‘Man of Steel’ producer Christopher Nolan initially opposed the film’s ending [SPOILERS]

Major “Man of Steel” spoilers to follow: If you haven’t seen the film and wish to remain unspoiled, stop reading now. You’ve been warned!

While there’s no arguing with the fact that “Man of Steel” is a huge box office smash, many longtime Superman fans were rightfully turned off by Zack Snyder’s reboot. The reason? The iconic superhero character -- who has consistently gone out of his way not to kill his foes throughout his 75 year history -- breaks the neck of “Man of Steel” baddie General Zod in the film’s closing minutes. For many fans, the decision to have Superman kill someone is simply unacceptable.

However, according to “Man of Steel” director Zack Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer, the decision to have Kal-El end Zod’s reign of terror by snapping his neck was not a choice they made lightly. In a recent interview with Empire, Goyer revealed the idea was initially opposed by both producer Christopher Nolan (“The Dark Knight Rises”) and DC Comics, forcing the pair to make their case for this very uncharacteristic Superman moment.

“Originally Zod got sucked into the Phantom Zone along with the others and I just felt it was unsatisfying and so did Zack,” Goyer told Empire. “Killing Zod was a big thing and Chris Nolan originally said there’s no way you can do this.” Snyder and Goyer apparently became fascinated by the idea of putting the do-gooder superhero in a scenario where he would have no choice but to kill. “Chris didn’t even want to let us try to write it and Zack and I said, ‘We think we can figure out a way that you’ll buy it.’”

Snyder believes having Superman kill Zod (in order to save countless lives) is important to the character’s origin story, and will help to explain the Man of Steel’s aversion to violence in future films. “If we could find a way of making it impossible for him – like Kobayashi Maru, totally no way out – I felt like that could also make you go, ‘Okay, this is the why he’s not killing ever again, right?’ He’s basically obliterated his entire people and his culture and he is responsible for it and he’s just like, ‘How could I kill ever again?’”

Although that explanation may offer little comfort to Super-fans perturbed by “Man of Steel's” ending, there's no denying that Snyder and Goyer's controversial choice adds some much needed layers to a mostly one-dimensional character. Those same fans may have been counting on Superman to live up to his name and quite literally be the better man by sparing Zod, but the version of the character seen in "Man of Steel" is not so black and white.

Depictions of Superman are always very much a product of the times, and, obvious geopolitical allegories aside, this version of the Big Blue Boy Scout is anything but that. He's not just faster than a speeding bullet and more powerful than a locomotive; he's a complicated man living in complex times. Before audiences can believe a man can fly, it helps for them to believe that man lives in the same world as they do.

What did you think of "Man of Steel's" ending? Do you agree with Snyder and Goyer’s choice to have Superman break General Zod’s neck? Or do you think Superman should always use non-lethal options?