Just finished reading Mark Waid's review which can be found here:
http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/Waid is easily one of the best Superman writers, IMO. I can go on but I'll just leave it at that because the point I'm trying to make is that I disagree, or, rather, don't wholly agree with his thoughts on the film which are similar to a lot of the thoughts expressed in this thread.
I think the problem is largely due to the fact that we are indoctrinated. We were all weaned on a Superman who doesn't kill. This is commandment number one, the golden rule, ingrained in the very fabric of our being. (It's the reason why I scoop bugs up and put them outside.) Which is why a large part of me was alarmed at the finality of Zod's end. It was just a gut reaction. Part of me said, "That shouldn't have happened." Concurrently, another part of me was already saying, "Superman just killed someone. Extrapolate." As I was walking out of the theater I got to wondering what I would have done if faced with the same circumstances. Yeah, I probably would have snapped his neck.
First, we must ask why things are the way they are. Why is Superman opposed to killing? Because he so easily can? Because it's morally reprehensible? All right answers but the one I was looking for was
because he is the shining example. Our idealized version of the perfect man and thus he must be written that way. The writers in the early days knew they had an impressionable young audience and they had to portray the world's greatest hero in a responsible way. It's the same reason Batman no longer carries a gun. The protagonists have to be better than the villains and can never take the easy way or it's all for naught. We've all heard that trope in one form or another.
But imagine for a second, the real world. Goyer did this. A real family in real Kansas raising an alien child isn't thinking about how Clark can save the world day to day without using lethal force. They're preoccupied with keeping him and his secret safe. This is the objective. This is mission critical. Later on, in a subsequent flashback, Pa Kent gives the other reason why Clark shouldn't use his power basically saying, yeah you'd be outed as an alien but also you have to consider the actions you take now determine the kind of man you intend to be. Yeah. That whole speech. But make no mistake, while his parents extoll the virtues of being a better person, their main focus is to keep Clark's origin a secret. No matter what.
This jibed with me. It makes more sense.
In the comics, the no killing thing can work. It's the comics. In the movie, where we're trying to envision something believable, a Clark that can kill if he absolutely had to and a Jonathan Kent that can consider letting someone die to keep a secret that would fundamentally change how we view the universe. It's an easier pill to swallow. Not by much mind you since we're all accustomed to a different status quo. But in the end, it couldn't have been written any other way.
