Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice

[The Dark Knight]

Speaking as a Batman fan, I'm going to talk about 'being a Batman fan'.

The love for Batman is so great, that I, and I'm sure other diehard Batman fans, almost see interest in other heroes as 'cheating' on our man. That's the honest truth. Honestly, that built in feeling is almost impossible for me to shake at times, and I admit to it. But it has loosened considerably in recent times.

Superman doesn't need Batman showing up in his comics all the time. He's a strong enough character to sustain himself. The mindset of Batman as the infallible top dog has seeped a little too deep into the material/fan base for my liking. If there's one character that needs to be equally assertive and strong in the DC universe, it's Superman.

I think we need more of the below. Less of a one way street. Batman isn't a lesser character because of it either.



I liked what we received in BvS. But I'm now ready for Superman to assert himself. Not just the guy who Batman talks down to, and beats up whenever he pleases. You feel me?

[thecolorsblend]

I like the idea of Batman being sovereign in his books while Superman is sovereign in his own. So I don't mind Batman talking down to Superman in a book that Batman's logo on the cover. But if Superman's logo is on the cover, Superman better do the talking down (if there even must be talking down).

I really don't understand the mentality of wanting to diminish other characters so as to build up one's own favorite character. The fact that I am a Superman guy shouldn't mean that every other character sucks. So why Batman writers have to write Batman as the most macho guy in the room sometimes has the effect of making him look insecure.

And that leads into a character arc Batman could someday go through, where he legitimately DOES feel insecure about his place with the Justice League of America and perhaps part of the reason for him being written like a pompous prick is because he's aware of the fact that of The Big Three, he's the only one with no claim whatsoever to being a "god". Thus he pushes himself to borderline psychotic extremes to justify his preeminence to others. The best defense is a good offense, after all.

Frankly, something like that could give Batman to some much-needed feet of clay while still maintaining his prominence with the team and in the DCU. It doesn't make him less than he's ever been; it just gives him a rational (and, honestly, a believable) reason for being who he is.

What I don't like seeing is any of these characters played as petulant, but sometimes that's how these comics are written. Batman and Superman don't need some idiotic "feud" with each other. It made sense in the 80's. It makes no sense now, especially with the lighter direction Batman seems to be heading in lately.

[The Dark Knight]

I probably like Batman the most when he's down and out. Getting his back broken by Bane. Getting mentally trashed by Deacon Blackfire. Running the labyrinth for days in Court of Owls. Getting addicted to venom in...Venom. It shows Batman is a highly trained human, but he's a human nonetheless. Only through setbacks can we witness Batman's courage and determination. I really dig it. Batman can and will overcome the impossible, but the failures define him just as much. If not more. We must not lose sight of that.

What I don't like seeing is any of these characters played as petulant, but sometimes that's how these comics are written. Batman and Superman don't need some idiotic "feud" with each other. It made sense in the 80's. It makes no sense no, especially with the lighter direction Batman seems to be heading in lately.

Back to BvS, I think they'll strike the right cord with their relationship. "I can forgive but I will never forget". They move on for the greater good but tension is still lingering in the background. That works for me.

[thecolorsblend]

Back to BvS, I think they'll strike the right cord with their relationship. "I can forgive but I will never forget". They move on for the greater good but tension is still lingering in the background. That works for me.

I like that idea. It gives lasting consequences to BVS. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the approach they take.

[The Laughing Fish]

Here are some points made by a blogger who explains why BvS is a better film than Captain America: Civil War.

Source: https://cynicscapeblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/acts-of-terrorism-top-5-reasons-batman-v-superman-is-better-than-civil-war/

The V

I love the 8-minute fight between Batman and Superman. That fight sequence, in my opinion, was worth the price of admission on its own. True, the cinematography, VFX and fight choreography were phenomenal, but those, in my opinion, are the parts that mattered least. What made this fight great were the stakes, the mindset of the characters and how (yes, I know one guy is a super powered alien and the other is a guy dressed in a batsuit dressed in an armored metal batsuit) real it felt.

The Stakes and Mindset:

For Batman: This fight is his legacy. He'll kill this alien and finally do something that matters after 20 years of fighting criminals that just keep cropping up. There is no taking in this alien, or any chance of them reaching a compromise: the only way this ends is with him dead or the alien dead. Batman is out to f***ing murder this guy.

