@JL Universe Some time before BvS debuted in theaters I gave myself some space from the Superman Homepage. I thought that the "storm" would soothe in some time and that website could be a nice civilized place to have mature discussions. From your comment, looks like my expectations where kinda unfounded. Looks like I won't be returning to that site anytime soon. Oh well, at least we have sites like this and MoS Answers.

Interesting discussion of superhero movie mayhem but I'd like to share my somewhat contrary perceptions of the scenes in question. I think fans do the Reeve Superman a grave disservice by actually asserting he coldly let the powerless Phantom Zone villains die at the climax of SII. With or without the Arctic police add-on, that version of Superman at that time would never let even a bitter enemy slide to his death if he could help it. More than likely, Zod and his crew ended up at the bottom of the Fortress a little bumped and bruised but still alive to eventually end up back into the PZ. That's my personal head canon anyway because if Reeve Superman didn't kill anyone while under the influence of knock-off kryptonite in SIII then why would he let beings who couldn't harm him anymore die? As far as TDK Trilogy, Batman is very consistent in his assertion that he doesn't klll but Nolan set him up to break his one rule over all three movies. It has to always be acknowledged that Christopher Nolan approached Batman from a deconstructionist angle to show how impossible it would be for a Batman to exist in the "real" world. Batman could say that he had one rule not to kill but he was continuously placed in circumstances where even someone as extraordinary as Batman would be shown to still be just a man. Just like those of us who madly love the DCEU know that Snyder is telling a deeper story than the usual smash 'em up, I'd say the same consideration can be given to the filmmakers that came before him.

The reality is people don't look past basic dialogue, then make decisions. For example, in CATWS Cap gives this speech about freedom and innocent people on the helicarriers then leads a plan where they fire all the guns on them killing those people. But because in previous movies he makes strict dialogue about saving innocents the GA and even critics just let it slide. In BvS the obvious Martha moment gets heavily criticised because people just follow tje literal word and don't think through why the words stimulate a change in behaviour.

@JOLogan With all due respect, I have to disagree about Superman II and TDK Trilogy. I can only go by what I see on screen. Like I said, if the SII producers and directors wanted the audience to know that Zod and his gang were still alive, they would've either added the arctic police scene in the final cut, or showed us a different way to confirm their survival. Even it was only for a quick few seconds, e.g. Tim Burton wanted us know that Catwoman was still alive by the end of Batman Returns, so he shows her head looking at the Batsignal in the last few seconds. Any clue or even dialogue would've sufficed. Instead, the villains were stripped from their powers and then fell into the icy abyss of the arctic. Call me bleak, but I just don't think their chances of survival are too good. I always got the impression the producers simply wanted the audience to think the bad guys got what they deserved, without thinking how it would reflect on Superman, unfortunately. RE: Nolan's Batman, no offense, but I don't see how you can still argue that Batman was consistent in his assertion that he doesn't kill when his actions say otherwise. After all, you even acknowledged Nolan had him break his rule in each film. I don't think it's acceptable to excuse Nolan's contradictions just make a point about how Batman couldn't exist in the real world, when he failed to address these inconsistencies in the films. Yes, in the real world, we all know it would be impossible for any vigilante to adhere to a moral code. But as I said before, why wasn't this explored in any of the films? These contradictions never change Batman as a person, nor do they add up logically. If Batman had to use lethal force against Ra's, Talia, and Two-Face in order to stop them from murdering other people, then by that logic, he should've applied the same course of action against the Joker, who was threatening to do the same thing. Either the hero believes killing is wrong and consistently follows a code accordingly, or he doesn't have a code, and is prepared to use lethal force to save lives. I don't mind either stance, but you can't have it both ways, and if a storyteller is going for the latter and have them break their rules then they ought to be expected to explore the ramifications. Otherwise, if Batman isn't bothered about breaking his own rule, then what's the point? There's nothing at stake then, it makes Batman completely irresponsible and the whole moral conflict makes no sense. It's one thing to ignore an inconsistency in one movie, but to do it three times is unacceptable. At least it is to me. Snyder is not perfect by any means, but I haven't seen any of his films commit a flaw like this. But if that were the case, it's very likely he'd be personally condemned for it. That all being said, one of the points of this podcast was to address complaints that Batman is a "murderer" in this movie, and Sam and Alessandro argue the difference between the malicious intent to kill and killing via indirect means; as well as how unrealistic it is to expect superheroes wouldn't be responsible for causing any deaths, whether they meant it or not. Batman's kills in BvS tend to fall into the latter distinction, but this hasn't stopped critics deriding this interpretation because they "claim" they don't like the idea that Batman kills at all. Yet, Sam and Alex's argument for BvS is exactly the same defense many of these detractors use in favour of Nolan's Batman films. And unlike Snyder, Nolan has the character continuously saying he doesn't kill but does it anyway, and it's a double standard that personally irks me. But my point is, if people do want to take the position that Batman's kills in the trilogy were a result of indirect circumstances, very well. All I'm asking from them is to be fair and apply the same standard to all the films. Otherwise, if people are still going to hold it against BvS and MOS because they supposedly don't like the idea of heroes killing no matter the circumstances, then hold it against all of the live action films. As far as Batman is concerned, the only live action WB movie where he hasn't killed anyone is Batman & Robin, as much as people loathe to admit.

"Either the hero believes killing is wrong and consistently follows a code accordingly, or he doesn't have a code, and is prepared to use lethal force to save lives. I don't mind either stance, but you can't have it both ways, and if a storyteller is going for the ***latter*** and have them break their rules then they ought to be expected to explore the ramifications. " Sorry for the confusion, I meant to say FORMER instead of latter, in reference if a storyteller wants the hero to have a no-kill rule.