Based on what you've seen and read, what is your synopsis of this movie?

[Wayne49]

How was Superman in MOS egotistical? He had spent his whole life fearing how the rest of the world could react to his existence and living with uncertainty over his place in life; yet he still helped people whenever he could. And in the end, he stood up to Zod and saved the world from definite genocide. To me, that doesn't scream egotism or uncaring.

Now, I won't argue the complaints over Superman's recklessness in MOS. I won't defend moments like how he went mysteriously missing when the Fortress of Solitude crashed into Metropolis, and for that matter, I'm not fond over the decision to kill off Pa Kent. I thought it was a tragedy that Clark didn't need since he was already a tragic character enough as he was.

Not all of that is my personal view but from what I had gathered by reading the many who did not like the portrayal, it was one of my takeaways. I understand it though. Superman took a fairly selfish position in deciding how he wanted to involve himself, especially at the end of the film when he said he would do things HIS way. Now while we can take that statement and draw a correlation between that and his years living under another standard, I'm not sure imposing his own standard on a planet is not doing anything other than reinforcing how Pa Kent did it with him. So the greater message of what Snyder was trying to sell regarding Superman finding himself is muddled in the fact he's impacting the will of others to facilitate his own angst against a value system he didn't agree with growing up. Well there's certainly a pretentious and egotistical position born in that motivation because he states directly that his will to involve himself will not be interfered with by the government that desires to know what he is doing. If you give that remark any meaning at all it's fairly disturbing. It's also far removed from his original message in comics when he said he stood for ,"Truth, Justice, and the American way." Now it's his way and everyone needs to back off? Hmmm.

I don't agree with that. The movie is a sequel to MOS, and we're going to see Bruce Wayne's perspective of the Metropolis chaos and get further insight into his thoughts of Superman. It's right there in the trailer, and I don't think it requires intense knowledge in comics to understand it, when the film will be introducing the heroes to each other for the first time.

It's not about understanding what has been said in the trailer. It's this notion that two heroes would fight over what Wayne calls a "one percent chance." You have to admit that premise is pretty absurd. How many times have you felt 99% confident in something and walked away with inspired doubts? As you said, Superman saved the city and quite possibly the planet. If there is a person who needs to be clued in, I don't think it's my brother, it's Batman. And with Batman being older, it seems a little odd that he would render that kind of judgment based on the results that clearly show Superman saved lives but, like any hero who has to engage in a public battle, there are residual impacts that were unavoidable in order to obtain the greater goal of wide spread preservation. Shouldn't he know this from personal experience? So yes, the public marketing is really pretty soft on the argument here. The conflict between Batman and Superman looks like it's more personal than philosophy based.

Just curious, what are your thoughts about Captain America: Civil War? That's another movie where heroes (or in this case - Avengers!) are going to fight each other. I love the MCU and the Cap movies in particular, but I do think that's another movie that could risk being overcrowded.

Since I read the registration act story arc in the comics, I have allot of problems with how this film will play out. To suggest it will be a loose interpretation is likely not saying enough. One of the key story vehicles missing in most Marvel films, is this desire to maintain a secret identity, which is what drove a big part of the Registration act in the comics. There doesn't really appear to be any mystery to the public as to who Cap, Iron man, or the Falcon are. With Thor they never cover a Donald Blake alter identity so his role is moot. Hulk may be a bit of a mystery but not to the military. So registering them seems like little more than paperwork in the movie reality. In the comics, they wanted all of them to unmask and reveal to everyone who they are so the government has a working knowledge of who is working with them. Spider-man is the first to fold which, forgive me for saying, is the dumbest plot point I think I ever read in comics. Why Spider-man would surrender his identity since the very reason for having it was to protect his loved ones was just pure lunacy.

Now supposedly Spider-man will play that role to some degree in this new film. Alas it really feels pretty meaningless for me, since we're getting a new actor and this reveal will come across ineffective since there is no history with him playing the part. I thought it would have be grand to bring back Tobey Macquire and J K Simmons for this movie. Can you imagine the send up that be to see J K Simmons react to Tobey being Spider-man?!! What a missed moment.

Then you have the whole story of Cap being killed, temporarily anyway, and the Winter soldier assuming his identity. So there are TONS of issues with how any of this will play and if, at the end, any of it looks remotely like the story in the comics. I agree with you that it could just come off looking like more heroes arguing and I don't necessarily think that always translates well for audiences. 

