murders," if you want to call it that.

Anyone complaining about Superman snapping Zod's neck in Man of Steel is out of touch with reality, and clearly not in synch with the real-world aesthetic that Nolan has brought to ALL of the superhero movies he's had his paws on. Superman HAD to kill Zod at the end of Man of Steel. What was his other option? All trying to send him back into the Phantom Zone would have accomplished is keeping him alive and giving him yet another chance to escape and destroy more cities. Superman is about THE GREATER GOOD. Beyond the fact that innocents were about to be heat-visioned to death by Zod, had he not broken his neck, there'd likely be more destruction of Metropolis with further collateral damage. And I'm still of the argument that once the people of Metropolis saw what was happening at the city level, most people would have evacuated those skyscrapers, resulting in a smaller death toll than critics are complaining about.

Also, Zod basically allows himself to be killed. Once he realizes that his posse has been destroyed and that there's no way he can win, he essentially allows himself to be put into a sleeper hold. He's been born and bred to do one thing and now that that one thing is gone, he's useless, thus making the El's decision to have a natural birth even more poignant and effective.

Also, this guy Waid is off his ass. "Superman should have flown out to a cornfield to have his fight"?! or some nonsense like that. Please. Superman went to where Zod was because Zod was about to ANNHILATE Metropolis. Zod had every intention of consuming the planet's resources first and foremost, destroying Superman was a close second. The one power that Superman doesn't have is the ability to be in two places at the same time, so it makes sense that he needed help from the military, and Superman heading out the Indian Ocean to destroy the other world building machine in no-way-shape-or-form represents Superman ditching out on his responsibilities to save innocent people.

Also, the 9/11 arguments are BEYOND TIRED & LAZY. The ONLY reason why anyone compares big-budget, city-style destruction in Hollywood movies to the events of 9/11 is because of ONE incident in our history. One. Hollywood had been leveling cities for YEARS and nobody EVER complained. Enough is enough. Sick of it. Move on.

And to note — instances where Superman has KILLED someone/something:

Zod/Co. in Superman II and in comic form
Doomsday in the comics/cartoon
The Joker in the Injustice comic series
Criminals from Krypton with Gold & Green Kryptonite in comics
Golden-era Superman repeatedly threw gangsters and criminals to their off-panel deaths
Pre-Crisis Superman killed Mxyzptlk in Action #583
Nuclear Man in Quest for Peace

But here's my ONE question with the movie (which I looooooooved overall): If all it took to kill Zod was a quick snap of the neck, how could Zod have survived all of the skyscraper devastation when he was thrown from building to building? Is the argument that Zod's powers weren't yet fully honed the reason for this ability to be killed by a snap of the neck? He was almost fully powered up but not all the way there? Superman's powers were more developed as a result of more time spent on Earth, therefore he's unable to be killed by a neck-snap. Is this correct?

And to close, any critic who gave The Avengers or ANY of the Marvel movies an enthusiastic review and then turned around and panned Man of Steel should be FIRED. Critics had an agenda with this film from the get-go — they went after Man of Steel because of one name associated with it: Zack Snyder. Had the director's credit read: A Film by Christopher Nolan, the film would be in the 90% range at RT, and you wouldn't have heard half of the insipid bitching from critics that we had to endure last week.

$125 million in 3 days at the U.S. box office, with a Cinemascore of A/A-, means that REGULAR PEOPLE enjoyed the movie immensely. Watch when this week it drops in the upper 40's or low 50's, and then evens out to 30% drops in the coming weeks, with a July 4th bump. Massive success, both artistically and commercially. What Synder-Nolan-Goyer-Mokri-Zimmer did with Superman was nothing short of EXTRAORDINARY. They took 75 years of history and pop iconography and simultaneously paid respect to everything that has come before, while also creating something new and modern and bold and exciting and visually dynamic.

So basically most people evacuated except the people who provide NEWS; which they show are unaware of this sudden attack, oh yes because they are the last ones to know what is going around?

Peace.

Why does nobody ever bring this up? If I remember properly it's Batman that is the most gung-ho about not killing people no matter what.

I personally didn't find anything wrong with Superman killing General Zod, although it was unexpected and shocking. This was a young immature Superman, so I see this as an early mistake that will ultimately shape his character and sense of morality in the future for the better. What Superman did was moral, but now he will strive to achieve higher morals.

That being said, comic purists could argue the Heroic Mythos requires Superman never to kill. I can understand that point of view but don't share it. Having begun my membership in Super-fandom in the late-1950s, via comics, I feel we are a more openly blood-thirsty culture at this point in time. Long-overused is the trope of Superman being bedeviled by the villain for a prolonged period due to the rule not to kill, the relief of which is provided by the villain dying on his own. This is a moral cheat and has been a cheap resolution throughout all hero films and TV shows employing it during the 20th century. Even my child-brain wondered, what would they do if the villain HADN'T conveniently, say, fallen off a skyscraper?

The real moral dilemma facing our world now is WHEN killing a bad guy is justified, and it is appropriate our era's films should chew on that. Even the recent excellent Star Trek-II [SPOILER] hinted Spock might have killed the villain after catching him, whaling on him down on Earth. Spock's rage was stopped short and redirected by Uhura saying they need the villain to resurrect Kirk. In fact, that entire film's meta is the question 'When should we break rules, and when should we not, and why?" All permutations of rule-keeping and rule-breaking are on display during the film with the coda of Spock saying to Kirk, "I will leave it to your good judgment" — meaning there is no black/white rule "Never Break Rules" — one must develop good judgment, which is our Human Condition.

Right now there is fierce public debate whether it is right to drone terrorists to prevent them the chance of raining down their terror. Also controversial is whether extensive monitoring of the public should be employed to avoid terrorism. Personally, I think both droning and data-mining are appropriate in our world today, where bad guys don't face each other on the field of battle; instead, they melt into the multitudinous crowd, then strike via anonymity. Terror plots don't foil themselves, and think of how we'd be clamoring for MORE protection if those fifty or so foiled plots referred to by the NSA hadn't been successfully stopped.

In 'Man of Steel', Zod eluded being sucked back into 'The Phantom Zone'/Singularity. After that, there could be no resolution for him other than death, no cage to hold him. And, as others have pointed out, a Superman who suffers the anguish of killing Zod, will have internalized the proscription against killing, and will go to great lengths in the future to avoid killing again. In future films, we will understand why he does so, and we will relate to his struggle to find non-murderous resolution. After all, the question of Capital Punishment is another debate our world is having. 'Man of Steel' offers a truly 21st century Superman…embroiled in the profound moral dilemmas of our time.

My opinion? Hollywood garbage.