Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Trilogy hypocrisy

[The Laughing Fish]

I was thinking of putting this topic in the Man of Steel thread, but I decided it would be more eye-catching to put it in its own thread. 

MOS has been out for nearly two years, and I continue to witness people on the internet scrutinizing – and condemning - every flaw that the film suffers from. While fans defend the film by pointing out the hypocrisy in Superman II, specifically for Zod's death, I'd say that MOS's flaws can easily be applied to Nolan's Batman series. I find it rather ironic because of Nolan and Goyer's involvement in both franchises. Everywhere I go, I still see the same hypocritical criticisms such as:

"Too many flashbacks"
The same thing can be said about Batman Begins.

"Too much exposition"
The same thing can definitely be said about Nolan's entire series.

"Superman is reckless and lets Zod destroy an entire city"
Oh yeah? Batman causes collateral damage every time he drives the Tumbler and Bat-pod without a care in the world. Alfred even scolded him for making fun of the damage while watching the news coverage in BB: "It's a miracle that no one was killed". But nobody is bothered about this.

Furthermore, Batman got many people killed and endangered an entire town because he resisted killing the Joker. Not to mention that he took the blame for Dent, which gets easily exposed by Bane and results in more chaos around Gotham. Which brings up my last point;

"OMG! Superman killed Zod."
And this is the part that really pisses me off. Why didn't anybody get upset when Batman broke his moral code multiple times against other villains, while at the same time he kept the Joker alive that only allowed him to murder more people? What's even more troubling is that people find that "heroic". I would've thought that Batman's constant out-of-character moments deserved scorn. Instead, all of that gets glossed over as "complex moral dilemmas"? I'm sorry, but what a load of horsesh*t.

Say whatever you want about Man of Steel, but you can't deny that Snyder's Superman never made any promises that he couldn't keep. Superman never said things like "I won't be an executioner" or "I want to become incorruptible, everlasting", and betrayed those vows. Nolan's Batman did. And Superman was broken up about killing Zod. Did we see Batman looking slightly devastated about all the people he killed (the ninjas in the temple, Ra's, possibly Joker's truck driver, Two-Face, and Talia)? The answer is no. I can't help but feel that people deep down are aware of the double standards by the Batman in the Nolan films and are trying to project their insecurities onto Snyder's Superman; especially since it was Snyder's idea to kill off Zod. In any case, it's about staying true to the character you're creating. Snyder did it, for better or worse. Nolan failed.

Here is my advice to the detractors: if you don't like MOS, that's fine. The film is indeed far from perfect. In fact, I've criticized it for its own share of shortcomings too. But stop trying to compare the film unfavourably to Nolan's series. And while you're at it, stop pretending that Nolan's films are flawless masterpieces.

[The Dark Knight]

I don't care about Superman killing Zod. That's not even an issue for me. Superman actually doesn't cause much of any destruction in the finale of MOS, either. The majority of the damage is because he's thrown through buildings by Zod, and Zod's heat vision activates - causing a building to collapse.

So again, that stuff isn't much of an issue for me. Superman had to kill this guy because it was carnage.

I think it's more the fact we see Superman and Lois kissing moments after this scene, with a massive ground zero around them. I didn't really like that, and thought the mood was off.

There are moments where I didn't care for the way Superman behaved in action scenes. Throwing Zod through silos and straight through a petrol station which subsequently explodes. Yeah, Superman is fresh to this crime fighting thing. But that's just reckless to the point of not caring about human life.

Superman damages the Black Zero ship and allows it to crash into Metropolis, directly onto buildings and causing a massive mess and likely a lot of casualties. He could've done something to prevent that, but he didn't.

So yes, I do think there's merit in the criticism against MOS' fight sequences and Superman's behavior. But in terms of killing Zod and the damage during the finale - I don't really see the problem.

Yes, Superman saved many millions of lives by killing Zod. But I just think he should save people whenever he can. For example lifting a crashing spaceship away from populated areas. It's a big part of his character, more so than not killing super villains.

[The Laughing Fish]

Putting aside all the TDKT hypocrisy aside for a moment, I definitely agree with almost all of those criticisms TDK. Despite that I thought it was a decent film, I won't deny that MOS fell short on some critical areas.

