asr0462

June 15, 2013 11:51 am Because Superman is supposed to be an ideal and better than who we are, that's why it was offensive to me. I'm glad you liked the movie and were ok with the ending. I'm just letting my experiences with the character inform my opinions of his final actions with Zod. If you found the actions appropriate, that's fine. I'm just of the opposite opinion.

June 15, 2013 11:45 am You have a good point, Paul. He could have carried him out of the building or something instead of breaking his neck. Many other ways to handle it, and to me, that makes it all the bit more disappointing because that meant Snyder and Goyer were of the mindset that, "Yeah, we're going to have Superman kill Zod."

June 15, 2013 11:40 am It's just how I feel man. Yeah, he took out Zod in Superman 2, but he didn't snap the dudes neck in a public setting. Also, he didn't inadvertently kill like 20,000 people by plowing through buildings with Zod. The whole movie felt completely off to me. To me, and I know my opinion has little to no influence, I think this needs to be a one-off with no sequel.

June 15, 2013 11:36 am Because it was so extremely and excruciatingly out of character that everything the character stood for for over 75 years was betrayed. I don't care if it was a "reboot" and that it's being updated. To me, Superman's morals are something you don't update or change. The symbol on his chest stood for "hope?" Well, that action wasn't hopeful to me, it was despair.

June 15, 2013 11:16 am Solid review, Paul. I can't say I disagree with any of it. That last scene in the train station was blasphemous.