Brief (Moderately New) Clip on Conan

[The Laughing Fish]

To be honest, this didn't do much for me. Visuals were great as expected, but the dialogue feels like the same stilted, mega serious, melodramatic type stuff we got from the last take on Batman.

I reckon the dialogue didn't sound too bad, but I thought Cavill's delivery was a bit wooden here. That could be the reason why that line about "The Bat is dead" feeling stilted. But so far, I'm liking every thing I've seen of Cavill as Clark Kent, the Daily Planet reporter. He's not afraid to ask questions, investigate and show insight. Like any good journalist.

One of the things I liked about MOS was that the melodramatic dialogue was kept down to a minimum. Compare that to the last few Batman films we saw, everybody took turns in giving long-winded and pretentious monologues. But in MOS, only Jor-El, Jonathan Kent and maybe even Zod spoke in long speeches. Jor-El spoke about how Clark can lead humanity to a better future, and Jonathan Kent spoke in foreboding terms (that seems to be coming to fruition in this movie) and telling Clark it will be up to him to decide if it wants to save the world. You can possibly count Zod describing his devastation that the Last Son of Krypton destroyed his only chance to bring their people back to life near the end. I expect this more measured approach for the dialogue will continue in BvS.

Does he have a legal right? As above, we don't know. But anybody has a moral right to stand up to what they believe to be injustice. Superman sees criminals getting the snot beaten out of them and has a problem with that.

Putting aside law and jurisdiction, how is he factually, morally or any other way wrong there?

Right. Using John Byrne's 1986 MOS series as an example again, the only reason why Batman and Superman met each other for the first time was because Supes thought the Caped Crusader was an outlaw, and went to Gotham with the intention of turning him over to the police. When Superman sees something as a threat, he'll act.

Besides, you can easily say that Batman - or any other superhero for that matter- isn't the law either. And if they have no right to interfere with the law and if we overthink it too much, we might as well ask ourselves why would we even bother reading comics or watching movies in the first place.

[Dagenspear]

Does he have a legal right? As above, we don't know. But anybody has a moral right to stand up to what they believe to be injustice. Superman sees criminals getting the snot beaten out of them and has a problem with that.

Putting aside law and jurisdiction, how is he factually, morally or any other way wrong there?

Everyone has the right to object to something. No one has the right to order someone to stop fighting crime if they're not murdering people. Superman is wrong for having a problem beating the snot out of criminals. How else is someone supposed to stop criminals?

I think endangering children, inspiring the Joker to return to active duty and assaulting police officers might have figured in there as well.

Funny you should mention TDKR though. Clark warned Bruce. He told him to stand down because sooner or later he'd have to take him out of action. Bruce is the one who ultimately forced that confrontation. Clark tried to avoid and Superman barely fought back. That battle is all on Batman.

Superman said stop. Batman said no. Superman fought Batman because of it. Superman had no right to do it, with government authority or not. Batman isn't to blame for the Joker's actions. The city was under tyrannical psychopath rule. Batman was necessary there. Batman's endangered children for years. The children would endanger themselves and they would get killed a lot more quickly because of it without Batman. If Clark really wanted to avoid it he never would've done anything at all, including telling Batman to stop. To be clear I'm saying that Superman should reject the authority of the government.

One of the things I liked about MOS was that the melodramatic dialogue was kept down to a minimum. Compare that to the last few Batman films we saw, everybody took turns in giving long-winded and pretentious monologues.

The dialogue was kinda more melodramatic than TDKT. Not that those were bad in TDKT.

Right. Using John Byrne's 1986 MOS series as an example again, the only reason why Batman and Superman met each other for the first time was because Supes thought the Caped Crusader was an outlaw, and went to Gotham with the intention of turning him over to the police. When Superman sees something as a threat, he'll act.

Besides, you can easily say that Batman - or any other superhero for that matter- isn't the law either. And if they have no right to interfere with the law and if we overthink it too much, we might as well ask ourselves why would we even bother reading comics or watching movies in the first place.

