BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - - - Part 307

[Infinity9999x]

MoS literally has a scene in which a minister encourages Clark to take a leap of faith, and he does. That leap of faith carries with him throughout MoS and all the way through BvS. He has faith after Kahina speaks about Nairomi; he has faith after Keefe spray paints his words of protest at Heroes' Park; he has faith after he confronts a cynical Bruce Wayne at a the fundraiser gala; he has faith after a myriad of saves leaves people wondering, "Must there be a Superman?" He briefly pulls back after the Capitol bombing, but that's because the bomb happened because of him and first responders refused his help in the aftermath. He did say, "No one stays good in this world," but he never acted on it. He stayed good when he chose to apologize to Batman and seek his help rather than throw the first punch. He stayed good and chose faith when he didn't kill Batman and when he chose Batman to save his mother. He chose faith when he believed Bruce's promise to save his mother. Superman wondered aloud if Lex's ultimatum would change him, and when the crisis came, it didn't. That's all you need to know in order to judge whether his core values remained in tact -- to judge whether or not he truly lost faith.



I don't think it's simple at all. You seem to view at as simplistic because of your expectations for Batman as a character: the iconic Batman would be more rational and methodical. But that clearly isn't how Bruce is characterized in BvS. He's a man twisted by trauma. The BZE has shaken Bruce to the point that the things that he relied on to force the world to make sense -- the things that give him a sense of power and control -- are in flux. The whole film Bruce is back in the fight-or-flight mindset he was back in the alley the night his parents were murdered. Choices and actions flowing from that point is an idea and a characterization that is nuanced and complex.

The fact that he had to take a leap of faith in MOS shows that he was very far from being established as the beacon of faith, hope, and a believer in the good of humanity that many people associate with Superman. And to be honest, I was okay with that in MOS. But I needed to see him then become that character after MOS.

However, BvS, we never see a Superman that is sure of that faith. He's constantly questioning, he's unsure, he's depressed, he's going back and forth on what his purpose is. And again...that's not necessarily a bad idea...IF you establish a Superman that first has a clear sense of his purpose. But to have him be constantly questioned when we've never fully established what his values are undercuts the dramatic value. It's similar to the killing of Zod, again, something I'm not opposed to. But it would have been a much stronger thematic and emotional moment if we had first established that this Superman had a no kill rule, or they used it to have him go through a soul searching scene where he establishes one.

As for Batman...I buy that he feels like he's lacking in control, but the film tries to present his actions with a basis in logic, and his logic is ridiculously faulty. Beyond that, yeah, I simply am not interested in a Batman who instantly goes to killing when faced with threats. That's not a character I'm interested in.

I think Affleck was giving a nuanced performance, but the writing didn't allow him to present a nuanced or complex character. Instead we saw someone who was very reactionary, even in his reconciliation with Superman. I won't harp on the Martha moment because we've all covered that ground. But again, it all comes back to concepts that at their core were not bad ideas, but they were executed without enough care, or before they had been earned.

 

[Flint Marko]

It's similar to the killing of Zod, again, something I'm not opposed to. But it would have been a much stronger thematic and emotional moment if we had first established that this Superman had a no kill rule, or they used it to have him go through a soul searching scene where he establishes one.

They had a chance to finally address Superman killing in some form or fashion (because it's seriously never brought up or even alluded to before or after it happens) when Zod's body was used to transform into Doomsday, but nope.

That's just an abject failure. Any first year film student would have threaded that needle in their sleep, but nope. Not in Batman v Superman.

 

[misslane38]

The fact that he had to take a leap of faith in MOS shows that he was very far from being established as the beacon of faith, hope, and a believer in the good of humanity that many people associate with Superman. And to be honest, I was okay with that in MOS. But I needed to see him then become that character after MOS.

He took a leap of faith after taking many other leaps of faith. The final leap was Clark's faith in humanity fully taking flight. Each person he saved, including Lois, that led to that moment left a trail of hope. And it was a legacy that continued into BvS. Superman believed in humanity's ability to wrestle with the existential questions of his existence. It's why he attended Finch's hearing in the first place. Clark also repeatedly expressed hope for truth in justice in his appeals to Perry White to cover the Batman story. Even when pushed to his absolute limit after the Capitol bombing, Clark was able to summon a reason to keep going -- to keep being Superman. Even when he thought no one stays good in this world, he kept reaching out, kept holding back, and kept believing in the promises of those who lost their way. He was always that character, and he never stopped being that character.

However, BvS, we never see a Superman that is sure of that faith. He's constantly questioning, he's unsure, he's depressed, he's going back and forth on what his purpose is. And again...that's not necessarily a bad idea...IF you establish a Superman that first has a clear sense of his purpose. But to have him be constantly questioned when we've never fully established what his values are undercuts the dramatic value.

Superman never goes back and forth on what his purpose is. He has one crisis of faith after the Capitol bombing when he's unsure if Superman's existence is something for which the world is ready. At every other point in the film, including the moment following the "No one stays good in this word" line, Superman moves forward as a man convicted with faith and purpose. If he believed no one stayed good, then he would have attacked Batman. No apologies. No olive branch. No holding back. That's not what happened.

It's similar to the killing of Zod, again, something I'm not opposed to. But it would have been a much stronger thematic and emotional moment if we had first established that this Superman had a no kill rule, or they used it to have him go through a soul searching scene where he establishes one.

This is a big problem for me. Your criticism and analysis of Superman's characterization is predicated on the idea that the "no kill rule" is a codified thing when it isn't. Superman would neither have a "no kill rule" established because he wasn't an established Superman with rules nor would he kill Zod and establish such a rule if there is no rule to establish. The "no kill rule" is not only a fiction made up by misguided and ignorant fans, but it is also impractical and often immoral.

Superman may kill as a last resort, but a strict "no kill rule" places his need to preserve his own morality above innocent lives. If one asserts that Superman should always find another way, one needs to understand that sometimes there isn't another way. And if there always seems to be one, then that's because Superman's writers have given him a way out. Superman never has to make people uncomfortable because there are some hard choices he never has to make. That kind of storytelling offers the antithesis of strength; it's storytelling as a reassuring opiate. No thanks.

As for Batman...I buy that he feels like he's lacking in control, but the film tries to present his actions with a basis in logic, and his logic is ridiculously faulty. Beyond that, yeah, I simply am not interested in a Batman who instantly goes to killing when faced with threats. That's not a character I'm interested in.

