Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion

[Kai "the spy"]

Did they go in to why they kill, have an actual discussion on which method super heroes use is better and view the merits and draw backs of them, or did they just resort to beating each other up over the issue after turning a shades of gray issue into a strict blank and white issue?

There's a montage of Superman looking at the effect the Elite killing their opponents has on society, and he sees how the morality of people is shifting. At the end of the montage, he sees a couple of kids, one dressed as him and the others dressed as the Elite. The kid dressed as him complained that it's unfair that he can't kill the others, but they can kill him, to which another kid tells him to let them kill him so he can be someone slse, a notion the kid in question jumps at.

It showed that superheroes are heroes, people look up to for moral guidance, and when superheroes say it's okay to kill, that comes at a price.

The Authority on the other hand did not bother with questioning its own methods. Which is especially jarring, since there's an issue of "Stormwatch" during Warren Ellis' run, where Jack Hawksmoor is shown in a moral dilemma, because he's ordered to kill a villain, something he's reluctant to do because it goes against his personal moral code. But in the very first Authority story, he quips about how he's looking forward to break someone's head. That was the same character, written by the same writer, and his moral code was turned 180° without explenation.

And don't get me started on the whole "if the hero kills just one villain ever they will eventually run around indiscriminately killing people" bullshit that makes "no-kill rule" heroes look like barley control psychopaths looking for an excuse to slaughter everyone.

Superman has killed Zod and his two mates, which was discussed earlier, and he came back from that. Wonder Woman killed Maxwell Lord and came back from that. Hell, even members of the Elite were later rehabilitated and became member of "Justice League Elite".

So, no, I'm not one of those people you describe.

On the other hand, I kinda read something between your lines. Could it be that you are actually in favor of superheroes killing, that you are one of those fans that "What's so funny about Truth, Justice and the American Way" was a reaction to? I could be mis-reading, but that's how you come across to me.

 

[BigJake]

I was asked for some alternatives. Those were some fast, easy ones off the top of my head.

Yeah, it showed.

None of them required Superman learning anything.

Oh noes! You done got me on a technicality. Time to spike the ball in the end-zone like a tough guy!

You can't even get that right . . .

Except, technicality aside, the basic point was that your workarounds weren't all that plausible and that their basic purpose, to avoid having a difficult decision in a Superman movie, remains risible. So, yeah. Slow your roll there, tough guy.

Wrong again. I'm angry that the writers and director clearly have no idea who they're writing for

They're writing for an audience larger than you. And guess what? It worked out fine. I mean, if I'm in the "vast, vast minority" in believing MoS did just fine as a story, then it should have bombed or at least had crap audience ratings to match the lukewarm responses from the critics*. The way, say, Superman Returns does. But that's just objectively not the case, is it?

(* Which, you know, the "critical consensus" is sometimes more about the fashion of the moment than the actual quality of the film -- the criticial consensus hated the original Predator, too -- so I take it with a grain of salt. MoS' 71% IMDB rating seems more reflective of its actual reception by audiences to me. It's hardly a perfect film but I have yet to see anyone come up with a reason for much of the more extreme complaining, yours included, which didn't amount to a lot of foot-stamping and railing that the fanboy contingent weren't given script approval on portraying the character. Too bad.)

Also, maybe you should try getting a handle on that "anger" thing. What purpose is it serving? It's not helping your analytical or critical powers any. It's not helping you to actually understand why other people have different views than you. What's the point in clinging to it?

That's not an opinion. He literally said that it would be "fun" to introduce a character just to murder him in an interview

It's rather your belief (and those with comparable forms of Jimmy Olsen Internet nerdrage) that this is some huge outrage that the rest of us should care about that's just an opinion. Which of course was my point, with all due respect to the remainder of your attempted tough guy routine.

(Also, in fairness to Zack Snyder, when he said "we can have some fun with him" in that interview, it was fairly clear from context that he was talking about the whole notion of making him a CIA spook and refusing to turn him into the wearily-inevitable sidekick, not purely just salivating at the notion of his shocking demise... which you wouldn't know to read the commentary of the various Internet nerdragers. But basically this level of upset over the death of a fictional character who isn't even all that important to the mythos is a bit laughable.)

 

[Kai "the spy"]

I try to ignore the Jimmy thing. I can live with him not being in the movies. But putting him in a movie just to turn him into a CIA guy and then kill him off, strikes me mostly for being so pointless. You don't want to use the character, fine, don't use him. But using him the way they did strikes me as nothing will be accomplished aside from pissing off a huge part of the fanbase. And if there's something Snyder should really, really try to avoid, it's dividing the fanbase even more than necessary.

 

[BigJake]

^ I don't think the part of the fanbase that gets worked up about Jimmy Olsen is really large enough to give Snyder any sleepless nights.

Superman is very interesting because he clings tp his ideals. A good Superman story sees his ideals challenged, sees him ponder the issue himself, and finally sees why his ideals are right.