Batman doesn't have the legal right to interfere, that's true. But he doesn't need to as long as he's stopping criminals and not murdering anybody.

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

[thecolorsblend]

Everyone has the right to object to something. No one has the right to order someone to stop fighting crime if they're not murdering people. Superman is wrong for having a problem beating the snot out of criminals. How else is someone supposed to stop criminals?

Just to summarize, your opinion seems to be that Batman has the right to commit breaking and entering, commit assault, torture perps, tamper with/steal evidence from crime scenes and do all these things without any sort of internal oversight of him and his methods?

But somehow Superman is in the wrong for telling him not to do those things?

By the by, if actual police operated the way you seem to advocate, there'd be riots in the streets. More than there are now, I mean.

To be clear I'm saying that Superman should reject the authority of the government.

People can love or hate the government but at the end of the day they are the guarantor of civilization.

Now don't get me wrong, a philosophical point can be made that, given his biological origin and his vast superpowers, human laws don't really apply to Superman. I'm not sure I buy that but I've seen people persuasively advance that argument.

The point is that rejecting a government's authority is inherently a crime. It's one Batman commits on a regular basis. Now yes, (A) he does so only on a micro level and (B) there are in-universe justifications for many of his actions. But you're advocating Superman reject THE GOVERNMENT. This is a macro rebellion you're advocating and, oddly enough, would be the fulfillment of every paranoid-delusional claim Lex Luthor has ever made about him.

Do you not see? It looks like Batman v Superman is making a point/counterpoint here. Lex sees Superman as a power-mad rebel and possible conqueror. Batman sees Superman as a threat to the human race.

If Superman goes after Batman using force, he's fulfilling Batman's predictions.

If Superman tells the government to go pee up a rope, he's fulfilling Lex's predictions.

The fact is Batman is the one committing crimes; not Superman. Based on Superman's likely incomplete assessment of the situation, it's a completely justifiable thing for him to tell Batman to back off or face the consequences. That single act is more merciful than anything Batman has been shown to think, say or do at least up to a certain point in BvS.

Based on what we've seen, it's actually remarkably far-sighted (and yes, merciful) for Superman to give Batman a verbal warning.

[The Dark Knight]

I think people aren't used to, or actually don't like to see Superman being firm and standing up for himself and his values. Perhaps they are used to the cheery, aw shucks interpretations which he gets blasted for as well. As colors says, in many ways big blue is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. He's like the big kid in the playground. If he intervenes, he's a bully abusing his power. If he sits back and lets things play out, people could argue he's equally to blame for whatever happens due to his inaction.

It's funny. People say the government connection in TDK Returns makes Superman weak and a lapdog. But when you think about it, if any hero was to be deputised, and properly honoured and respected by authority, it's Superman. Batman isn't a public face and he lacks superpowers. While he's a rags to riches story, I still feel Spider-Man lacks the maturity of a international face for freedom. And let's face it, you need superpowers such as Clark to adequately be a global protector. As said, Supes doesn't see himself as a God. He wants to be at humanity's service. And that doesn't have to equal rolling over on your values. He still has a brain and can make decisions himself.

[thecolorsblend]

Indeed. I'm well aware of what forum I'm on but I think a lot of Batman fans like it best when Superman is made to look small so that Batman can be made to look awesome like in those g***amn Facebook memes. But when both characters are written properly and according to character, Superman fans mostly don't have a problem with their depictions and interactions.

Batman fans... less so...

[Dagenspear]

Just to summarize, your opinion seems to be that Batman has the right to commit breaking and entering, commit assault, torture perps, tamper with/steal evidence from crime scenes and do all these things without any sort of internal oversight of him and his methods?

But somehow Superman is in the wrong for telling him not to do those things?

By the by, if actual police operated the way you seem to advocate, there'd be riots in the streets. More than there are now, I mean.

That's the fault of the corrupt society. I legitimately do think that breaking man's law can be a necessary action, if you want to do the right thing.

People can love or hate the government but at the end of the day they are the guarantor of civilization.