The film does not present his actions as based in logic. Alfred is practically a Greek Chorus reminding us of Bruce's mania throughout the entire film.

I think Affleck was giving a nuanced performance, but the writing didn't allow him to present a nuanced or complex character. Instead we saw someone who was very reactionary, even in his reconciliation with Superman. I won't harp on the Martha moment because we've all covered that ground. But again, it all comes back to concepts that at their core were not bad ideas, but they were executed without enough care, or before they had been earned.

Affleck's Batman is reactionary because that's all one is when one is struggling with PTSD. It's fight-or-flight all the time. His reconciliation with Superman comes after he is forced to relive both of his traumas in one singular moment: his parents' murder juxtaposed with the monstrous Superman. He sees the man he has become; he sees himself as the monster in the alley. It's classic eucatastrophe.

 

[Infinity9999x]

He took a leap of faith after taking many other leaps of faith. The final leap was Clark's faith in humanity fully taking flight. Each person he saved, including Lois, that led to that moment left a trail of hope. And it was a legacy that continued into BvS. Superman believed in humanity's ability to wrestle with the existential questions of his existence. It's why he attended Finch's hearing in the first place. Clark also repeatedly expressed hope for truth in justice in his appeals to Perry White to cover the Batman story. Even when pushed to his absolute limit after the Capitol bombing, Clark was able to summon a reason to keep going -- to keep being Superman. Even when he thought no one stays good in this world, he kept reaching out, kept holding back, and kept believing in the promises of those who lost their way. He was always that character, and he never stopped being that character.



Superman never goes back and forth on what his purpose is. He has one crisis of faith after the Capitol bombing when he's unsure if Superman's existence is something for which the world is ready. At every other point in the film, including the moment following the "No one stays good in this word" line, Superman moves forward as a man convicted with faith and purpose. If he believed no one stayed good, then he would have attacked Batman. No apologies. No olive branch. No holding back. That's not what happened.



This is a big problem for me. Your criticism and analysis of Superman's characterization is predicated on the idea that the "no kill rule" is a codified thing when it isn't. Superman would neither have a "no kill rule" established because he wasn't an established Superman with rules nor would he kill Zod and establish such a rule if there is no rule to establish. The "no kill rule" is not only a fiction made up by misguided and ignorant fans, but it is also impractical and often immoral.

Superman may kill as a last resort, but a strict "no kill rule" places his need to preserve his own morality above innocent lives. If one asserts that Superman should always find another way, one needs to understand that sometimes there isn't another way. And if there always seems to be one, then that's because Superman's writers have given him a way out. Superman never has to make people uncomfortable because there are some hard choices he never has to make. That kind of storytelling offers the antithesis of strength; it's storytelling as a reassuring opiate. No thanks.



The film does not present his actions as based in logic. Alfred is practically a Greek Chorus reminding us of Bruce's mania throughout the entire film.



Affleck's Batman is reactionary because that's all one is when one is struggling with PTSD. It's fight-or-flight all the time. His reconciliation with Superman comes after he is forced to relive both of his traumas in one singular moment: his parents' murder juxtaposed with the monstrous Superman. He sees the man he has become; he sees himself as the monster in the alley. It's classic eucatastrophe.

Honestly, I just fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of how Superman was presented in BvS, I don’t see how you took what was presented on screen as a character in who always had faith in humanity aside from one moment of doubt. Almost every scene in the film showed him in a time of struggle, and he was never depicted as someone who believed truly in the goodness of humanity, not yet. He was depicted as someone searching for it. And again, this is not necessarily a take I think is inherently wrong, but I do think it’s one that needs to come after Superman has been established in his morals and worldview.

As to the no kill rule, obviously there are gray areas to it. But I agree it was never established, and that’s part of the problem with how Zod’s Death was handled. You either establish Superman as someone who tries to never kill, in which case killing Zod would be a stronger emotional moment, or you add scenes after Zod’s death seeing Clark come to this code that he will now try to live by.

Neither of these things were established, and as such, the importance of the kill was dramatically neutered.

As for the take that Batman is in ptsd because he views Superman as a almost force of nature like representation of his parents murderer...that’s interesting, and something I would have been intrigued by. But if this was the films intent I think it displayed it poorly. I got the impression the film felt Bruce was making a decent logical argument, and by extension came off as very poor writing. Alfred didn’t treat Bruce like he was behaving in a way that was nearly mentally derranged, he treated their discussions like logical debates, and that’s why they didn’t work.

If the PTSD angle was indeed what they wanted, I think they should have explored it further, show us why, to a man who had undoubtedly seen thousands of horrors in his life, that this one traumatic event was worse than the others, why was it more personal? Why did it effect him more than the atrocities the Joker has done? Etc

And again, to really delve into that, I think they needed a developed Batman before throwing him into a vs movie.

 

[misslane38]

Honestly, I just fundamentally disagree with your interpretation of how Superman was presented in BvS, I don’t see how you took what was presented on screen as a character in who always had faith in humanity aside from one moment of doubt. Almost every scene in the film showed him in a time of struggle, and he was never depicted as someone who believed truly in the goodness of humanity, not yet. He was depicted as someone searching for it. And again, this is not necessarily a take I think is inherently wrong, but I do think it’s one that needs to come after Superman has been established in his morals and worldview.

What scenes are you referring to? The scenes in which Clark begs Perry to believe in truth and justice? The scenes in which Clark stands up to Perry's cynicism about how the world has changed since 1938? Or how about the scenes in which he continues to save people despite torrents of criticism? What about his response to Kahina, Keefe, and Finch? He seeks them out or agrees to engage in a conversation about what is good. What do you make of Clark's response to Bruce's anti-Superman thesis: "Most of the world doesn't share your opinion, Mr. Wayne." Does that seem like the argument of a cynic?

As to the no kill rule, obviously there are gray areas to it. But I agree it was never established, and that’s part of the problem with how Zod’s Death was handled. You either establish Superman as someone who tries to never kill, in which case killing Zod would be a stronger emotional moment, or you add scenes after Zod’s death seeing Clark come to this code that he will now try to live by.

You don't get it. There is no "no kill code" for the film to interrogate or establish because the code doesn't exist. The code is BS. It's not only non-canonical, but it's also morally wrong. The way you establish Superman as someone who tries to never kill is to show him as someone who doesn't immediately kill anyone who poses a threat to himself, those he loves, or innocents. Superman shows that he kills as a last resort by killing as a last resort. You don't show Superman developing a "no kill code" following Zod's death because Superman doesn't and should not have such a code. The code is dead, bury it.