He's allowed to be conflicted and debate with himself only if he is always victorious and always correct. That forces the "good Superman story" to live within some awfully narrow parameters, and if you'll forgive my saying so is exactly what made the character so boring for so long. Basically it rules out any story with a situation too complicated or difficult for Superman's ideals to deliver an uncontroversially heroic solution; it's incredibly hard to make interesting content when painting on a canvas that restricted.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

It showed that superheroes are heroes, people look up to for moral guidance, and when superheroes say it's okay to kill, that comes at a price.

So basically people are idiot lemmings who can't think for themselves.

Wonder Woman killed Maxwell Lord and came back from that.

And even after the fucking story goes out of its way to say there was no other way, whats the first thing Superman whines about in Infinite Crisis? Be advised at the time Lord was mind controlling Superman into going on a rampage and putting god knows how many people at risk of death.

Could it be that you are actually in favor of superheroes killing,

I'd perfer my super heroes don't put the moral high ground above saving people with this absolutist morality crap. I'd also perfer if they didn't imply police officers are irredeemable murderers if they get in a shoot out and have to kill the other guy not to die.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

^ I don't think the part of the fanbase that gets worked up about Jimmy Olsen is really large enough to give Snyder any sleepless nights.

It still accomplished nothing other than pissing off those fans.

He's allowed to be conflicted and debate with himself only if he is always victorious and always correct. That forces the "good Superman story" to live within some awfully narrow parameters, and if you'll forgive my saying so is exactly what made the character so boring for so long. Basically it rules out any story with a situation too complicated or difficult for Superman's ideals to deliver an uncontroversially heroic solution; it's incredibly hard to make interesting content when painting on a canvas that restricted.

And I thought Superman was so boring because he's too powerful.

Go ahead and have Superman make controversial decisions, but when you do it, deal with the consequences. If you can't deal with the consequences, because you're running out of movie, then don't do it at all.
Go ahead and have Superman make controversial decisions, but don't break the fundamental traits of the character, like his ideals, to your whim.

On nuBSG, Apollo became my favorite character, specifially during the Baltar trial. Even when it was unpopular, he stuck with his ideals. Even when he didn't like it himself, he stuck with his ideals. I find that far more interesting than someone throwing his ideals out of the window.

 

[Kemaiku]

Or stop putting them on an unrealistic pedistal that makes them mind numbing in the process, it's far to convenivent and doesn't come across as interesting if they always just snap their fingers and win.

 

[RAMA]

So BvS might be around $775 million or so by Monday? The movie is doing so poorly.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

So basically people are idiot lemmings who can't think for themselves.

Now that's just putting words into my mouth, and you know it.

And even after the fucking story goes out of its way to say there was no other way, whats the first thing Superman whines about in Infinite Crisis? Be advised at the time Lord was mind controlling Superman into going on a rampage and putting god knows how many people at risk of death.

It showed that such an action has consequences. If memory serves, it was actually Batman who said that there's always another way. Superman just wanted Diana to deal with what she'd done.

I'd perfer my super heroes don't put the moral high ground above saving people with this absolutist morality crap. I'd also perfer if they didn't imply police officers are irredeemable murderers if they get in a shoot out and have to kill the other guy not to die.

Woah, that's quite a twisted view of things there. Superheroes do not condemn police officers, or soldiers for that matter, because they recognize that the government, and thus the people, have put that power into the hands of these officers and soldiers. They commend them, most of the time, for their service.

But police officers and soldiers have people to answer to. If they make wrong decisions, they are held accountable (or not, unfortunately, in many cases).

When they go after anti-heroes who kill, like Daredevil did with the Punisher, it's because these are vigilantes who have not been granted that power, and they don't answer to a higher authority.

It should also be noted that with characters like the Punisher or the Authority, killing is not the method of last resort, it's the default method.

 

[JoeZhang]

When they go after anti-heroes who kill, like Daredevil did with the Punisher, it's because these are vigilantes who have not been granted that power, and they don't answer to a higher authority.
.

Do you mean the TV daredevil because the comics one has killed multiple people.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Do you mean the TV daredevil because the comics one has killed multiple people.

Sorry, I can't remember comic Daredevil ever killing someone, except for that prostitute in "Man without Fear", which was an accident (and retconned later, I think).

Of course, I don't follow DD comics regularly. I've read the Miller stuff and the Marvel Knights series, but I quit the book during Bendis' run. No particular reason why.

And, yes, I was thinking of the Netflix show when I wrote that up there. Sorry I forgot to specify.

 

[JoeZhang]

Sorry, I can't remember comic Daredevil ever killing someone, except for that prostitute in "Man without Fear", which was an accident (and retconned later, I think).

Of course, I don't follow DD comics regularly. I've read the Miller stuff and the Marvel Knights series, but I quit the book during Bendis' run. No particular reason why.

And, yes, I was thinking of the Netflix show when I wrote that up there. Sorry I forgot to specify.

