>What's the real issue with it?
>
>IMO it was a fantastic way to challenge what Superman is
>really all about in this universe. Yes, that could have been
>done without killing. I don't subscribe to the notion that
>there's no other way, for reasons you've explained, but I
>don't agree with the issue itself.
>
>A Superman who is shown to make hard, painful choices for the
>greater good is infinitely more compelling than the singular
>morality others seem to prefer.

I have no problem with shaking up the status quo, though doing it at the end of the first film, instead of, say, saving it for a sequel and giving us more time to get to know the character isn't my personal preference.

At this point, one could argue that the singular morality is much harder to maintain and requires far more effort from Supes to uphold. Killing is the "easy route," as it were. Especially considering it's Superman's first ever fight. The whole singular morality thing wasn't even really established before it was broken. Which, again, I can see why longtime Supes fans really struggle with that.

But again, mine was more of a an execution beef than a principle beef.

>>Though I'm generally in the "Supes doesn't kill" camp, I
>>wouldn't have had any problem with that change had I been
>>emotionally invested in Supes or Zod. Since I wasn't, it
>>didn't have the impact I wanted for me, personally. The
>Vader
>>NOOOOO didn't help either.
>
>Personally, his scream felt sincere and, well, realistic. It
>didn't even approach the solar system of that Vader moment.

I'll just have to respectfully disagree here. Though in my personal opinion, most any character, especially in sci-fi/fantasy, yelling a stretched out "NO" or "WHY?" or anything similar in an emotional moment will always be Vader level embarrassing. Hugh Jackman, one of the most earnest actors alive who I believe could pull off anything, couldn't even pull off the multiple screams he was given in Wolverine. I think it's just an impossible task.