Not to mention that Lois Lane has been portrayed with reddish hair in the comics. For decades actually.
Y’know, when you put 'em right next to each other like that, it leads to the laziest sequel idea ever.
LEX LUTHOR: “Well, well, Superman! You can’t–”
>sickening crack<
SUPERMAN: “On my world, it means hope!”
Here is one question I did have. Has the United States STRATCOM gone on strike in the movie? The ship is in the middle of a desert. Why the hell did they not fire a squadron of Minuteman missiles at the damn thing.
You mean when they handed over Kal-El and Lois? 
That was a prearranged meeting, and the US military probably picked the coordinates. Zod was still willing to humour human authorities at that point.
“There’s only one way this ends, Kal. Either you die, or I do.”
This line’s been bugging me. Is this an accurate statement or not? My initial reaction was “Uh, Zod, that’s two possible endings.” But my nephew seems to think it makes sense.
It’s accurate in its intent: “This won’t end until one of us is dead”, as opposed to both walking away or anything like that. Whether it’s grammatically correct or not, it’s the sort of mistake a person might make when speaking.
But to me it should be “There’s only one way this ends, Kal. You die.” Or “There’s only two ways this ends, Kal. You die, or I do.”
I feel General Zod should have pointed this out to Kal.
The scope of the word “way” is malleable.
For example, as an overly complicated illustration consider the following. Suppose I have to open one of two doors. Behind one door, I know there is either a lady or a tiger. Behind the other door, I know there is either a steak or a goat. In a case like this, there are two possibilities. One way things might go is, I might end up with either a lady or tiger. The other way things might go is, I might end up with either a goat or a steak.
See what I did there? “One way… is I might end up with either a lady or a tiger.”
You can have a single “way,” then, which includes two different possibilities joined by an “or”.
No, Kal should have pointed it out to Zod. Zod might have realized then his plan was hopeless.
Ah, right. I had it ass-backward.
I agree. There’s no room for bad grammar, especially when fighting to the death.
I was once playing Twenty Questions with some (non-computer-programmer friends) and it went something like this:
Me: Is it a land or sea vehicle?
Them: You can’t ask that! Yes or no questions only!
Me: That was a yes or no question. Is it a land or sea vehicle, or isn’t it? Yes or no.
Them: But now that’s two questions! You can’t do that.
Me: It’s not! I just want one yes or no answer; yes if it’s a land or sea vehicle; no otherwise.
Them: That still seems like cheating.
Me: Look at it this way: I would have gotten more information if I had asked two separate questions; specifically if it were a land vehicle or a sea vehicle. Here, I don’t get that.
Them: …
Me: Not to mention that all of our questions are really of the same nature. If I ask “is it a mammal”, what I’m really asking is “is it a primate or a felid or a canine or a cetacean or…”
Them: Okay already, you win!
imo superman movies shouldn’t have superman battling some super-magic-explosions foe but fighting the billions of humans who fear him, a far more intresting movie would be the world from the view of a god - how do you choose? who do you save?
or even if that would be too difficult to do, it could have been like schindler list - especially the scene in which he regrets he could have saved one more
I really loved this story. 
The life of everyone on board depends upon just one thing: finding someone back there who can not only fly this plane, but who didn’t have fish for dinner.
Haha, WTF!? I’m glad you don’t work for WB, because that is NOT Superman. It could be an interesting movie; you’re right there, but keep Superman out of it.
This idea is terrible for Superman but you may want to check out the comic Irredeemable. Basically the Premise is what if a Superman-esque hero snapped under the pressure. It sounds a bit like what you describe.
But that *is *just one thing: a person who can fly a plane *and *didn’t have fish for dinner.
It’s like sweet and sour chicken, a bed and breakfast, and black and white photography. *And *is better than or.
Even if you had a story in which the world feared Superman, the whole essence of the Superman character is that he would still fight *for *them, not against them.
Despite the few aberrations when Superman was still in his formative stage, or from writers who didn’t really understand the character, for most of the past 75 years, Superman’s frequently-repeated code against killing has been a core element of his character: he has vowed that if he ever takes the life of a human (or any intelligent creature), he will renounce his powers and give up being Superman.