If you read man without fear you missed when he stabs a man in the guts and he dies or later at the end when he deflects a bullet into the kingpin's henchman's head between his eyes?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Wow. Apparently, my memory is fuzzier on that GN than I thought. But, to be honest, it's not surprising, seeing as how Miller really went nuts as the years went on. I mean, during his initial run, he made it a very important plot point that DD doesn't kill. But hey, he did the same with Batman in later works.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Now that's just putting words into my mouth, and you know it.

Thats basically what the "If super heroes do it I want to do it to" argument boils down to. Christ I actually wanted to sarcastically reply "Well if superheroes jumped off a cliff would you?"

It showed that such an action has consequences.

The consequences being parents letting their children do whatever apparently, seeing as they apparently need super heroes to properly raise them.

But police officers and soldiers have people to answer to. If they make wrong decisions, they are held accountable (or not, unfortunately, in many cases).

Which makes the whole morality being taught by unsanctioned vigilantes kind of ridiculous. If superheroes where that conscious about teaching kids to do things, they would probably be registered government agents.

 

[BigJake]

It still accomplished nothing other than pissing off those fans.

To be fair, it also made for a perfectly entertaining little call-out for the many otherwise-inclined people watching the movie.

And I thought Superman was so boring because he's too powerful.

That's the "always victorious" part.

Go ahead and have Superman make controversial decisions, but when you do it, deal with the consequences . . . don't break the fundamental traits of the character, like his ideals, to your whim.

Okay, but what "consequences" should there have been? He was forced by circumstance to make a difficult, necessary decision that saved a helpless family in the direct path of fiery murder and a whole bunch of other lives besides. Was he supposed to be exiled or punished for that? What "ideals" exactly is it not in keeping with?

That's what I never seem to get out of these conversations. The only "ideal" that seems to actually be violated in the MoS story is "the story wasn't written to allow Superman to win a completely straightforward victory that has no down-sides or moral complication." Nobody can explain why what Superman does is actually wrong except to tell me that the writers were wrong and should have written the story so that he didn't have to face that choice, which seems to me to be a complete cop-out. Am I supposed to think that doing whatever it takes to stop a bunch of innocent people from getting incinerated by General Zod -- after having arguably already spent a whole bunch of time and lives already on trying to find some other way than just killing him* -- is not in keeping with Superman-appropriate "ideals"? If not, what are these "ideals" actually worth?

* Big points for BvS for dealing with this, because I think it was a fairly important moral question left dangling by MoS, much moreso than the non-question of whether he should have killed Zod.

 

[JoeZhang]

Wow. Apparently, my memory is fuzzier on that GN than I thought. But, to be honest, it's not surprising, seeing as how Miller really went nuts as the years went on. I mean, during his initial run, he made it a very important plot point that DD doesn't kill. But hey, he did the same with Batman in later works.

In his intital run he has Daredevil blow up a helicopter with a grenade launcher killing the pilot (born again) so even early on he didn't take it that seriously...

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Thats basically what the "If super heroes do it I want to do it to" argument boils down to. Christ I actually wanted to sarcastically reply "Well if superheroes jumped off a cliff would you?"



The consequences being parents letting their children do whatever apparently, seeing as they apparently need super heroes to properly raise them.

Now who's viewing a gray area in black-and-white?

Of course, people make their own decisions, but people are also influenced by society, by the people in power, and by those they view as heroes.

Which makes the whole morality being taught by unsanctioned vigilantes kind of ridiculous. If superheroes where that conscious about teaching kids to do things, they would probably be registered government agents.

Superman was deputized by the Mayor of Metropolis. Batman works with the police commissioner of Gotham City. All major DC (and Marvel) heroes are repeatedly seen working with the authorities.

 

[JoeZhang]

I don't think Batman has had that status for 30 years? Superman maybe longer..

My rule of thumb is that if something was a matter of canon when the teenagers who first read it are now lining up for prostate exams we can forget about it. Otherwise we have to start taking about how Superman is a sick pervert who takes illegal tissue samples of his friends without their knowledge to make tiny clones of them...

 

[Samurai8472]

Someone else on another forum made a good point: Zack Snyder, personally, in his heart of hearts, does not believe in the concept of the superhero. He doesn't believe that someone with great power could ever have great responsibility. He doesn't believe that someone with the ability to move planets could ever have a sense of altruism, could ever help people for the sole reason of it being the right thing to do.

Simply put... he's Lex Luthor.


I guess this is all a master plan to smear Superman by Lex Luthor

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Someone else on another forum made a good point: Zack Snyder, personally, in his heart of hearts, does not believe in the concept of the superhero. He doesn't believe that someone with great power could ever have great responsibility. He doesn't believe that someone with the ability to move planets could ever have a sense of altruism, could ever help people for the sole reason of it being the right thing to do.

And what version of Man of Steel and Batman v Superman did they watch?