Now don't get me wrong, a philosophical point can be made that, given his biological origin and his vast superpowers, human laws don't really apply to Superman. I'm not sure I buy that but I've seen people persuasively advance that argument.

The point is that rejecting a government's authority is inherently a crime. It's one Batman commits on a regular basis. Now yes, (A) he does so only on a micro level and (B) there are in-universe justifications for many of his actions. But you're advocating Superman reject THE GOVERNMENT. This is a macro rebellion you're advocating and, oddly enough, would be the fulfillment of every paranoid-delusional claim Lex Luthor has ever made about him.

Do you not see? It looks like Batman v Superman is making a point/counterpoint here. Lex sees Superman as a power-mad rebel and possible conqueror. Batman sees Superman as a threat to the human race.

If Superman goes after Batman using force, he's fulfilling Batman's predictions.

If Superman tells the government to go pee up a rope, he's fulfilling Lex's predictions.

The fact is Batman is the one committing crimes; not Superman. Based on Superman's likely incomplete assessment of the situation, it's a completely justifiable thing for him to tell Batman to back off or face the consequences. That single act is more merciful than anything Batman has been shown to think, say or do at least up to a certain point in BvS.

Based on what we've seen, it's actually remarkably far-sighted (and yes, merciful) for Superman to give Batman a verbal warning.

The point I'm making is that I think that Batman breaking the law, as long as he's not killing people, to fight crime, isn't a justified reason to go after him.

I think people aren't used to, or actually don't like to see Superman being firm and standing up for himself and his values. Perhaps they are used to the cheery, aw shucks interpretations which he gets blasted for as well. As colors says, in many ways big blue is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. He's like the big kid in the playground. If he intervenes, he's a bully abusing his power. If he sits back and lets things play out, people could argue he's equally to blame for whatever happens due to his inaction.

The Superman I like is TAS one. He was firm and stood up for his values. He had a temper, was troubled sometimes, made mistakes, could be reckless, feared his powers. He fought crime, intervened, even told Batman to leave Metropolis. But he didn't try to force Batman to stop being a crime fighter and he shouldn't and he wouldn't have the right to.

It's funny. People say the government connection in TDK Returns makes Superman weak and a lapdog. But when you think about it, if any hero was to be deputised, and properly honoured and respected by authority, it's Superman. Batman isn't a public face and he lacks superpowers. While he's a rags to riches story, I still feel Spider-Man lacks the maturity of a international face for freedom. And let's face it, you need superpowers such as Clark to adequately be a global protector. As said, Supes doesn't see himself as a god. He wants to be at humanity's service. And that doesn't have to equal rolling over on your values. He still has a brain and can make decisions himself.

Working for the government isn't something superheroes should do. They can be corrupt, fickle and hard to get out of, even for someone with superpowers.

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

[Dagenspear]

Double post. Sorry!

God bless you all! God bless everyone!

[The Dark Knight]

Superheroes working for the government is okay in my book if there's a sense of independence. In B66, Batman and Robin are fully deputised officers of the law. But how they tackle crimes is completely up to them. Gordon, O'Hara and the rest of the force just let them do their magic. In MOS, Superman effectively says he's willing to help the US government/military, but it's got to be on his terms. I see no issue with that.

[thecolorsblend]

Dagen, I think you may need to reread TDKR because Superman didn't "go to work for the government". The government said they were going to take all superheroes out and to make the peace Superman volunteered his services to the government in exchange for the rest of the superhero community being allowed to dive into a hole and pull it in after them. He was just trying to protect his friends. I don't think that's a completely true depiction of Superman as a character but then TDKR is Batman's story, not Superman's.

[Dagenspear]

Dagen, I think you may need to reread TDKR because Superman didn't "go to work for the government". The government said they were going to take all superheroes out and to make the peace Superman volunteered his services to the government in exchange for the rest of the superhero community being allowed to dive into a hole and pull it in after them. He was just trying to protect his friends. I don't think that's a completely true depiction of Superman as a character but then TDKR is Batman's story, not Superman's.

I don't think I commented on the conditions or the reason for it. I wasn't talking about TDKR either really.

God bless you! God bless everyone!