Speaking at the BAFTA and BFI Screenwriters' Lecture, Goyer shared his thoughts on the no kill rule and why he believes Kal had to take Zod's life.

"We were pretty sure that was going to be controversial. It's not like we were deluding ourselves, and we weren't just doing it to be cool. We felt, in the case of Zod, we wanted to put the character in an impossible situation and make an impossible choice.

This is one area, and I've written comic books as well and this is where I disagree with some of my fellow comic book writers - 'Superman doesn't kill'. It's a rule that exists outside of the narrative and I just don't believe in rules like that. I believe when you're writing film or television, you can't rely on a crutch or rule that exists outside of the narrative of the film.

So the situation was, Zod says 'I'm not going to stop until you kill me or I kill you.' The reality is no prison on the planet could hold him and in our film Superman can't fly to the moon, and we didn't want to come up with that crutch."

Additionally, Goyer states the action will indeed have a lasting impact on Clark.

"Also our movie was in a way Superman Begins, he's not really Superman until the end of the film. We wanted him to have had that experience of having taken a life and carry that through onto the next films. Because he's Superman and because people idolize him he will have to hold himself to a higher standard."

Also for those who say Superman, should never, ever kill and never has. Then please, explain these then

So yeah. There are a lot of instances where he killed. I have no problem with it. It made sense within the confines of the movie and it's going to have lasting effects on him. That's all that's required.

1817040 Early golden age don't count, the damn BATMAN killed in the Golden Age

1817106 Ah, but that middle post happened in the Bronze Age. Point is there's precedent for Superman killing.

The thing is though, most of the notable times he's killed, has turned him evil. Like in the justice league cartoon where he kills Luthor. It still seems off to me.

1817040 Well....now that I at least know that they plan it to have lasting impact on Clark, I'm a little more okay with it.

Of course, until this point, NOBODY KNEW THAT IT WOULD. Why? Because at the end of the film, Clark seems just fine, with no problems, all smiles and ready to be ace reporter for the Daily Planet, with no real time spent showing him thinking about the fact that he just killed a man.

Also, we didn't know that this version of Superman can't fly to the moon. It's never even stated in the film. All we needed was a quick scene with him trying to fly to the moon as part of the scene where he's learning to fly, realize he can't fly into space, and then come back down. That way, later on, when he does have Zod in the head lock, we the audience know that he can't just fly him to the moon.

And, in case this needs more explaining, here's Linkara's vlog where he outlines why he didn't like the movie (and also basically sums up every reason why I didn't like the movie). I would have used a YouTube link, but alas, it's not on YouTube...

1817123 I watch Linkara's videos, but I don't agree with a lot of the things he says, too.

Jeremy Jahns makes a good point about it.

1817110 But more often then not, it's been retconned like nineteen times over.

Like in the comic What's So Funny About Truth Justice and the American Way? (which is cited as one of the single best Superman comics EVER), they explictly state that Superman doesn't kill out of his own choice not to, with him saying if he were to start killing, there would literally be almost nothing to stop him.

Of course, that doesn't stop him from beating the living crap outta someone though

1817145 He did make a good point there Jeremy...I like his reviews a lot.

But still...it still feels off-putting and strange to see Superman killing.

1817173 I complianed about that at first, too. It was initially disheartening, but now I get it.

BTW, have you seen the Red Hood vs. Winter Soldier Thread?

1817176 Yes I did.

And I honestly think it depends on the environment and if the two of them are in peak condition....

1817184 They are just way to equal to call it without taking into account the environment.

1817200 Right.

1817040 I will still hate David S. Goyer with every fiber of my bone. DC should really consider firing him. Him and J.K. Rowling must be secretly brother and sister because I think bad writing like that can't be a coincidence.

1817123 Yeah I saw his review and I gotta tell you this............... He had some serious flaws in his thinking.

First of all, this is an adaptation. Adaptations are under no obligations to be set in stone, straight up copies of the source material. Otherwise, what's the point? It's like that shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. There's nothing different or changed, with the exception of different actors and it being in color.

The Watchmen movie, even IT did something different. It changed the ending. Some may argue that's what killed it, but the point is that they did something DIFFERENT. Adaptations are meant to adapt, as in change, something from one medium to another. If people can't accept that then there's no point in making comic book movies is there?

1817228 Well I agree with you there.

But still...when you adapting a previously published work, especially one with such a storied history as Superman, you must remember that, even with all the different versions of his character, there are certain things that remain unchanged. And, for the most part, the law of Superman not killing.

Now, I will admit that the idea of him maybe having killed someone at the beginning of his tenure, which instilled in him the fortitude to never do such a thing again is actually one I'm okay with. If anything, it just suffered in the execution....i.e. the screenplay, which was retched.

1817286 Hey fair enough.

Also I think Goyer explained it the wrong way. Saying "Oh, he needed to take a life so he could know what it feels like and would never want to do it again" just sounds a touch on the flimsy side.

Now I didn't have a problem with much of the film as a whole. I actually thought it was one of the best Superman films made. However, that doesn't mean I can't find fault with it.

I agree with you on how they handled the "No-Killing Rule"

If I was in charge of that part of the narrative? I would have done something like Clark, as a kid or even young adult, accidentally kills someone with his powers. It would be where he's not in good control of them yet of course, he doesn't do it intentionally or in cold blood.

It would happen to where it looked like accident, as far as others are concerned, but Clark would have that guilt. He would make a conscious decision to do everything in his power to never take a life again because he realizes how fragile life can be.

So when we get to that part after Zod, there's more of a basis for him to be upset. I mean I took it as "He's never killed anything before and he can't stand it" but then again the way it's presented leaves it up for interpretation and many may view it as something different. It could be viewed as him realizing he just killed the only other one of his race. Leaving things like that up for interpretation doesn't always equal out to a good thing.

1819311 EXACTLY.

That was really my main problem with the film. It just leaves too many things up for interpretation when really, they would have been otherwise incredibly simple to explain. Like the killing of Zod.

1819351 we've reached a decision on the Winter Soldier vs. Red Hood fight, in case you want to read the battle.

1819351 Yup. I mean, Goyer can do a decent comic in most instances, but Alan Moore he ain't.