Against supervillains sure. But this guy takes big cuts at Batman that would've taken his head off if his powers weren't depleted ( and he wasn't aware of that). He never even makes attempts for the compassionate approach when he has the time.
Again, he is not morally obligated to take a compassionate approach when the other character is continually attacking him. Superman doesn't always have to beg people to see reason.
Superman doesn't even want to fight. He's fighting because Lex Luthor has strong armed him into doing so by kidnapping his mom. In a proper scenario Superman would be looking to bring down Batman for all his unjustified violence and brutality. He is fighting because Lex sent him and he won't talk. If Lex hadn't taken his mom, he might not even have shown up.
Actually he's fighting because Batman attacks him and later, because he's trying not to die as a result of this fact.
He goes TO Batman because Lex has strongarmed him.
I would imagine he would have shown up had Lex not taken his mother, because he flat out told Batman to bury the bat, and not to go to the signal next time. Batman thinks he's baiting Superman with the signal.
If Lex hadn't taken his mother, Superman probably would have shown up anyway, because he spent much of the film investigating, pursuing the truth about, and then attempting to shut down Batman.
We still this all the time in the comics about the conflict between them about the different approaches to fighting crime. That's the one with weight to it because not only does it offer commentary on the real world but it also offers some discourse on the clashing methods of enacting justice--it's very philosophically complex and a good reason for two people with such fixed views to fight over.
And the film makes commentary on their different methods and the flaws in those methods. They just don't talk to each other about them.
Their ideology is almost never the reason they actually fight in the comics. It's the reason they disagree sometimes, but not why they're occassionally violent with each other.
Fighting over a difference in the way you try to do good in your world is as silly and destructive as fighting over fear of the other person.
Arguably, Superman's reason for fighting: to protect himself and by extension the life of Martha, is about as good as it gets.
That's the thing--both of them are overlooking their own faults and through the result of the fight and actually talking to each other, they realize why they need each other.
Which they realize anyway. They just don't talk about it and spell it out right after their mortal conflict has just happened.
Uh...NO. He tried half heartedly once and gives up trying. He had time to communicate when Batman was up in his face but he shoves him away.
Superman basically says with his actions: "I tried to communicate with you. You don't want to communicate and have attacked me. You ARE the violent force I thought you were...fine. I will MAKE you listen".
"NO"?
Kay. Explain to me how my assessment is wrong.
Why does Superman try to reason with Batman initially if not to try to attempt to communicate with him?
Batman does indicate he is not willing to communicate and attacks Superman, so how am I wrong there?
Superman can SEE Batman is a violent force and reacts accordingly, seeking to shut it down (he destroys Batman's initial weapons). Superman obviously tries to make Batman stand down through force after that, so where am I incorrect?
Why does Superman engage in violence if not for the reasons I stated?
Then he pushes him up an alley and then rams him up a building. He had numerous times and still didn't communicate. Superman is the violent force. He is an impulsive fool.
He tried to communicate initially. I never said he continued to try to communicate.
Yes, Superman is ALSO a violent force. This is inherent in their characters.
As for "impulsive fool"...offer up a real argument. That's just a label-it means nothing.
I'm talking about Superman. He doesn't even want to fight. Hardly a fight to get behind when one of them doesn't want to.
So a fight cannot be compelling because one of the parties doesn't want to have to fight?
Then what does that say about all those fights in the comics when Superman doesn't want to fight, but feels that he has to because innocent lives are at stake? Because that's what this is.
Offer up a real argument. That's just a label--it means nothing. And btw I took that from the actual synopsis given by WB about the film.
I'm not allowed to have an opinion now? WB or not, that still sounds incredibly cheesy.
Another label. Not a real argument. Watch how the Punisher and Daredevil did it in Daredevil season 2. Both of them vehemently disagree on each other's methods but after fighting they actually talk about it and discuss why each is the way they are.
Couple things. The Daredevil/Punisher scene works because there was just an intense fight, and the scene serves as a cooling off point for the audience as they move into the middle of the story. It's not the third act of a story, where tension needs to be ramping up to the finale.
The Daredevil/Punisher scene also works because one of them is tied up and literally has no option BUT to talk and buy time and try to reason with the other character and the other character doesn't actually want to kill the other one, and there's some time to kill. Hardly the case in BVS, where there's considerably more urgency to the proceedings.
Could they have changed the entire motivation for both characters and the structure of the film? Sure, I guess, but...different approaches. I can't see one of them tying each other up and then having an extended dialogue about their issues, not as they're presented.
Ironically enough, I think a single line of dialogue Batman utters in the middle of the conflict accomplishes rathers succinctly what the exchange between Daredevil and Castle, which is mostly designed to flesh out more of Castle's emotional state and psychology, does in six minutes. Batman literally tells Superman where he comes from, and also indirectly that he feels powerless without his violent methods. The final moments between Batman and Superman serve to establish their similarities and their similar goals as heroes. So while we don't learn where Batman used to go to church, a similar type of information is exchanged.
Economy of dialogue can be a good thing.
Even Rebirth did it when Superman goes to fight Batman and they talk about the different places they come from and why they are the way they are. They don't even talk about their problems in this film. That's completely shoved away.
Which issue is this?
Don't know what to tell you. They are not"shoved away", they are shown not to matter at the moment given the grand scheme of things, because there are more immediate concerns.
It doesn't but the ideological and philosophical differences go unaddressed between the two characters.
And part of the tragedy of the film involves Batman realizing that he failed this man who could have been an ally, that they were not able to overcome their differences. Their differences aren't unaddressed with the audience, though. Much of the film is spent exploring them, and their various points of view on things. The filmmakers simply chose to do it that way VS having them blurt it all out to each other. It's a legitimate approach.
Sure, but that would've been a compelling reason to explore the differences between the two characters. Optimism vs Cynicism. Hope vs Fear. Day vs. Night etc.
I've never argued it couldn't have been handled differently or better in some respects. If they were going to talk, it would have been better to have it when Superman stops Batman, though at that point Batman would have had to try to explain what he was going after, and why he needs it, and that would have sort of torpedoed the third act.
