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

[I Am The Knight]

Well BatFleck certainly has the main arc in the film.

 

[samsnee]

I see it way more as a Superman movie that features Batman. Batman going after Superman is all because of what he witnessed with the attacks on Metropolis, and the main villains in the movie are Lex Luthor and Doomsday. It also follows Lois closely, about the conspiracy of Lex/Superman. I mean, every plot point is about Superman. The main focus of the movie is Superman.

I just don't see how it's more of a Batman movie? It would almost be like saying Ragnarok is a Hulk movie. I just don't see it.

Superman was a plot point for Batman to develop as a character from murderous psycho to just normal psycho. I honestly couldn’t tell you what Superman’s arc was beyond brood and get killed.

 

[Travesty]

Superman was a plot point for Batman to develop as a character from murderous psycho to just normal psycho. I honestly couldn’t tell you what Superman’s arc was beyond brood and get killed.

lol, you "honestly" can't tell me Superman's arc? I get it with all of you toxic anti-DECU crowds, I truly do, but you need to start having some sort of semblance of reality with your "critiques" towards the movie you want to continually bash. I mean, denying that Superman has an arc in the movie is laughable at best. I don't even know where to go with this? And again, I get being smarmy against a movie you don't like(I do it too), but make some sense of it, if you're going to do it. Denying the reality of the situation is just nonsensical on your part.

 

[misslane38]

Superman was a plot point for Batman to develop as a character from murderous psycho to just normal psycho. I honestly couldn’t tell you what Superman’s arc was beyond brood and get killed.

Batman's arc was a classic revenge tragedy. Superman's arc was a classic existential hero arc.

In Existential literature (and film), characters usually suffer an "existential crisis" and are thus forced to answer existential questions. Often they are forced into utterly meaningless or hopeless situations, such as to be condemned to eternity to push a rock up a hill (Camus' Sisyphus), or being condemned to death and, worse, watch all you love suffer and die, in a death camp (such as during the Holocaust), or to be isolated in a plague ridden city (Camus' The Plague) or a timeless "Hell" (Sartre's No Exit), or to be scripted into a play (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead), or to have survived the nuclear holocaust (Cormac McCarthy's The Road).

In each of these cases, the so called "Existential Hero" is he or she who can will, or create, his or her meaning in these absurd, doomed situations, and then still act in accordance to an internal morality. The Existential Failure or anti-hero, or loser, in contrast, is he or she who is paralyzed by the situation or his or her own intellect and unable to rise above meaninglessness.

Existential Heroism: All or Nothing
For Camus, the Existential Hero is one who, like Sisyphus, grasped the absurd pointlessness of his task (existing) and chooses to embrace it anyway. In many ways, this simply serves as a metaphor for our common fatal-fate: we cannot really appreciate what life is until we appreciate and accept death -- death, that thing that lays waste to our lives, erases their meaning -- you cannot be grateful for being alive only when you are happy but not when you are sad; you cannot, as it were, only love your family when they are kind to you. Sisyphus overcomes his fate or doom by choosing a heroic attitude toward life's apparent meaninglessness; in this way he proves man can will meaning into any situation; Sisyphus finds it in simply reforming his attitude toward his fate...something that eventually nearly all of us must do.

Thus, in Camus' The Plague the Catholic Priest, Father Paneloux realizes one cannot "honestly" or actually love God (or life, existence) unless one accepts that this God created a world of meaningless, terrible suffering; only the terror of the plague and witnessing children dying can teach the priest the true nature of charity and love and, thus, God. Put another way, if there is a God, He or it is the God of the Holocaust -- a god that allows evil and suffering to exist. To love that God is to love that suffering -- this is the message of the Book Of Job: as Satan tells God: untested faith is no faith at all, and it's easy for a rich, happy man to love you (or existence); true faith is the love of suffering -- just as true love in a marriage or relationship is not loving the better, but the worse ("for better and for worse"). In this way Father Paneloux, like Sisyphus, rises above the meaninglessness of the plague: he embraces the entirety of creation in all its absurdity and pain.

Identically, in Man's Search For Meaning, Jewish Auschwitz survivor Viktor Frankl shows us that even in the most absurd, terrible, demeaning and powerless situations -- a concentration camp waiting to be condemned to death -- a man can still maintain or create his own human dignity and thus rise above his fate: "...everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way" ... "in the final analysis it becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result on an inner decision and not the result of camp influences alone."

In The Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (also a great Postmodern film), the protagonist must finally choose whether he is willing to experience the pain of love. If you knew how much love would hurt, would you still choose it? If you knew all of your lover's problems before you dated her, would you still choose to date her?

The Existential Hero -- Sisyphus, Father Paneloux, Frankl -- all rise above life's meaninglessness by a) facing that meaninglessness face on (the rock, the plague, the prison camp = death) , b) accepting it, and b) creating meaning and virtue where there is none...knowing full well this meaning is fleeting and will not last eternally.

Achilles As The Original, Prototypical Existential Hero
Homer's The Iliad, centers around Achilles' recognition that:
a) If he stays to fight against Troy he will surely die, and to die is to forsake the most valuable thing he will ever have, the one and only life we are ever given (more valuable, he tells us, than hot slave chicks or riches and gold).

b) If he chooses not to fight, he can return home and live a happy life into old age.

c) This choice is entirely his own. He is free to make it. He alone must choose.

d) But such a choice will determine more than his life; it will determine the war itself (whether the Acheaens or Trojans win) and his legacy -- how he is remembered by others, or whether he actually is remembered by others: to return home is to live, yes, but to live without honor, and to die in battle is to die, but to die as a hero and thus to define himself as a hero.