Frankly, if those people mistakenly believed that the theatrical cut is going to be rated R, then they're fools. It doesn't take that much of an effort to check on a movie's classification, either by reading the news properly or looking the film's classification up online. But if they think that the PG-13 movie in question is still too violent for their kids to watch, then fair enough.

I would never question your assessment on the IQ's of some parents here. But I have two movies where that low IQ was brightly profiled - Watchmen and Deadpool. Both clearly not for young kids and both very much marketed as such. Some parents got the message, others brought their seven year olds. Saw it myself. Now at this point you say, "Well you just argued against what you just said." Not exactly. Yes, parents can be quite clueless on the ratings system, but there have been a number of nimrods who have complained about Deadpool being inappropriate which means the antennas are up right now for violence and R ratings in this genre. It's in the conversation. How many times have we seen movies buried under the negativity by the public or critics for being too violent or inappropriate for the audience it 'should have been made for'? This is "Batman VS Superman". Doesn't get anymore "Saturday morning, Superfriends" sounding than that. If this movie gets mixed reviews and is described as too edgy and violent, the same nimrods who mistakenly took their kids to Watchmen or Deadpool will likely hear that, coupled with the DVD R rated news, and think their kids need to stay back. Fools? Absolutely. But then again that should come as no surprise here. All I'm saying is Warner Bros should keep the branding focused and not try to be all things to all people. You lose the message when you do that.

Affleck apparently had a say in the scripting, and I really respect him in that regard.

I read a rumour today that claimed he was still rewriting the script before filming his scenes...while in the Batsuit.

Whether the film will live up to being philosophical and meaningful or end up being Nolan-styled pretentious nonsense remains to be seen.

See that kind of news bothers me because too often when you're rewriting in the moment for movies, you lose the train of seeing how it plays in terms of tone and story telling for the whole picture. There should be a very defined story arc here and it seems like they've taken left turns at every corner. We'll see. I hope this turns out much better than the marketing is suggesting. It just feels like a mixed bag of ideas with no one leading the way with a strong vision.

[The Laughing Fish]

Not all of that is my personal view but from what I had gathered by reading the many who did not like the portrayal, it was one of my takeaways. I understand it though. Superman took a fairly selfish position in deciding how he wanted to involve himself, especially at the end of the film when he said he would do things HIS way. Now while we can take that statement and draw a correlation between that and his years living under another standard, I'm not sure imposing his own standard on a planet is not doing anything other than reinforcing how Pa Kent did it with him. So the greater message of what Snyder was trying to sell regarding Superman finding himself is muddled in the fact he's impacting the will of others to facilitate his own angst against a value system he didn't agree with growing up. Well there's certainly a pretentious and egotistical position born in that motivation because he states directly that his will to involve himself will not be interfered with by the government that desires to know what he is doing. If you give that remark any meaning at all it's fairly disturbing. It's also far removed from his original message in comics when he said he stood for ,"Truth, Justice, and the American way." Now it's his way and everyone needs to back off? Hmmm.

Forgive me, but I don't think I understand what you mean. Are you saying that Superman overcoming his fear of persecution by humanity for being an alien is undermined by the fact that he's imposing doing things on his way because he's keeping his privacy secret? I thought Superman's reason for saying he wanted to help on his own terms was because he didn't want the government to interfere with his privacy. Which does make sense to me because that could put his secret identity in jeopardy.

There was an official Dawn of Justice prequel comic recently where Senator Finch (Holly Hunter's character in the film) held a meeting between congressmen and the military debating over Superman's secrecy. One group argued in favour of Superman by saying the government shouldn't risk alienating the world's most powerful ally and make him feel treated as a criminal, while the other group argued they must know everything about him and understand where his loyalties lie. I found it quite intriguing to read, and I expect that to carry over into the film.

You can read the entire Senator Finch-centered comic, as well as the other main character stories by going to this link here.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/batman_vs_superman/learn-more-about-the-dc-films-universe-by-reading-every-batman-a130699

It's not about understanding what has been said in the trailer. It's this notion that two heroes would fight over what Wayne calls a "one percent chance." You have to admit that premise is pretty absurd. How many times have you felt 99% confident in something and walked away with inspired doubts? As you said, Superman saved the city and quite possibly the planet. If there is a person who needs to be clued in, I don't think it's my brother, it's Batman. And with Batman being older, it seems a little odd that he would render that kind of judgment based on the results that clearly show Superman saved lives but, like any hero who has to engage in a public battle, there are residual impacts that were unavoidable in order to obtain the greater goal of wide spread preservation. Shouldn't he know this from personal experience? So yes, the public marketing is really pretty soft on the argument here. The conflict between Batman and Superman looks like it's more personal than philosophy based.

