Man of Steel Ending: Why It Shouldn't Be a Controversy

Finale Allows Superman to Form His Principles

Superman doesn’t kill. This was the sole reason for what later became a controversy surrounding the Man of Steel ending. The finale saw Superman snap General Zod’s
neck in order to save a family. The fact that Superman ended a life and the rather brutal manner in which he did it resulted in most fans rising up in revolt. To them, a founding principle of their beloved superhero had been defiled. It was like having a vegetarian eat at a steakhouse or having a human rights activist engage in human trafficking.  You get the picture.

Initially, this plot twist had even Christopher Nolan pleading no to it. But later on, Zack Snyder and David S. Goyer managed to coax him into it with a valid argument. The entire reason for a reboot is to take a franchise and its characters into areas previously untouched, to redefine that franchise. Contrary to previous Superman movies, this is an origin story that details the birth of Superman. So why can’t it chronicle the birth of his principles?

It becomes difficult for a writing team to handle reboots especially if old plot points are revisited. The perfect example for this is The Amazing Spider-Man. Goyer had the task of revamping things and he did this from the beginning till the end. Superman was placed in a position where he couldn’t postpone the inevitable. Zod states that either Superman dies or he dies. There is no disputing that fact when it comes from a trained soldier who was bred for the purpose of killing. If Kal-El hadn’t snapped Zod’s neck, that family would have been turned to cinders and Zod would have indulged in some more mass murders. Hence Superman didn’t have a choice.

That was Snyder’s and Goyer’s intent and they managed to persuade Nolan, a feat on its own. The fact that Kal-El did so at the expense of his own people (Zod was the last Kryptonian left alive) which resulted in the extinction of his own race should also haunt him for an eternity. It was the first time that he took another being’s life and that meant he was the only Kryptonian left standing. When the weight of one death carries such significance to him, it paves the way for the origin of one founding principle that Superman will possess. He will not kill again knowing the burden of killing a fellow Kryptonian.

Thus, it seems that the controversy surrounding the finale is unfounded. A lack of options was the primary cause for it. That it also enables Kal-El to develop his own code of ethics helps the writers creatively for that Batman/Superman sequel.

On the topic of the finale, we all know the carnage and destruction that ensued. A handful of Kryptonians were able to embarrass the Chitauri (Loki’s Army in Avengers) and all other alien life forms. Superman, too, is responsible for this damage which will exceed any caused by natural disasters or world wars in human history. Skyscrapers tumbled like a pack of cards. Cars were left idle like crumpled pieces of paper. Foes tossing each other about left buildings’ interiors demolished and tarmac roads obliterated as if run through a giant cheese grater. It all serves well as the world’s introduction to extra-terrestrial life. It shows how miniscule human civilization and technology is in comparison to those of other galaxies. It does pose a problem, though. Usually, sequels take a darker turn and thus encompass more ruin. When time comes for the Man of Steel sequels or perhaps that Justice League movie on the horizon, how is Warner Bros. going to top the demolition in this film? How much more can you blow up? It seems that the answer lies in a different approach, one centered on characters and emotional development. The decision to have a Batman/Superman sequel hints at that with less emphasis on the explosions and carnage. Snyder will swap more CGI to focus on the presumed tension between the 2 superheroes. The dilemma is solved for now, but it will reemerge later. And then what will we do? Go to outer space?