Started By
Message

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*

Posted on 6/26/13 at 9:21 am to
Posted by illuminatic
Manipulating politicans&rappers
Member since Sep 2012
6962 posts
Posted on 6/26/13 at 9:21 am to
quote:

-Zod should have been invulnerable (they sort of left us to glean that - Superman's been here his whole life, he's stronger and Zod's full invulnerability hadn't quite kicked in yet.)


I don't think this argument works because shouldn't the kryptonians (sp?) be able to kill each other? Someone already mentioned how Superman crushed Zod's hand in Superman II and no one questioned it. So why can they break other bones but can't snap a neck?
Posted by CPT Tiger
My own personal Hell
Member since Oct 2009
1321 posts
Posted on 6/26/13 at 9:25 am to
In Superman 2 he turned Zod and his minions into mere mortals before doing any bone crushing and killing.
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15761 posts
Posted on 6/26/13 at 9:27 am to
The only thing that bothered me about this movie was when he slowly dodged the slowly moving oil tanker that was pushed towards him and lets it blow up at the foundation of a parking garage behind him. I was thinking, Really? That tanker shouldnt have been too hard to stop

Plus with the way it sounded when he broke Zod's neck, they should have shown Zod laying on his stomach with his neck twisted 180 degrees. That would have been crazy
This post was edited on 6/26/13 at 9:31 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram