“No soul”, Mr. Robert? I cried three times during this movie (maybe four or five, i lost track). The storyline had that much of an impact upon me, and i haven’t reacted that way to any movie before.

Yes it had a lot of CGI, but so much of the movie was spent fleshing out the characters that i have a hard time understanding how that wasn’t relevant. The decision to put most of the action at the end of the movie clearly shows what they prioritized first, which was defining character relationships in such a way that the conflicts would feel meaningful to those watching them.

In regards to characterization i honestly didn’t want Superman to continue to only exist in a place where he never has to make hard choices. By refusing to spread beyond the confines of the “perfect hero” interpretation, his relevance would continue to slip away to those of us who have to live in a world where we face moral dilemmas. Having to face hard choices makes him even more of a hero, the kind that we can strive to emulate in real life. Superman is a hero, but he represents a specific kind of hero in a moral arc that contains many others who would make different but equally valid choices, hence why so many like to compare Superman to Batman or Spider-Man.

I honestly believe Superman to be the kind of person who always takes a third moral option when it’s available, but “when it’s available” is the key point. In the absence of a way to imprison, dis-empower, or talk Zod down, Superman is not the kind of character to allow billions of people to die because he can’t bring himself to end Zod. As much as killing Zod feels unlike Superman, allowing Zod to kill billions of people feels more unlike him. A hero like Batman might make the more radical choice of refusing to kill Zod outside of an alternative due to Batman’s darkness, which is a valid choice if one is willing to accept its consequences, but Superman’s philosophy doesn’t allow for such needless harm to innocents. Superman always affirms life as much as possible. But if he needs to fight to do it he chooses to do so. May i also mention that ‘Superman II”s Superman also chose to kill Zod, albeit for flimsier reasons.

Regardless of whether or not the franchise evolves well or poorly beyond ‘Man of Steel’, i think this movie deserves respect for reinvigorating Superman in a way that allows him to operate in the difficult moral universe that we mortals also inhabit.

Yes it had a lot of CGI, but so much of the movie was spent fleshing out the characters that i have a hard time understanding how that wasn’t relevant. The decision to put most of the action at the end of the movie clearly shows what they prioritized first, which was defining character relationships in such a way that the conflicts would feel meaningful to those watching them.

In regards to characterization i honestly didn’t want Superman to continue to only exist in a place where he never has to make hard choices. By refusing to spread beyond the confines of the “perfect hero” interpretation, his relevance would continue to slip away to those of us who have to live in a world where we face moral dilemmas. Having to face hard choices makes him even more of a hero, the kind that we can strive to emulate in real life. Superman is a hero, but he represents a specific kind of hero in a moral arc that contains many others who would make different but equally valid choices, hence why so many like to compare Superman to Batman or Spider-Man.

I honestly believe Superman to be the kind of person who always takes a third moral option when it’s available, but “when it’s available” is the key point. In the absence of a way to imprison, dis-empower, or talk Zod down, Superman is not the kind of character to allow billions of people to die because he can’t bring himself to end Zod. As much as killing Zod feels unlike Superman, allowing Zod to kill billions of people feels more unlike him. A hero like Batman might make the more radical choice of refusing to kill Zod outside of an alternative due to Batman’s darkness, which is a valid choice if one is willing to accept its consequences, but Superman’s philosophy doesn’t allow for such needless harm to innocents. Superman always affirms life as much as possible. But if he needs to fight to do it he chooses to do so. May i also mention that ‘Superman II”s Superman also chose to kill Zod, albeit for flimsier reasons.

Regardless of whether or not the franchise evolves well or poorly beyond ‘Man of Steel’, i think this movie deserves respect for reinvigorating Superman in a way that allows him to operate in the difficult moral universe that we mortals also inhabit.