I don't mind if the conflict is personal, to be honest. Given from what I've heard about Batman in this movie, he has been through quite a lot of trauma and has become cynical and jaded by the sound of it. Not only was he shocked to learn that there are species from other worlds, he also survived the chaos in Metropolis and saw what Kryptonians are capable of and the damage they can cause. From Batman's perspective, Superman is nothing like him or anyone else he has ever encountered before. He doesn't know anything about Superman, and like the anti-Superman protesters and the government I presume, he's afraid of what Superman could do if he were to ever turn against the human race. It's because of this uncertainty and lack of trust that Batman blames Superman's existence for the bringing to war, much to Alfred's protests. In my opinion, this does fit what Jonathan Kent mentioned in MOS, that once people find out what Clark can do, it makes them question everything. And like the scared tone in his voice, that discovery won't always be positive.

To me, it's more important how Batman and Superman settle their differences aside and join forces. I hope it doesn't come across as contrived.

By the way, if you Batman is overreacting in this movie, you should check out Justice League: Doom. Batman comes up with contingency plans against his fellow JL teammates because he believes in the possibility (no matter how remote) that they could go rogue one day. After Vandal Savage tried and failed to take advantage of these plans to destroy the JL, Batman justified his decision to take such measures and decided to quit the League out of principle.

As for CA: Civil War? I think that's going to be personal too. Cap is looking to protect Bucky, who is still wanted as a war criminal despite operating under mind control. And if you remember in The Winter Soldier, HYDRA were responsible for murdering Tony Stark's parents, and Bucky might've been involved in that too. In that case, it's possible that Iron Man is looking for some vengeance.

As for Spider-Man in Civil War? Here's another cause for concern: it's very likely that he'll be playing a small part, unlike the comics by the sounds of it. As much as it might've been nice if Tobey Maguire returned, I think a lot of things would need to be retconned to make the continuity work.

See that kind of news bothers me because too often when you're rewriting in the moment for movies, you lose the train of seeing how it plays in terms of tone and story telling for the whole picture. There should be a very defined story arc here and it seems like they've taken left turns at every corner. We'll see. I hope this turns out much better than the marketing is suggesting. It just feels like a mixed bag of ideas with no one leading the way with a strong vision.

That may be true, but let's not forget that rewrites during filming happen all the time. From what I've learned, B89 had to improvise a lot of stuff in the final act and cancelled a lot of material before they were even filmed. I understand that there were a lot of things going on behind the scenes for the production of Superman 78 and Superman II, but there were tons of rewrites and reshoots as well, and people still liked the films as they turned out.

We just won't know until the film comes out in a month's time.

[Wayne49]

Forgive me, but I don't think I understand what you mean. Are you saying that Superman overcoming his fear of persecution by humanity for being an alien is undermined by the fact that he's imposing doing things on his way because he's keeping his privacy secret? I thought Superman's reason for saying he wanted to help on his own terms was because he didn't want the government to interfere with his privacy. Which does make sense to me because that could put his secret identity in jeopardy.

Well, here's the problem with that. How many people do you have that kind of agreement with in life? Someone is coming into your life on their terms and you have no say in the matter? What you are essentially reasoning is this man can violate every person's privacy with his abilities, but you can't check on him because he wants to be the only person on the planet who has that absolute right to privacy. You justify that from the standpoint that you KNOW him to be Superman. We can trust him. The movie is reasoning him as an alien that fought with another alien and many people were killed and a city mostly destroyed. I don't think you get a clean perspective on that matter by just saying, "Well he's Superman. He just saved the planet." Says who? If you're a citizen of Metropolis how do you get this perspective? We can't get ten people to agree on what happen in Benghazi. What are the chances you can get a collective society to go along with a city being destroyed and Superman was not culpable in that? I just think the foundation of that is weak. As a plausible solution, no one would agree to that, and as a popular character in comics, that is a radical departure from the more popular reasoning in past films where HE tries to assimilate with mankind and not interfere in the process.