For Superman: Batman is a vigilante that's terrorized the poor people in Gotham. He's extremist in the way he operates and threatened to kill him when they last met. Superman knows he isn't a killer, but if he doesn't find a way to convince Batman to help him, his mother's dead. He isn't fighting to stop Batman, or to preserve his own life. He's fighting to save his mother's, and that "fight" is in convincing Batman to not be adversarial.

So if Batman wins, he's validated. All the time and loss he's endured fighting in Gotham will mean something. If Superman wins, he'll save his mother's life and come to a compromise with the bat vigilante.

What makes this great is just like in The Dark Knight Returns, Batman is the aggressor while Superman DOESN'T want to fight him. Batman here wants to murder a man we all know is innocent, while Superman just wants to talk to him. This makes the fight uncomfortable and disconcerting. We're literally watching someone we're conditioned to think of as a good guy trying to murder another good guy.

This fight felt real because you could see the actual wear and tear on the combatants in the first few minutes. Superman picking up Batman and throwing him into the search light mattered. You could see and hear Batman panting. Superman getting hit with the Kryptonite gas mattered: it made him weak enough to get the first real beating of his life. You see it on his face while Batman is wailing on him. By the end of the 5 minutes of brawling, you see Batman's lost a significant part of his helmet and you see how ragged Superman looks.

This is how fights go. You don't come out of it looking pristine like nothing happened. Fights don't end with grand gestures of manliness or whatever. Fights tend to end with a whimper after both parties have exhausted themselves. It's the difference between professional wrestling and UFC. In Pro Wrestling, the finisher is often flashy and that wins the match, but in UFC most fights end in a pretty mundane manner.

While this guy is correct that BvS doesn't shy away how the fight takes a physical toll on the two characters, I think he's forgetting that the fight between Iron Man and Cap towards the end of CW wasn't pretty either. Both Avengers were broken and came close to killing each other. The biggest criticism I have with this though is the fallout following the fight seemed to already have healed with Cap's stupid letter in the end. I was hoping that Cap and Iron Man would make amends in Infinity War, when tragedy brings them and the rest of the Avengers together.

Which brings to this guy's next point:

The Action was crucial

For a lot of movies, it's poor communication driving the action. A misunderstanding between parties that can be settled with both sitting and having a civilized conversation. That was not true in Batman v Superman. A lot of people say Superman should've just shouted to Batman that his mother was in danger, but that wouldn't have stopped the fight. Batman was going to kill him regardless of "Martha." He didn't back away because Superman said that name. He stood there with the spear over him still ready to deliver the final blow. He wasn't ready to listen until Lois came in and pleaded with him to not kill the man could no longer defend himself. That's when he realized Superman was a man. No amount of yelling at Bruce would've made him come around until Superman's "super" was out of the equation.

Zack Snyder did a phenomenal job with this scuffle. There were no quips, there were no jokes, no one-liners: there was just two guys with their own agendas going at it. There was no other way this could have been resolved BUT in a violent brawl; there was no talking this out; there was no "But couldn't X just do Y?". That made the fight integral to the plot, and that made it MATTER. It felt uncomfortable, all too real and those are the things that made it feel awesome.

Conversely, Civil War could've been solved with just Tony and Steve sitting down to talk. Recall, before this film Batman and Superman had never met before. Superman didn't even know Batman existed. In Civil War, Tony and Steve have known each other for four films, which rounds out to about 4 or 5 years. In that time, they've fought aliens, robots and countless human soldiers. Their bond is battle-tested. People say this makes the fight feel more personal than BvS, fine. But it also makes it much more stupid since them not simply sitting and talking things out is far more unbelievable. You'd think they'd trust each other.

I think it's a really good point. Again, what annoyed me about the Iron Man v Cap fight was that forgiveness was already in motion as soon as Tony read that letter and letting Cap save the jailed Avengers by ignoring Ross over the phone. Doesn't that undermine Zemo's plan?

I think it was really unfortunate that Clark visiting Gotham PD was cut out of the theatrical version because it established why Superman didn't take a more direct approach towards Batman, because it communicated that Batman couldn't be reasoned with. It was an important piece of detail, and if that was scene was kept, I think the questions over why Superman didn't do this or that would've calmed down a bit.