Neither of these things were established, and as such, the importance of the kill was dramatically neutered.

They weren't established because they never have been canonically established and shouldn't be canonically established.

Alfred didn’t treat Bruce like he was behaving in a way that was nearly mentally derranged, he treated their discussions like logical debates, and that’s why they didn’t work.

Alfred literally described Bruce's actions as those driven by a man consumed by a feverish rage.

 

[Infinity9999x]

What scenes are you referring to? The scenes in which Clark begs Perry to believe in truth and justice? The scenes in which Clark stands up to Perry's cynicism about how the world has changed since 1938? Or how about the scenes in which he continues to save people despite torrents of criticism? What about his response to Kahina, Keefe, and Finch? He seeks them out or agrees to engage in a conversation about what is good. What do you make of Clark's response to Bruce's anti-Superman thesis: "Most of the world doesn't share your opinion, Mr. Wayne." Does that seem like the argument of a cynic?



You don't get it. There is no "no kill code" for the film to interrogate or establish because the code doesn't exist. The code is BS. It's not only non-canonical, but it's also morally wrong. The way you establish Superman as someone who tries to never kill is to show him as someone who doesn't immediately kill anyone who poses a threat to himself, those he loves, or innocents. Superman shows that he kills as a last resort by killing as a last resort. You don't show Superman developing a "no kill code" following Zod's death because Superman doesn't and should not have such a code. The code is dead, bury it.



They weren't established because they never have been canonically established and shouldn't be canonically established.



Alfred literally described Bruce's actions as those driven by a man consumed by a feverish rage.

The problem with most of those Superman scenes is that nearly all of them include moments of Clark looking legitimately troubled by the counterpart each character makes, and not in just a "I'm thinking of how to respond to this way." Heck, even the saving montage was done to music that signaled dread, and each time Superman saved someone it was accompanied with shots of him looking into the distance as if he was questioning what he was doing. All of this then capped by the scenes where he says the House of El crest means nothing, and that no one stays good in this world, does not give me the impression that Superman was truly someone who believed in hope and inspiration, it gave me the sense that he was striving to, but hadn't convinced himself yet.

And again, part of this is because of the relatively small amount of screen time they have to develop this character. That combined with the fact that nearly every scene earlier in the film of him trying to stand up for the good in humanity frames it in a way that he seems to be not completely sure if it's something that does exist. But I wouldn't say he's presented as a cynic, I would say he's presented more as lost. As someone desperately searching for a belief system that he hopes to be true.

And for the no kill thing...come on man, in the Byrne comics what I'm asking to happen with Zod is what actually took place. Superman went on a long self imposed banishment and did some major soul searching after killing Zod in the comics, returning with newly imposed moral codes. Ones he couldn't always follow, but it's certainly present in the comics. And again, at no point am I claiming he should NEVER kill. What I'm saying is that if you make it something he decides he's morally opposed to, and then challenge that, it's makes for dramatic weight. Or if you use a moment where he has killed to then further build his character, it adds dramatic weight.

The fact that the Zod death was used for neither of these things, and the fact that we didn't have an established moral view of what Clark thought of using lethal force before or after Zod's death neutered that moment of further dramatic potential.

And yes, Alfred tells Bruce he thinks he's acting like a man in a fevered rage. In a conversation. Does that strike you like the actions of someone who actually thinks that? He then continues to further debate with him. We don't see Alfred try to take any action, we don't see Alfred acting as if this is extremely unusual for Bruce. We can tell he disagrees with it, but it's presented as if Alfred views this as extreme and he's trying to debate him out of it, not as if he honestly believes Bruce has gone off the deep end. And since we have no previous experience with this Batman to compare if this is unusual behavior for him, Alfred is our only measure for what is normal for this Bruce Wayne. And at the end of the day, he merely debates him and then goes along with his plan. That doesn't strike me as "this is clearly intended to be a Bruce Wayne who has gone far beyond what Alfred has ever experienced." If it was meant to be that, it was done very poorly.

So while I think you're interpretation of what motivates Bruce and the PTSD angle is an interesting one, I ultimately don't think the film supports that. Which is unfortunate, because I actually think it's a very fascinating take. But again, you need to show us how this experience with Superman is different for Bruce personally, and WHY.

 

[misslane38]

The problem with most of those Superman scenes is that nearly all of them include moments of Clark looking legitimately troubled by the counterpart each character makes, and not in just a "I'm thinking of how to respond to this way."

Superman shouldn't be troubled by humanity's cynicism, violence, hopelessness, and xenophobia? He should smile and appear encouraged in the face of hatred and despair? What? That's not how Diana reacted. It's okay to be angry or sad about things. Just because you are doesn't mean you're hopeless or apathetic.

Heck, even the saving montage was done to music that signaled dread, and each time Superman saved someone it was accompanied with shots of him looking into the distance as if he was questioning what he was doing.

The montage was done to mournful music because of how humanity was responding to Superman. The musical queue is literally a twist on the more hopeful queue from MoS, and it is signalling humanity's division over Superman. You are making something that is about US into something about HIM. That music reflects the darkness in humanity rather than the darkness in Superman. It is our existential crisis. The narration of the montage is quite literally the opposite of Superman questioning himself: it is humanity questioning him.

All of this then capped by the scenes where he says the House of El crest means nothing, and that no one stays good in this world, does not give me the impression that Superman was truly someone who believed in hope and inspiration, it gave me the sense that he was striving to, but hadn't convinced himself yet.

"You are strong because you are imperfect. You are wise because you have doubts." -- Clemmie to Winston Churchill in The Darkest Hour​

​

Superman is simply stating the facts in front of him. The El crest means hope, but the Capitol bombing and its antecedents suggest Superman is not the beacon of hope Clark hoped he would be. He is remarking on the fact that humanity is struggling to find hope in Superman because of its own existential crisis. We, like Lex, are having a hard time confronting our own powerlessness in the face of power: If God is all powerful, can he be all good? And if he's all good, how can he be all powerful? He's not convinced humanity is ready for Superman, and due to the tragic events at the hearing, he's trying to figure out what is the best way to serve humanity without upending everything.