I don't mind if the conflict is personal, to be honest. Given from what I've heard about Batman in this movie, he has been through quite a lot of trauma and has become cynical and jaded by the sound of it. Not only was he shocked to learn that there are species from other worlds, he also survived the chaos in Metropolis and saw what Kryptonians are capable of and the damage they can cause. From Batman's perspective, Superman is nothing like him or anyone else he has ever encountered before. He doesn't know anything about Superman, and like the anti-Superman protesters and the government I presume, he's afraid of what Superman could do if he were to ever turn against the human race. It's because of this uncertainty and lack of trust that Batman blames Superman's existence for the bringing to war, much to Alfred's protests. In my opinion, this does fit what Jonathan Kent mentioned in MOS, that once people find out what Clark can do, it makes them question everything. And like the scared tone in his voice, that discovery won't always be positive.

I like your expectation on the plausibility of why those two would have conflict, but the original point was how well the trailer communicated that to a general audience at face value (not someone more inclined to pull from their own comic reading and inject a perspective beyond what is offered). Unfortunately the trailer gives the audience a very paranoid Batman explaining that he simply does not trust Superman even if there is a one percent chance he has capacity for bad. That's not very compelling for a general audience. He's basically just saying he doesn't like him. His reasoning is irrational for someone who thinks about Batman from a more removed position. I guess what I'm hearing and what I see as an issue here is that comic book movies are no longer the novelty they once were. Just having actors in costume is no longer a big enough allure to put half the population in theater seats. There needs to be a story driving these films and I feel as if the marketing campaign has not done a good job of explaining what the exact problem is here. Two heroes fighting one another is not something people traditionally root for unless there is someone behind the conflict pulling the strings that can serve as the antagonist.

Now hopefully Lex plays that role in the film, but from a trailer perspective, it seems more like a personality clash and that is not exactly engaging to the general population like it is to comic fans who can draw allot of conclusions from a vast history of conflicts between those two. The Avengers film enjoyed the ability to explore that story arc with the general audience BECAUSE they took the time to make separate films with most of the heroes. There was an even playing field on expectation here. People knew something about Cap, Iron man, Thor, even the Hulk before they got together. There was a built in excitement to see all of them together. In this film, the only one coming from a prior film is Superman. All the other heroes (even Batman) are coming from completely new origins with actors no one has seen before. So there's a bit of a detachment to their motivations except what each person brings as their own reasoning. In my mind the trailers needed to provide that motivation to engage the viewer. To me it's a bit vanilla because there is no clear villain here. Just allot of images and two heroes fighting over a personal angst. What is the general public suppose to do with that? The studio is hedging all their bets on the perceived novelty of Batman fighting Superman to get the general public in (with very little more). If this happen five years ago, it would have been a big draw. Now? It feels like it's piggybacking off other efforts. So, as you said, there really needs to be a solid story here to sell and not just a contrivance to make these two fight.

[The Laughing Fish]

Well, here's the problem with that. How many people do you have that kind of agreement with in life? Someone is coming into your life on their terms and you have no say in the matter? What you are essentially reasoning is this man can violate every person's privacy with his abilities, but you can't check on him because he wants to be the only person on the planet who has that absolute right to privacy. You justify that from the standpoint that you KNOW him to be Superman. We can trust him. The movie is reasoning him as an alien that fought with another alien and many people were killed and a city mostly destroyed. I don't think you get a clean perspective on that matter by just saying, "Well he's Superman. He just saved the planet." Says who? If you're a citizen of Metropolis how do you get this perspective? We can't get ten people to agree on what happen in Benghazi. What are the chances you can get a collective society to go along with a city being destroyed and Superman was not culpable in that? I just think the foundation of that is weak. As a plausible solution, no one would agree to that, and as a popular character in comics, that is a radical departure from the more popular reasoning in past films where HE tries to assimilate with mankind and not interfere in the process.

Your comment reminds me of the military officers' standpoint in the Senator Finch-centric comic that I linked before, as they question where Superman's loyalties lie despite his continuous acts of heroism







And let's not forget that there will be a scene where Superman will attend a congressional hearing that investigates how culpable he was in the matter, so it doesn't look like everybody on Earth will trust him that easily. Certainly not Batman.

In terms of assimilating with mankind, I think what you mean is Superman's approach is too restricting. He doesn't have to endanger his secret identity, but he can still cooperate to prove he can be trusted, e.g. Superman: The Animated Series - where he undergoes experiments with Professor Hamilton at STAR Labs to learn more about Kryptonian biology. In that case, very well. I understand your point then.