Earnestness in Portrayal

In the MCU, we're told Tony is an alcoholic playboy, but we never actually see him doing any alcoholic playboying. Similarly, in Civil War, Tony is never as angry as the narrative wants us to think (and why would he be, Steve is his friend and it's not like they wouldn't just sit and talk all this out, right?). He's not as driven in practice, in front of our eyes, as the movie tells us he is and wants us to think he is.



Compare that to Batman in Batman v Superman. We're told Bruce Wayne is losing himself. We're told he's down and out, and in the above gif, you can see that. He's waking up next to a woman he doesn't even remember bringing home (the look of incredulity on his face when he turns to her), and then the first thing he does is take a hand full of pills and downs it with booze. That's the down-and-out starter kit right there.

Further, we're told Batman has become brutal, and we see that many, many times in the film. From him not trying to save the criminals in his way, to him pressing his foot against Superman's neck as he's ready to kill him, to stabbing a criminal that stabbed him previously. The movie doesn't shy away from showing the unflattering portrayals that it claims is part of the narrative, and that just strengthens the film. We see what it wants us to see in grisly detail, unlike in Civil War which still wants its heroes to look heroic, regardless of context.

This is why I find it so baffling that people get so caught up on Batman not being heroic. He wasn't supposed to be, and his character development is him becoming heroic once more. This movie isn't interested in offering instant gratification.

Couldn't said it better myself. Too bad it appears that a lot of people have missed the point that Batman's arc in BvS was a redemption story.

[thecolorsblend]

Too bad it appears that a lot of people have missed the point that Batman's arc in BvS was a redemption story.

Yup. But even there, it's not a completely clean deal. Bruce still carries the responsibility of having failed Superman in life. It's arguably Batman's fault that Superman ever died in the first place. Yeah, Bruce was redeemed. But he and the world have paid and will pay major prices for that.

[The Dark Knight]

BvS is a case of be careful what you wish for.

And there's something else that I think has gone over people's heads.

When Batman realises Superman is not the enemy, he pledges to rescue Martha. That's all Batman pledges to do. He has not changed his methods. Batman machine gunning goons via the batwing does not represent a regression. He's the same aggressive man who fought Superman, but now he's fighting FOR Superman.

It is only AFTER Superman dies does Batman reflect on himself. He becomes inspired by Superman's selfless sacrifice, and this is demonstrated by his refusal to brand Lex.

[thecolorsblend]

And now that I think about it, Bruce says "This may be the only thing I ever do that matters".

From a practical standpoint... well, he's right. Crime continues in Gotham City. But Superman is still dead and Batman is partially to blame for that. His success in carrying out his mission may mean big trouble for Earth. Batman will have made a difference alright... but maybe not the difference that he planned on.

[The Dark Knight]

If Superman was another Zod, then sure, Batman absolutely had the right idea to kill him. However he wasn't, so now Earth is unprotected. Batman now needs to form an army just to equal one Superman. Sure, Lex still would've created Doomsday, and the final act would've played out exactly the same. But it's all about intention. Batman wanted Superman dead, and even though he had no final part in his demise, his original desire still became a reality. He'd feel guilty about that. The origins of their relationship were built on distrust. Batman forming the League is now both a necessity and a tribute.

[The Laughing Fish]

If Superman was another Zod, then sure, Batman absolutely had the right idea to kill him. However he wasn't, so now Earth is unprotected. Batman now needs to form an army just to equal one Superman. Sure, Lex still would've created Doomsday, and the final act would've played out exactly the same. But it's all about intention. Batman wanted Superman dead, and even though he had no final part in his demise, his original desire still became a reality. He'd feel guilty about that. The origins of their relationship were built on distrust. Batman forming the League is now both a necessity and a tribute.

It kind of reminds me of Lois telling Clark during the bathtub scene how there is always a cost when you do something.

What interests me about Batman creating the Kryptonite spear is while it did cause Superman's demise, it was also the weapon that ended Doomsday. If Batman had realised Lex was manipulating him all along, he wouldn't have created the spear. Without the spear, it's unlikely the Trinity could've beaten Doomsday.

Superman using the spear against Doomsday, despite knowing one hundred per cent it was suicidal, was an act of bravery that inspired guilt and gratitude to Batman, and realises there are people out there who aren't cynical and can inspire in spite of adversity. Which is why he wants to continue to redeem himself by gathering these metahumans together for a team.