The most hopeful people I know are not immune to indecision and doubt. The hopeful person is someone who confronts the darkness and ultimately decides to continue to seek the light. Hope is revealed through action and attitude. Superman, in BvS, reveals himself as hopeful by ceaselessly searching for the light in the darkness. His trip to the snowy mountain to find his way through the nightmares and his olive branch to Batman before the fight show us hope in action.

But I wouldn't say he's presented as a cynic, I would say he's presented more as lost. As someone desperately searching for a belief system that he hopes to be true.

"All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost"
-- The Lord of the Rings​

I wouldn't describe him as lost at all. A person who is confronted with difficult questions and searches for answers to those questions isn't lost. A person who is confronted with difficult decisions and makes those decisions with deliberation and care is not lost. Introspection and care is what is necessary to navigate complex issues that could have immense existential consequences. Clark Kent is a journalist; the woman he loves is a journalist. Good journalists know that the best stories are those that come from having an open mind, responding to the facts, and finding the truths that shine through the shadows.

Superman in BvS is someone begins with confidence. He's had an 18 month love affair with the world: humanity has built statues to him and the media can't stop themselves from writing puff pieces about him. Clark doesn't care what people are saying about Nairomi. Senator Finch launches a committee to investigate Superman. He's a little taken aback, but it's still not something that is preoccupying. Then, Keefe calls him a "False God," which affects Clark, as it should. It would be heartless not to feel something in the face of Keefe's pain.

At this point, Clark has completely shifted any interest or concern about Superman toward his investigation of the Batman. For him, the choices one makes says a lot about what one values, so Clark chooses to invest his energy into helping the scared and forgotten people of Gotham who are terrified of a Batman who is hunting. He's so focused on this story that nothing else seems to matter. When Bruce hurls anti-Superman invective at Clark at the gala, Clark remarks that the rest of the world isn't as cynical. Clark leaves the gala to save a little girl from a fire, which begins a montage in which it becomes clear that the rest of the world is wrestling with his presence in their lives without giving in fully to the cynicism of Batman's point of view. Nevertheless, Superman does not doubt, retreat, lash out, or give up. Senator Finch invites Superman to testify and to confront his accusers, and he does. If good is a conversation, Superman puts his faith in the people and what is good by joining the conversation.

The only time Superman wavers in his conviction is after the Capitol bombing. Because Superman is the reason behind the tragedy. Whether it is Keefe, Luthor, or anyone else is irrelevant. Someone decided to bomb the hearing to make a statement about Superman. How can something so awful not be cause for reflection and doubt? But the true test of hero is what he does in the face of doubt and darkness. Clark decides to reevaluate his role, and he concludes that Superman should stay. Later, when confronted with a choice that could destroy him, he decided to take a leap of faith anyway. Even if no one stays good in this world, Superman was still going to try to see if he and Bruce could defy the odds, and they did.

And for the no kill thing...come on man, in the Byrne comics what I'm asking to happen with Zod is what actually took place. Superman went on a long self imposed banishment and did some major soul searching after killing Zod in the comics, returning with newly imposed moral codes. Ones he couldn't always follow, but it's certainly present in the comics. And again, at no point am I claiming he should NEVER kill. What I'm saying is that if you make it something he decides he's morally opposed to, and then challenge that, it's makes for dramatic weight. Or if you use a moment where he has killed to then further build his character, it adds dramatic weight.

And I'm saying that it isn't something Superman decides he is morally opposed to. So if he didn't make that decision, then why should the narrative challenge it? Superman's "no kill code" is often presented as a flaw in the comics. Most notably during the "Sacrifice" arc featuring the death of Max Lord at the hands of Wonder Woman. Superman was a self-righteous hypocrite. The soul searching in the comics following the death of Zod makes sense since that Superman killed Zod in cold blood. He acted as judge, jury, and executioner. He was morally wrong.

The fact that the Zod death was used for neither of these things, and the fact that we didn't have an established moral view of what Clark thought of using lethal force before or after Zod's death neutered that moment of further dramatic potential.

The drama is in the choice itself. The drama is the trolley problem. Superman killed Zod because he chose one life over the lives of a family, over the fate of all humanity. The sort of drama you're referring to only happens if the only way forward for the narrative that you can see is one that shapes or changes Superman. But what if the purpose of Zod's death is already achieved through the death itself. Killing Zod establishes Superman is willing to kill if there is no other way to preserve innocent life. There's nowhere else to go from there. It is what it is. It's only an unsatisfying answer if one is uncomfortable with the answer.

And yes, Alfred tells Bruce he thinks he's acting like a man in a fevered rage. In a conversation. Does that strike you like the actions of someone who actually thinks that? He then continues to further debate with him. We don't see Alfred try to take any action, we don't see Alfred acting as if this is extremely unusual for Bruce. We can tell he disagrees with it, but it's presented as if Alfred views this as extreme and he's trying to debate him out of it, not as if he honestly believes Bruce has gone off the deep end. And since we have no previous experience with this Batman to compare if this is unusual behavior for him, Alfred is our only measure for what is normal for this Bruce Wayne. And at the end of the day, he merely debates him and then goes along with his plan. That doesn't strike me as "this is clearly intended to be a Bruce Wayne who has gone far beyond what Alfred has ever experienced." If it was meant to be that, it was done very poorly.

As a counselor myself, I can tell you that the film nailed the PTSD narrative for Bruce. Not only did it take care to showcase Bruce exhibiting all of the diagnostic criteria for the disorder, but it also showed a realistic response from a loved one. Alfred is stuck between concern for Bruce and feeling like he needs to stay close to him, reason with him. The film clearly establishes that Alfred is concerned about Bruce. At no point does Alfred respond to Bruce as though he is acting rationally.

So while I think you're interpretation of what motivates Bruce and the PTSD angle is an interesting one, I ultimately don't think the film supports that. Which is unfortunate, because I actually think it's a very fascinating take. But again, you need to show us how this experience with Superman is different for Bruce personally, and WHY.

It is not interesting. It is the truth. I know people with PTSD, and I've studied PTSD. Every single element of Bruce's characterization in BvS supports a PTSD reading. He has all of the symptoms (e.g. reliving the event, nightmares, flashbacks, triggers, avoiding seeking help, negative changes in beliefs, negative changes in behavior, difficulty sleeping, isolating oneself, seeing the world as dangerous, seeing everyone as untrustworthy) and the trigger for his recovery is quite similar to the effects of a common therapy for PTSD (e.g. exposure therapy, reliving the traumatic event, face your fears).

 

[Infinity9999x]

Sorry for the delay. Haven't been on the hype for a bit due to life and work and such.

But for the Superman and hope...again, it's about how they framed all his acts and how they depicted him reacting to everything. Wonder Woman is actually a great example. We see her belief system questioned, and we see her fight back, galvanized by action in it. It does a very good job of showing that she's troubled by it and how she then fights harder for what she believes.

BvS doesn't frame Clark in this way. This is partly due to the fact that he doesn't get a ton of screen time given how busy the film was. But every time we see him questioned, they frame the shots to not only show us Clark looking concerned or troubled, they end them in ways that indicate he isn't sure if the things challenging his views are wrong. When Louis tells essentially tells him she's not sure if they can be together and he can still be him, he has a clear moment of doubt that he does then lighten by bringing it to sexy bath time...but that is not the same thing as showing him truly fighting back against this claim. In fact, he never addresses it, the question is left in the air, and it does seem that he's wondering about this himself.

And yes, the montage scene's music is to go along with the thematic tone, but having Clark look mournfully at the sky after he saves people does not go along with what is happening in the actual scenes...again, unless it's to show he is having doubts about his mission, about his purpose. In that sense, it conveys it very well.

Now, where these isolated instances, it wouldn't be a big deal. But the fact that we see these, compounded by the fact that, yes, he says his crest means nothing on earth. His crest which means Hope...which is LITERALLY him saying he believes hope means nothing on earth, believes that what his family stood for has no place on earth...followed by then later Superman saying "No one stays good in this world"...do not, at any point, give me the sense that this is a man who truly believes in his cause.

And at this point, if you see that, that's great, but after watching the film, I honestly do not understand that viewpoint. It doesn't come across, and had Synder's intent been to bring that across, I think he did a poor job of it. Not to mention that the somber tone of the overall character only lessened the possible contrast you have between Superman and Batman, another poor choice in my opinion.

As for the killing thing; I think you're missing my point. I have never said I believe the no kill rule should never be challenged. Hell, I'll even say that I'm fine with him not outright stating he won't kill but we NEED to have some context for his moral code on lethal force. We are never given any, before or after Zod's death, and that nullifies the majority of the dramatic weight it had. You either use to build his character and his views on life and death or you establish it beforehand and use the moment to challenge it and force him to make a hard decision. But we literally had no context for what his morals were in regards to lethal force on an aggressive threat. It's pretty simple, in story context, if you want a kill to have meaning, you must define that characters views on killing.

And for Bats; I give you huge credit for being a counselor. That's a tough job. I worked for a while as part of an outreach group that helped survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking, and I know how hard it can be to routinely talk to people who have suffered extreme experiences and are suffering from PTSD. And I sure that I did it less than you, and it took it's toll on me. So major props there.

That said, honestly man, thematically that theme does not play. Yes, Alfred is supportive still, but family members also look for help when they believe their loved ones are really going off the deep end. And again, since this Batman had not been established, we have no way of knowing if this is all that different. We're talking about a guy who suits up as a bat and regularly beats criminals with his bare hands. We can't look at him the way we would a normal civilian. He routinely subjects himself to intense trauma situations. How was this event that different? Why was it effecting him differently? Why was it personal? Has he gone through these events before in times of mass destruction?

None of this is established, and as such we just see a Batman who uses horrible logic and rash conclusions to jump to a fight. A fight which has very little narrative weight given that Batman and Superman have no prior relationship.

 

[misslane38]

But for the Superman and hope...again, it's about how they framed all his acts and how they depicted him reacting to everything. Wonder Woman is actually a great example. We see her belief system questioned, and we see her fight back, galvanized by action in it. It does a very good job of showing that she's troubled by it and how she then fights harder for what she believes.

Yeah, and what she believes is wrong, Diana's religious zealotry is questioned and rather than make better choices that would actually help people, she plunges ahead without any regard for the consequences. She kills indiscriminately and does little to do the real work that needs to be done to prevent the gas attack on London. She abandons Steve when he needs her the most as a result of her disillusionment. Her bullheadedness is presented as a flaw rather than an asset. It's a terrible counterpoint, actually.

BvS doesn't frame Clark in this way. This is partly due to the fact that he doesn't get a ton of screen time given how busy the film was. But every time we see him questioned, they frame the shots to not only show us Clark looking concerned or troubled, they end them in ways that indicate he isn't sure if the things challenging his views are wrong.

The questions humanity has are not entirely wrong. Thus, it is a good thing that Superman is reflecting on the questions the public is posing. Good is a conversation. If Superman decided, as Lex argues, that his absolute power is an absolute force for good, then we'd be dealing with a dangerous god like Diana before she embraced love for humanity whether it deserved it or not.

When Louis tells essentially tells him she's not sure if they can be together and he can still be him, he has a clear moment of doubt that he does then lighten by bringing it to sexy bath time...but that is not the same thing as showing him truly fighting back against this claim. In fact, he never addresses it, the question is left in the air, and it does seem that he's wondering about this himself.

I didn't see any doubt. I saw a man responding to his partner's doubts with reassurance. He has faith in his relationship.

And yes, the montage scene's music is to go along with the thematic tone, but having Clark look mournfully at the sky after he saves people does not go along with what is happening in the actual scenes...again, unless it's to show he is having doubts about his mission, about his purpose. In that sense, it conveys it very well.

It's not just the music, though. It's the narration, too. Superman's responses are juxtaposed with media commentary. Superman looks mournfully to the sky because he's uncomfortable with the people of Juarez treating him like a god. As he should be. Superman isn't doubting himself; he knows he's not a god. He is refusing to embrace godhood. That's a good thing. Superman is mournful because he keeps showing the world that he's just a guy trying to do the right thing, but humanity is struggling to get past its own existential hang ups.

Now, where these isolated instances, it wouldn't be a big deal. But the fact that we see these, compounded by the fact that, yes, he says his crest means nothing on earth. His crest which means Hope...which is LITERALLY him saying he believes hope means nothing on earth, believes that what his family stood for has no place on earth...followed by then later Superman saying "No one stays good in this world"...do not, at any point, give me the sense that this is a man who truly believes in his cause.