For instance, I actually laughed at how dumb it was for Superman punching Zod in anger on route to plowing through the petrol station. The first thought I had in my head was "typical Goyer/Nolan nonsense" (I include Nolan because he co-wrote the script). I never felt outraged about it though, because I've become so used to collateral damage in nearly every Snyder/Nolan/Goyer production.

And yes, it never made any sense that Superman let the Black Ship crash into Metropolis without trying to stop it. Wouldn't it be far more spectacular if he used all his strength to send it flying into the bay? It would've also made sense why he couldn't stop Faora attacking the military aircraft. As much as I criticise Nolan all the time, I don't quite get Snyder either. I'll give him a pass for not making intelligence insulting cop-outs like Nolan does, but I don't understand why he thought having Superman absent and reckless in those scenes was a good idea.

Yes, Superman saved many millions of lives by killing Zod. But I just think he should save people whenever he can. For example lifting a crashing spaceship away from populated areas. It's a big part of his character, more so than not killing super villains.

True. We may have seen Superman saving a solider falling out of a helicopter, but that's not enough. It does make this film feel incomplete. We may have seen Clark rescuing people as Clark Kent, but we needed to see him save people as Superman too. Sure, I could buy that Superman's lack of experience can leave him unprepared for a crisis of such a large scale. Especially on his first day out on the job. But I won't deny the lack of trying in certain situations do put him in a bad light. I'm looking forward to see how Dawn of Justice follows up with these events nonetheless.

Going back to my original point though I'd have a lot more respect for people crying over MOS if they applied the same standard to Nolan's Batman. That Batman never cared about putting people's lives in danger while he drove in dangerous vehicles. Nor did he seem to comprehend that his flip-flopping moral code when dealing with the Joker was only getting more people killed. And the ending with Two-Face...need I say more? I don't find anything "heroic" in any of that. But the same people who condemned MOS for its flaws not only overlooked the same flaws in Nolan's films, they praised them as "cerebral" storytelling. I'll say this: if people can eat up Nolan's bullsh*t storytelling and call it "genius", then nothing about MOS should bother them. I simply have no sympathy for those type of people.

[Dagenspear]

For instance, I actually laughed at how dumb it was for Superman punching Zod in anger on route to plowing through the petrol station. The first thought I had in my head was "typical Goyer/Nolan nonsense" (I include Nolan because he co-wrote the script).

He didn't co-write the script. He co-wrote the story.

[riddler]

I think we all knew well before seeing the film that Nolan fans would hedge their bets on MOS; If it were well received they'd attribute it to Nolan, if not, they'd downplay his involvement. Because it ended up with mixed reception, you have a bit of both camps.

We all know Bale's bat couldn't follow his own rules; create a symbol for good, don't let copycats help but trust known theives and backstabbers. And of course his no guns, no killing rule. As mentioned supes never made such promises.

That being said I think we all saw Nolans fingerprints on MOS. It felt like a pseudo-Nolan film. For instance completely illogical morals including Jonathan not letting Clark save people for inexplicable reasons. My goodness is the collateral damage in all these films brutal. I watched Batman Begins for the first time in years today. Who did batman think he was helping pancaking all those cop cars and causing property damage? For someone trained to be invisible he did a poor job at it; and throughout the entire trilogy his presence created a diversion for the bad guys since the cops were chasing him and investigating him. You could make the argument about whether Bruce Wayne becoming Batman ended up being a positive or a negative for gotham; Ras al ghul attacks Gotham and helps Crane in begins because of Bruce 'killing' him. As gordon predicts at the end of Begins, the mob ups their game to combat batman by empowering the Joker thus turning gothams white knight into two face. Bane then comes along to fulfill Ras al ghuls destiny.

[Dagenspear]

I think we all knew well before seeing the film that Nolan fans would hedge their bets on MOS; If it were well received they'd attribute it to Nolan, if not, they'd downplay his involvement. Because it ended up with mixed reception, you have a bit of both camps.

We all know Bale's bat couldn't follow his own rules; create a symbol for good, don't let copycats help but trust known theives and backstabbers. And of course his no guns, no killing rule. As mentioned supes never made such promises.

