What's it about? Zack Snyder's more generic stab at the superhero movie, following on from his reasonable attempt at bringing Alan Moore's subversive Watchmen to the big screen, gives us the traditional origin story of Kal-El's arrival on Earth after the destruction of his home planet. We all know the drill: after growing up with the Kent's and becoming Superman, he finds himself going head to head with General Zod. How does it end? Superman and Zod battle it out amidst the skyscrapers of Metropolis - destroying much of it in the process - before Superman is forced to kill him to prevent him from murdering (more) innocent civilians. Why was it controversial? Shifting towards the darker tone of the Dark Knight trilogy and finishing with Superman killing Zod felt completely at odds with the character for many fans. But beyond the world of fandom, even Mark Waid, one of the writers who influenced the film's story, was outraged, saying, "... after the neck-snapping, even though I stuck it out, I didnt give a damn about the rest of the movie." Snyder and others have defended the scene as heightening Superman's aversion to killing (while others have pointed out that fans had no problem with Superman killing Zod in Superman II), but whether or not you thought the scene worked well or was completely inappropriate, the controversy it generated continues to rage to this day. Did you find these movie endings as controversial as some people did? What other controversial endings have you seen from movies since 2000?