But let's not forget that Superman had already revealed quite a lot about himself when he spoke to the military in MOS. He told them that he had been living on Earth for 33 years when he turned himself over to their custody, and even told the general that he grew up in Kansas. So it's not like he's completely secretive.

And besides, let's also remember that the general had a satellite drone following Superman. There's a difference between wanting to know more about Superman, and trying to specific details that could reveal his true identity. No matter how trusting Superman may be or should be, he knows he can't risk allowing his true identity to get exposed.

Unfortunately the trailer gives the audience a very paranoid Batman explaining that he simply does not trust Superman even if there is a one percent chance he has capacity for bad. That's not very compelling for a general audience. He's basically just saying he doesn't like him. His reasoning is irrational for someone who thinks about Batman from a more removed position.

I'm actually surprised that there are people who don't buy Batman's paranoid stance here because when MOS came out, there were a lot of knee-jerk reactions about "how Superman was responsible for destroying Metropolis or letting the city get destroyed". In reality, it was Zod who was destroying Metropolis, while Superman was directly responsible for starting the fight in Smallville.

If anything, I would've thought those people would've empathized with Batman. As far as the general audience is concerned, we're only guessing. We don't what the reaction will be until the film is out.

There needs to be a story driving these films and I feel as if the marketing campaign has not done a good job of explaining what the exact problem is here. Two heroes fighting one another is not something people traditionally root for unless there is someone behind the conflict pulling the strings that can serve as the antagonist.

Once again, we will have to agree to disagree about this, but the second trailer shows Superman doesn't approve Batman and doesn't seem to think he's much better than the crooks. As Clark interviewed Bruce, he even calls Gotham's tolerance of Batman's actions as "trampling on civil liberties". I won't guarantee that this tension will be resolved satisfactorily, but I think the marketing conveys the message enough.

The Avengers film enjoyed the ability to explore that story arc with the general audience BECAUSE they took the time to make separate films with most of the heroes. There was an even playing field on expectation here. People knew something about Cap, Iron man, Thor, even the Hulk before they got together. There was a built in excitement to see all of them together. In this film, the only one coming from a prior film is Superman. All the other heroes (even Batman) are coming from completely new origins with actors no one has seen before. So there's a bit of a detachment to their motivations except what each person brings as their own reasoning.

Unfortunately, WB/DC has been too slow to start their own film universe in the past, although they had that one film that was supposed to be made in 2009 but it got scrapped. Let's face it, anything that WB does will always be compared unfavourably to Marvel, and they'll always be accused of copying the MCU formula. I for one don't mind at all that they're introducing DC characters in one movie for their second installment.

Of course, I want the movie to be good, but if it does fail to meet my expectations then I won't hesitate to criticize it. But honestly, no matter how bad it turns out, I really don't feel the urge to scrutinize it severely because I've seen a few films in this genre that get put on a pedestal despite being littered with loads of problems. I don't think that's fair, and I don't agree with the criticisms aimed at the mere ideas of this film. That being said, even if I end up disliking BvS because it's poorly executed, I won't pretend it's the worst thing ever since Hitler. But I won't treat it as if it's the second coming if I like it either.

[Wayne49]

^^^ All great points and I want to thank you for taking the time to engage in a quality discussion about this film. You've offered some interesting insight and I love your comic analogy specifically to make your point. Excellent illustration of your perspective on mine.

It goes without saying I will be in theaters opening weekend to see this, hell or high water. I'm very much of the same mind set that no matter what my thoughts are on the marketing, I'm going to let this movie come to me on it's own terms and how it impacts me will be pretty much how I talk about it moving forward (whether that gels with my thoughts on the advertising or contradicts it). The only conclusion I have made regarding the outcome are these four scenarios -

* I'll walk out loving the movie and wonder why it was marketed so badly, but it succeeds anyway.
* I'll walk out loving the movie, but the film gets a mixed reaction critically /commercially, which I will blame on the marketing.
* I'll walk out with strong reserves and the film underperforms, which will bring clarity for why the marketing was so jumbled for a strong message.
OR
* I'll walk not caring for it, but everyone else does and it becomes a big hit, in which I'm left scratching my head.

I guess we could always inject a fifth possibility which is I like it but it's universally panned, like Batman & Robin. But I don't see that happening. So it sits on a pretty steep hill because of it's bloated budget and marketing expense. But we'll see if that turns out to be justified or if it's a big lesson the studio will have to learn. The movie could end up grossing the same kind of money as MOS, but because of it's budget that would be deemed an underperformance since Warner Bros. placed so much weight on it doing more.