That being said I think we all saw Nolans fingerprints on MOS. It felt like a pseudo-Nolan film. For instance completely illogical morals including Jonathan not letting Clark save people for inexplicable reasons. My goodness is the collateral damage in all these films brutal. I watched Batman Begins for the first time in years today. Who did batman think he was helping pancaking all those cop cars and causing property damage? For someone trained to be invisible he did a poor job at it; and throughout the entire trilogy his presence created a diversion for the bad guys since the cops were chasing him and investigating him. You could make the argument about whether Bruce Wayne becoming Batman ended up being a positive or a negative for gotham; Ras al ghul attacks Gotham and helps Crane in begins because of Bruce 'killing' him. As gordon predicts at the end of Begins, the mob ups their game to combat batman by empowering the Joker thus turning gothams white knight into two face. Bane then comes along to fulfill Ras al ghuls destiny.

Ra's was already going to attack Gotham before Bruce "killed" him. Batman's only a diversion in Rises. But that's the point there. He doesn't cause a diversion in Begins. He was trying to save Rachel pancaking those cop cars. Which is selfish. But that's the point. He trusted Selina because it was a desperate situation, otherwise all of Gotham would be nuked.

[thecolorsblend]

If I may assert myself as the Superman guy on this forum, MOS didn't really bother me too much. "But, durrrr, Superman killed Zod!" Yeah? So? I seem to be the only one in the room who minded how he tortured and then killed Zod back after he was already defeated in Superman II. It was like what the Allies did to the German after World War II. In MOS, he was fighting to protect innocent lives and had no other choice but to kill Zod. Nobody seemed all that upset about Superman II because I guess if you blast the Williams hero theme loud enough, people will overlook anything.

Too much exposition? I've never heard that one before. And I'm pretty sure I don't need to hear it from someone who thinks Batman Begins is the character's definitive film.

Too many flashbacks? Eye of the beholder. Frankly though the only flashback in BB that bothered me was the repeat of Thomas using a stethoscope on Bruce. It was like Nolan didn't trust the audience to understand what finding the scorched stethoscope in the burned out ruins of Wayne Manor would mean to Bruce.

Superman is reckless? Considering he's been on the job for less than 48 hours, I think he did really well for himself. Plus, the MOS Superman truly is "the light that shines the way". Yes, he wants to use his powers to help people. No doubts there. But this Superman comes from the Grant Morrison School of Superheroic Studies where that's only the superficial layer of what he's up to. He ultimately sees it as his duty to lead mankind into a brighter, better, happier tomorrow. Not force it on them from on high; but to inspire them while living among them.

So Superman depended on the military to do their part in saving their world. He enabled them to achieve victory against a superior foe by giving them the tools they'd need to do the job. Then he went off and handled his own part of the job. He didn't do all the heavy-lifting all by himself. Yes, life is precious and property is expensive. But mankind was facing the greatest threat in their entire history. And thanks to Superman's intervention, they survived. And they were invested in their victory. They weren't cowering in fear indoors like shrinking violets. They were out fighting for their own survival. As a result, Zod and his army's defeat is as much mankind's doing as it is Superman's.

[Andrew]

I kind of disliked the flashback structure in MoS in part because it had already been done in BB so it felt repetitive and not really valuable; more generally, Clark felt an underwhelming character/hero, especially compared to Bruce, especially in that his debut was pretty much forced upon him rather than him on his own choosing to go public as Superman.

[The Laughing Fish]

I kind of disliked the flashback structure in MoS in part because it had already been done in BB so it felt repetitive and not really valuable; more generally, Clark felt an underwhelming character/hero, especially compared to Bruce, especially in that his debut was pretty much forced upon him rather than him on his own choosing to go public as Superman.

While the flashback structure in MOS is certainly identical to BB, I don't see how it's not really valuable, as see Clark Kent's backstory.

Man of Steel was ultimately about Clark Kent needing to put aside his own doubts and insecurities of his own place in the world and stop his own race from trying to commit global genocide for its own survival. It's not a perfect film by any means, but I think the basic plot point behind this is still heroic. And besides, we've already had Superman choosing to go public in the Donner film, so I don't mind they did something different.

I was completely underwhelmed with Bruce Wayne in BB and the rest of the trilogy. For all his talk and supposed ideals, he still does a lot of dark things.