He is not saying hope means nothing on Earth. Not even close. He's saying he isn't sure Superman is giving people hope. He's seeing how the world responds to an alien sun god with doubt, fear, mistrust, and violence, and he wonders if humanity can benefit from what he has to give. He interrogates this idea further on the mountain, and he concludes that he can keep going. That's how he shows he truly believes in his cause. Because when truly pressed to give it all up, he cannot bring himself to do so. He is willing to embrace the consequences and the nightmares.

Likewise, as I said repeatedly, the "No one stays good in this world," only works as true insight into what Superman truly believes is if that belief is put into action when tested. It's not. If Superman believed no one stayed good, he would not have apologized to Bruce, extended an olive branch, asked for help, held back in a fight, and forgive and trust Bruce when he came to his senses.

And at this point, if you see that, that's great, but after watching the film, I honestly do not understand that viewpoint. It doesn't come across, and had Synder's intent been to bring that across, I think he did a poor job of it. Not to mention that the somber tone of the overall character only lessened the possible contrast you have between Superman and Batman, another poor choice in my opinion.

The contrast you have between Superman and Batman is that one responds to his own powerlessness with deliberation, humility, sacrifice, and ultimately hope while the other responds, as a result of his PTSD, with irrationality, arrogance, and violence.

As for the killing thing; I think you're missing my point. I have never said I believe the no kill rule should never be challenged. Hell, I'll even say that I'm fine with him not outright stating he won't kill but we NEED to have some context for his moral code on lethal force. We are never given any, before or after Zod's death, and that nullifies the majority of the dramatic weight it had. You either use to build his character and his views on life and death or you establish it beforehand and use the moment to challenge it and force him to make a hard decision. But we literally had no context for what his morals were in regards to lethal force on an aggressive threat. It's pretty simple, in story context, if you want a kill to have meaning, you must define that characters views on killing.

What a bunch of bunk. Diana kills constantly in Wonder Woman without any established principle on killing. Superman killed Zod with a smile on his face in Superman II while he was depowered and defenseless without an established moral code for killing or not killing one's adversaries. Star Wars has its characters kill all the time without making a big deal out of the morality. Why? Because it's Storytelling 101 to show rather than tell. Snyder shows us how Superman approaches the moral and ethical questions of the trolley problem by showing us the choice he makes when presented with that decision.

And for Bats; I give you huge credit for being a counselor. That's a tough job. I worked for a while as part of an outreach group that helped survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking, and I know how hard it can be to routinely talk to people who have suffered extreme experiences and are suffering from PTSD. And I sure that I did it less than you, and it took it's toll on me. So major props there.

Props to you, too.

That said, honestly man, thematically that theme does not play. Yes, Alfred is supportive still, but family members also look for help when they believe their loved ones are really going off the deep end. And again, since this Batman had not been established, we have no way of knowing if this is all that different. We're talking about a guy who suits up as a bat and regularly beats criminals with his bare hands. We can't look at him the way we would a normal civilian. He routinely subjects himself to intense trauma situations. How was this event that different? Why was it effecting him differently? Why was it personal? Has he gone through these events before in times of mass destruction?

How was this event different? Batman and Bruce Wayne were capable of taking control of every evil humanity could dish out until humanity was introduced to the alien. Not only that, as the film shows us, Bruce had also experienced the loss of Robin. Bruce's trauma is aggravated by the fact that he's seeing no progress in Gotham, he can't protect his loved ones from death, and he can't do anything to make a real difference when gods hurl thunderbolts in the sky and innocents die. Alfred states this nearly verbatim at the start of the film.

None of this is established, and as such we just see a Batman who uses horrible logic and rash conclusions to jump to a fight. A fight which has very little narrative weight given that Batman and Superman have no prior relationship.

Narrative weight does not exist only within the context of a relationship. Narrative weight can come from establishing conflict that ties into major character arcs and themes. The conflict between Batman and Superman has narrative weight because it is a test Lex Luthor has orchestrated to test the limits of goodness. The fight is a microcosm of the conflict between Superman and humanity. The resolution of the fight reflects whether or not there is still hope for humanity. As Bruce puts it, "Men are still good."

 

[Limonade]

Yeah, and what she believes is wrong, Diana's religious zealotry is questioned and rather than make better choices that would actually help people, she plunges ahead without any regard for the consequences. She kills indiscriminately and does little to do the real work that needs to be done to prevent the gas attack on London. She abandons Steve when he needs her the most as a result of her disillusionment. Her bullheadedness is presented as a flaw rather than an asset. It's a terrible counterpoint, actually.

I will say it's only a terrible counterpoint, when written in the way you inferred it. As well as twisting the movie's story points and motivations--in a way to suit that the counterpoint is terrible.

I never felt that the version you just presented is at all accurate in the depiction of the movie or character.

 

[misslane38]

I will say it's only a terrible counterpoint, when written in the way you inferred it. As well as twisting the movie's story point and motivation--in a way to suit that the counterpoint is terrible.

I never felt that the version you just presented is at all accurate in the depiction of the movie or character.

It's not my version. It's the facts. Diana's relentless pursuit of Ludendorff due to her steadfast religious belief in her purpose to kill the God of War and restore goodness to humanity cost the people of Veld their lives and Steve's team the chance to prevent the gas attack on London. When killing Ludendorff fails to save the world, Diana abandons humanity completely, embracing her mother's belief that the world does not deserve her help. Diana doesn't come around to believing in humanity until Steve sacrifices his life. It's only then that she accepts his view of humanity rather than her own.

 

[Limonade]

It's not my version. It's the facts. Diana's relentless pursuit of Ludendorff due to her steadfast religious belief in her purpose to kill the God of War and restore goodness to humanity cost the people of Veld their lives and Steve's team the chance to prevent the gas attack on London. When killing Ludendorff fails to save the world, Diana abandons humanity completely, embracing her mother's belief that the world does not deserve her help. Diana doesn't come around to believing in humanity until Steve sacrifices his life. It's only then that she accepts his view of humanity rather than her own.

Exactly.

You guys agree that she didn't simply abandoned Steve and that's the end of the movie. She comes around and fights for the belief of mankind. (Infinity's point) That's the movie. Your previous post was only presenting half-truths to present a bad point.

 

[misslane38]

Exactly.

You guys agree that she didn't simply abandoned Steve and that's the end of the movie. She comes around and fights for the belief of mankind. (Infinity's point) That's the movie. Your previous post was only presenting half-truths to present a bad point.

