[mitchables]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD I would have had a bigger issue with Clark letting him incinerate a family. Zod had to be put down, he was beyond reason. And none of that "I don't have to save you" rationale, either. It was, at that moment, the best option. Any one of us would have done the same (and probably wouldn't have took as long to make that decision).

clark shows zero concern or consideration for collateral damage throughout the entire film. for all we know, he does "let" zod kill a bunch of people, because he's too busy throwing punches and flying into stuff to worry about moving the fight out of a heavily populated area, for example. like mark waid said - he only ever seemed to give a shit about "people" in the most abstract sense possible. even routh used his powers to stop debris from killing innocent bystanders. cavill's superman seemed genuinely unconcerned about it. dunno.


although i do actually agree with you about the idea that it could be compelling to have a superman with dirtier hands than batman.


and you make a valid point in terms of "well, what else was he gonna do?" and i do acknowledge that they take pains to show that he at least regrets that that was his available course of action -- but i'd highly recommend having a look at waid's review, if only because it's incredibly poignant coming from someone who has helped shape contemporary superman mythology. to hear (or see) that man say that that moment "broke his heart"... you feel for him. you really do.