Either way, it IS a movie that has to speak soundly to a broad scope of people far outside the comic book realm to hit the billionaire's club, which has a very small list of members. Nolan did an amazing job finding that connection with his Dark Knight series. Comments from many in the general population suggest there may be some issue with this film connecting, but we won't know if that number is meaningful or not until after the receipts start rolling in. Let's see if Snyder's vision carries as much weight. It will be fun to watch.

[Dagenspear]

I'm actually surprised that there are people who don't buy Batman's paranoid stance here because when MOS came out, there were a lot of knee-jerk reactions about "how Superman was responsible for destroying Metropolis or letting the city get destroyed". In reality, it was Zod who was destroying Metropolis, while Superman was directly responsible for starting the fight in Smallville.

If anything, I would've thought those people would've empathized with Batman. As far as the general audience is concerned, we're only guessing. We don't what the reaction will be until the film is out.

I side with Batman here, only mainly because Superman seems so arrogant in a different sense than Batman may. I don't blame Superman for the destruction of Metropolis. I blame the director and writer for making it like it is. Superman wasn't exactly in control of the situation. Something I blame his character for is his apathy at the destruction and loss life. The city is destroyed, people are crushed under rubble and surrounding him covered in ash and Superman makes out with Lois, that along with cutting from Clark yelling in pain about killing Zod to him smiling and being fully fine. For the record, I think Batman, otherwise would be kinda silly to go and hunt down Superman because he might be a bad guy at some point in the future (if that's what's happening).

Once again, we will have to agree to disagree about this, but the second trailer shows Superman doesn't approve Batman and doesn't seem to think he's much better than the crooks. As Clark interviewed Bruce, he even calls Gotham's tolerance of Batman's actions as "trampling on civil liberties". I won't guarantee that this tension will be resolved satisfactorily, but I think the marketing conveys the message enough.

I can't say I like that. Where does Superman get off saying that Batman is doing something illegal and going after him (if that's what's happening, because the trailer kinda paints it that way)? He has no right to say or do that.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[The Laughing Fish]

It's not about understanding what has been said in the trailer. It's this notion that two heroes would fight over what Wayne calls a "one percent chance." You have to admit that premise is pretty absurd. How many times have you felt 99% confident in something and walked away with inspired doubts? As you said, Superman saved the city and quite possibly the planet. If there is a person who needs to be clued in, I don't think it's my brother, it's Batman. And with Batman being older, it seems a little odd that he would render that kind of judgment based on the results that clearly show Superman saved lives but, like any hero who has to engage in a public battle, there are residual impacts that were unavoidable in order to obtain the greater goal of wide spread preservation. Shouldn't he know this from personal experience? So yes, the public marketing is really pretty soft on the argument here. The conflict between Batman and Superman looks like it's more personal than philosophy based.

I'm revisiting this again because I just discovered that Bruce's "one percent" stance to justify his reason to kill Superman is a reference to former US Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said this about a possible Pakistani terror suspect supporting Al-Qaeda during the war on terror:

If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.

Source: https://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/the-one-percent-doctrine/

This, of course, doesn't mean the filmmakers are Republican. What they were doing is drawing real life comparisons between the government's drastic response to prevent further tragedy - even if there is a remote chance, to Batman deciding to take extreme measures.

The US government, as far as I can remember, were heavily criticised for its interrogation and investigation of terror suspects, due to being inhumane and cruel - all in the name of national security throughout the post 9/11 era. Batman in BvS justified his cruelty towards Superman for the sake of preventing worldwide doom if he were to go rogue during the post-Battle of Metropolis era. But he failed to realise that he was the one who was going rogue because his brutal methods were criticised by Clark Kent and the media, as well as frightening police and ordinary citizens. But he still refused to see the blindspot in his logic, all because of he was too busy of the "low-possibility, high level impact". Like Cheney, Batman was more concerned about responding to the potential threat, rather than analysis. Especially in a situation where he, like the rest of mankind, is coming to terms with an aftermath of an attempted alien invasion, which is certainly unlike anything Batman had experienced before.

So really, is it that absurd if Bruce Wayne harbored such paranoia and prejudice against Superman in the first place?

Please keep in mind if anybody else is reading this: this isn't supposed to incite a political debate. I'm not a conservative, nor that I'm in favour (or against) the Bush administration. In fact I'm not even American, I'm simply making connections with the filmmakers' possible influence for Batman's arc in BvS.