I never said that was the end of the movie. I said Diana's religious zealotry and steadfast belief in her purpose was presented as a hindrance rather than an asset in her film. It is only when she abandons her purpose to find a new one that she becomes a true hero. This is the essence of the bookended narration at the beginning and end of the film.

I used to want to save the world. This beautiful place. But I knew so little then. It is a land of magic and wonder. Worth cherishing in every way. But the closer you get, the more you see the great darkness simmering within. And mankind? Mankind is another story altogether. What one does when faced with the truth is more difficult than you think. I learned this the hard way. A long long time ago. And now, I will never be the same...I used to want to save the world. To end war and bring peace to mankind. But then I glimpsed the darkness that lives within their mind and learned that inside every one of them there will always be both. A choice each must make for themselves. Something no hero will ever defeat. And now I know that only love can truly save the world. So I stay, I fight, and I give for the world I know can be. This is my mission now. Forever.

This very important and very clear statement from Diana tells us that her mission -- her purpose -- changed as a result of the events of World War I. The very essence of the film is that it is important for heroes to look to humanity -- to people like Steve -- to shape their sense of purpose. Superman listening to and responding to humanity's fears, doubts, and questions is a good thing. Good is a conversation.

 

[Limonade]

I never said that was the end of the movie. I said Diana's religious zealotry and steadfast belief in her purpose was presented as a hindrance rather than an asset in her film. It is only when she abandons her purpose to find a new one that she becomes a true hero. This is the essence of the bookended narration at the beginning and end of the film.

I used to want to save the world. This beautiful place. But I knew so little then. It is a land of magic and wonder. Worth cherishing in every way. But the closer you get, the more you see the great darkness simmering within. And mankind? Mankind is another story altogether. What one does when faced with the truth is more difficult than you think. I learned this the hard way. A long long time ago. And now, I will never be the same...I used to want to save the world. To end war and bring peace to mankind. But then I glimpsed the darkness that lives within their mind and learned that inside every one of them there will always be both. A choice each must make for themselves. Something no hero will ever defeat. And now I know that only love can truly save the world. So I stay, I fight, and I give for the world I know can be. This is my mission now. Forever.

This very important and very clear statement from Diana tells us that her mission -- her purpose -- changed as a result of the events of World War I. The very essence of the film is that it is important for heroes to look to humanity -- to people like Steve -- to shape their sense of purpose. Superman listening to and responding to humanity's fears, doubts, and questions is a good thing. Good is a conversation.

I understand those points. But that's not the issue I had to begin with anyhow in the initial post that I referenced.

What I called you out on is the sloppy half-characterization of the Heroine in order to unnecessarily discredit his point. As you both clearly share the view.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Diana's zealotry and her subsequent shattering of those steadfast beliefs are why it works so well. Again, because in that film it sets up in a very clear way her views on killing and what she needs to do. She's a soldier, she's been raised (literally) by an entire culture of soldiers. She believes in righteous killing. When she is confronted with the prospect that things are not so black and white, her entire belief system is shaken.

Synder's MOS never establishes Clark as having any kind of hard rules on killing, so the Zod scene, while a great individual moment, doesn't have nearly as much impact as it could have. And he then misses out on the potential of using the traumatic moment as a character building moment to have Clark develop some kind of belief based off the event.

It's weak storytelling. Which is a bummer. Not to say that there isn't a place for simpler handling of death. Star Wars has a very simplistic view. You kill bad guys because you're in a war. And it works for what it is, because Star Wars is a fairly simplistic story at it's core. But MOS didn't present itself as that. It presents itself as a film that is investigating these more messy elements..then neglects to do so with the Zod moment. And to be clear, I wasn't a huge fan of how Zod was handled in Superman II either. I'm actually not a huge fan of the old Superman films in general, aside from Reeve's superb acting.

As for the other stuff, at this point I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. We're essentially to the point where we're discussing the same scenes and saying we took entirely different takes from them. And at the end of the day, that's what makes art fun to talk about. And while I personally did not agree with most of how BvS presented some of my favorite characters, I will never accuse it of being a studio cash grab like the Fantasic Four films or basically anything Rothman was in charge of churning out back in the day. I do think Synder had a vision he was trying to convey, I just don't think it always worked.

 

[misslane38]

Diana's zealotry and her subsequent shattering of those steadfast beliefs are why it works so well. Again, because in that film it sets up in a very clear way her views on killing and what she needs to do. She's a soldier, she's been raised (literally) by an entire culture of soldiers. She believes in righteous killing. When she is confronted with the prospect that things are not so black and white, her entire belief system is shaken.

No, it doesn't work well. At all. She believes she is the God Killer. She is supposed to be a warrior for mankind. Her quest to kill the God of War leaves a trail of bodies she believes to be innocent (corrupted by Ares) in her wake. She doesn't care who she kills along the way as long as it gets her closer to Ares. It doesn't matter that the Germans she's killing are just as "corrupted" as the Allies. She kills them anyway. Diana's beliefs make her reckless, hypocritical, and dangerous. She is supposed to kill gods, not men. The end of the film has nothing to do with shaking Diana's warrior philosophy. It has nothing to do with killing or not killing. It's about whether mankind deserves to be saved.

Synder's MOS never establishes Clark as having any kind of hard rules on killing, so the Zod scene, while a great individual moment, doesn't have nearly as much impact as it could have. And he then misses out on the potential of using the traumatic moment as a character building moment to have Clark develop some kind of belief based off the event.

You are still coming at this from a faulty premise. For you, the only way killing Zod works as a plot point or a character moment is if it challenges something already established or it sets the stage for Superman to establish a belief system. It needs to do neither. Because the film isn't about killing or not killing. If it were, then it would be a powerful character moment that enriched the themes of the film.

The film is about Kal El being sent across the stars as the first infant born on Krypton who is natural and free. It is about Clark being raised on Earth and finding out who he is and his purpose. It is about being torn between Krypton and Earth. The narrative weight of Superman's decision to kill Zod, therefore, resides in how it represents the death of Krypton and its system of genetic determinism, eugenics, and genocide. By killing Zod, Superman chooses Earth.

It's weak storytelling. Which is a bummer. Not to say that there isn't a place for simpler handling of death. Star Wars has a very simplistic view. You kill bad guys because you're in a war. And it works for what it is, because Star Wars is a fairly simplistic story at it's core. But MOS didn't present itself as that. It presents itself as a film that is investigating these more messy elements..then neglects to do so with the Zod moment. And to be clear, I wasn't a huge fan of how Zod was handled in Superman II either. I'm actually not a huge fan of the old Superman films in general, aside from Reeve's superb acting.

It's not weak storytelling. A story that doesn't tell the story you want it to tell isn't weak. It is simply telling a different story. MoS is a film that is investigating and interrogating more messy elements, but it doesn't say a damn thing about the morality of killing. So making Superman killing Zod into a moral lesson about killing is not part of the story. It doesn't have to be part of the story. What is MoS about? It's about trust, faith, bridging worlds, evolution, bicultural identity, and colonization.

As for the other stuff, at this point I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. We're essentially to the point where we're discussing the same scenes and saying we took entirely different takes from them. And at the end of the day, that's what makes art fun to talk about. And while I personally did not agree with most of how BvS presented some of my favorite characters, I will never accuse it of being a studio cash grab like the Fantasic Four films or basically anything Rothman was in charge of churning out back in the day. I do think Synder had a vision he was trying to convey, I just don't think it always worked.

I think it worked. And, yeah, I definitely I think we have to agree to disagree at this point.

 

[misslane38]

I understand those points. But that's not the issue I had to begin with anyhow in the initial post that I referenced.

What I called you out on is the sloppy half-characterization of the Heroine in order to unnecessarily discredit his point. As you both clearly share the view.

We don't share the view at all. His point was that Diana fought back harder every time her belief system was questioned. I was pointing out that it's a terrible counterpoint because the film establishes such a bullheaded sense of purpose is a massive character flaw. It is a flaw around which the entire film is structured. Diana's arc is about disillusionment in her divine purpose and her embrace of a humane one. What he saw as a point in Diana's favor, I saw as a point against it.

Wonder Woman is a terrible counterexample to show how BvS should have handled Superman's character. Superman should not be portrayed as plunging recklessly forward merely to establish that he will never allow humanity to ever question him or distract him from his mission. It is the very essence of the criticisms Kahina, Finch, Lex, Bruce, and the public at large lay at Superman's feet. If Superman were to respond to his critics the same way Diana responded to hers, then all of his critics would be right about him: he answers to no one but himself.

Superman listens. Superman attempts to engage in conversation with his critics. Superman takes time out to contemplate his next move in order to do what is best for humanity. He takes a humble and introspective approach that pays off. Diana listens to no one. Diana doesn't take any time to consider the consequences of her actions. It takes the villain offering her godhood and revenge for her to finally step back from her high horse and ultimately let Steve's words and example influence her actions.

The bottom line is that if Diana had responded to tests to her beliefs like Superman even once before confronting the real God of War, then a lot of lives would not have been lost. Her relentless attachment to her original purpose was not admirable, effective, or heroic in any way. So, then, you can understand why I found it astonishing that it was held up as the ideal characterization for a superhero. The only time Diana is truly heroic is when she does question and change her beliefs.

 

[unholyrevenger]

Superman should not be portrayed as plunging recklessly forward merely to establish that he will never allow humanity to ever question him or distract him from his mission.

unfortunately people want a less considerate and thoughtful superman and more Donald Trump.

 

[Nemeres]

https://them0vieblog.com/2016/03/31/non-review-review-batman-vs-superman/

https://them0vieblog.com/2017/11/13...n-vs-superman-and-the-rejection-of-nostalgia/

These are a great read. They're quite conciliatory with the perceptions of MOS and BVS as confused and underwritten while also unconventional and ambitious. I don't agree with everything, but, well, that's the point.

 

[Flemm]

The point about the script's sensibilities (Terrio, Goyer) being somewhat at odds with Snyder's own is interesting.

Basically there is a pretty clear tension between the Christ metaphors and the Randian individualism. Particularly around the idea of compassion. It's one reason why the movie seems to contain some potentially interesting concepts, but not in a way that is really coherent.

That's always been my impression. Maybe Terrio and Goyer not being on the same page with Snyder philosophically is the explanation. The movie tends to come across as a bit of an awkward collaboration.

 

[misslane38]

The point about the script's sensibilities (Terrio, Goyer) being somewhat at odds with Snyder's own is interesting.

Basically there is a pretty clear tension between the Christ metaphors and the Randian individualism. Particularly around the idea of compassion. It's one reason why the movie seems to contain some potentially interesting concepts, but not in a way that is really coherent.

That's always been my impression. Maybe Terrio and Goyer not being on the same page with Snyder philosophically is the explanation. The movie tends to come across as a bit of an awkward collaboration.

The Randian reading of Snyder's DCEU work is very flimsy and not worth taking seriously. I get that Snyder seems interested in adapting Rand's work, like The Fountainhead, but he tends to deconstruct and subvert a lot, and it may be that he's mostly interested in it as a commentary on art and creativity without much interest in applying it to economics or morality.

 

[Flint Marko]

“You don’t owe this world a thing.”

“You should consider letting kids die to protect yourself.”


Yup, nothing Randian about that. Total coincidence that same director wants to make a Fountainhead movie.

 

[misslane38]

“You don’t owe this world a thing.”

“You should consider letting kids die to protect yourself.”


Yup, nothing Randian about that. Total coincidence that same director wants to make a Fountainhead movie.

Jonathan's reasoning for the bus rescue thing is about protecting the world from a change he felt it wasn't ready for. He literally says it's about more than that:

Maybe. There's more at stake here than just our lives, Clark, or the lives of those around us. When the world finds out what you can do it's gonna change everything. Our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human. Everything.

Martha's just saying don't let the world define you. It's also important to note that those comments from the Kents aren't the film's final word on the subject. Clark ultimately does save people/expose his secret and answers to Finch's committee. Jonathan's story about the flood is all about the horror of a self-serving act having larger consequences.

Only a simplistic, reductionist, cherry picking, out of context reading of his work would conclude that it supports Randian objectivism.

 

[Flint Marko]

I agree that those comments aren't ultimately what the film revolves around, but they are there and it's a valid parallel to draw whether you like it or not. Only someone who is intentionally seeing only what they want to see would disagree.

 

[misslane38]

I agree that those comments aren't ultimately what the film revolves around, but they are there and it's a valid parallel to draw whether you like it or not. Only someone who is intentionally seeing only what they want to see would disagree.

It's not valid if it's not accurate. The comments that are there not only don't reflect Randian philosophy, they also aren't embraced by the protagonist and the films as a whole. It's not a fair reading in any way as a result.