Unfortunately, perhaps like Hamlet, he chooses a bit late, reminding us that we are all condemned to choose, now. And so he learns, as we all do, that his choices also effect those he loves most.

Existential Hell, Existential Failure
In contrast, an "existential Hell", metaphorically speaking, is therefore a place where one is no longer free to choose one's own meaning. Existentialist failures are those who refuse to create their own meaning and instead blame others for their choices, paint themselves as "victims" of circumstance, and define themselves as others see them, rather than how they choose. These are the themes treated in Sartre's play, No Exit. Hell is not a place but a state of mind, one in which we do not accept and embrace responsibility for our own choices and accept our lives or circumstances as they are.

We can see Victor Frankenstein's Creature as an Existential failure -- or an Existential Monster -- because he allows others to define him, rather than defining himself or choosing a path that does not confirm the evil others associate with him: he fails, and his failure leads to suffering, because he adopts others' perception of him -- as monster -- as accurate. In Sartre and Camus' philosophy, there is no room for this type of justification or escape from responsibility. As Sartre says, "the alcoholic alone is responsible for his alcoholism" and cannot blame his childhood or genetics or fate etc.

Hamlet, and Hamlet, represent Existential tragedy; Hamlet is consumed by the larger Existential questions and unable to choose a course of action; he thinks, but he cannot act. His failure to act eventually destroys not only himself but all those he loves. His obsession with seeking answers to the big questions allow his immediate fate to get the better of him: "to be or not to be"; "alas poor Yorick"; failure of choice; the meaninglessness of romantic love (his mother kills his father and marries his uncle): Hamlet Waxes Existential

Similarly, in Beckett's Waiting For Godot and Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead the characters are caught in absurd hypothetical situations where they are always waiting for meaning to arrive (in the shape of Godot = God) or they waste their time trying to answer to the question "what does it all mean?"

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are, like Frankl and Sisyphus, caught in a situation they cannot act on or physically change: their fate is sealed because they are simply characters in a scripted play. Because of this, they cannot define themselves as Frankl and Sisyphus do. Logic and science do not help them answer the big questions, and yet they cannot help but ask them. They're situation is absurd (they exist inside a play; it is not realism/realistic) and represents a Postmodern Existential comedy. It's important to realize, though, that although their situation is absurd, hopeless, and eventually doomed, we learn much about our Existential questions by watching the play, or, from watching them play. Their purpose is lost on them, but not on us. They are Existential clowns in a Postmodern world. But perhaps laughing at life's absurdity is itself the logical, heroic, rational response.

Thus, hell is despair itself (or perhaps clinical depression). Hell is the failure to create meaning, to create moral or ethical values and then live in accord with them, or to confront the fact that others have created worlds that collide with ours and obliterate our attempts to live meaningfully. Thus, hell is ourselves, or hell is other people.

Source

 

[Vaibow]

lol, you "honestly" can't tell me Superman's arc? I get it with all of you toxic anti-DECU crowds, I truly do, but you need to start having some sort of semblance of reality with your "critiques" towards the movie you want to continually bash. I mean, denying that Superman has an arc in the movie is laughable at best. I don't even know where to go with this? And again, I get being smarmy against a movie you don't like(I do it too), but make some sense of it, if you're going to do it. Denying the reality of the situation is just nonsensical on your part.

or you could have just said what his arc was if it were so obvious to you.

from my limited understanding, superman was just wondering there were people that hated him.... whilst trying to scare off the batman from being so mean.

I loved MOS and i loved how bat fleck was portrayed in BvS but i wanted a proper MOS2 which this... wasn't.

 

[Vaibow]

Batman's arc was a classic revenge tragedy. Superman's arc was a classic existential hero arc.



Source

I swear to god you just do this kinda stuff to troll. You're on a fan forum and everything that is said by others, reasonable or not, it feels you take great pleasure in schooling them.

It's obvious you are a smart person, but hone your energy elsewhere - you're too good for this, seriously.

 

[misslane38]

I swear to god you just do this kinda stuff to troll. You're on a fan forum and everything that is said by others, reasonable or not, it feels you take great pleasure in schooling them.

It's obvious you are a smart person, but hone your energy elsewhere - you're too good for this, seriously.

Energy? Look, it's obvious you are a decent person, but you must have noted I just copied and pasted something someone else shared with me. I didn't write it; there's a link to the source. It is quite literally the least I could I could do.

I swear to god the knee jerk reaction to anything resembling nuance and critical thinking is treated with either indifference or contempt. Perhaps instead of telling people how they should spend their time or engage with people, you could hone your energy elsewhere.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

lol, you "honestly" can't tell me Superman's arc? I get it with all of you toxic anti-DECU crowds, I truly do, but you need to start having some sort of semblance of reality with your "critiques" towards the movie you want to continually bash. I mean, denying that Superman has an arc in the movie is laughable at best. I don't even know where to go with this? And again, I get being smarmy against a movie you don't like(I do it too), but make some sense of it, if you're going to do it. Denying the reality of the situation is just nonsensical on your part.

Agreed, Superman’s arc was quite clear in the movie to me. And personally I liked it.

 

[Nemeres]

Superman's arc is a bit of a mess and it's the reason it doesn't pack a bigger punch. It all seems to reach a climax with the "You are my world" moment. I really like that line, I think it's golden. It's him dying to save Lois -- but he would've done that at the beginning of the film, too. Yet throughout the film he's shown incapable of, or uninterested in, establishing connections w anyone else outside of his circle of two. So where's the arc? Would it also be his world w/o Lois? After a film full of the questioning, second-guessing and rejecting of Superman, it probably needs to be stressed that his commitment to a life of helping folks is less tenuous than one single frail person. And after making it a point to show that Superman is just one dead Lois away from going rogue, reinforcing that she's his one and only visible motivator keeps the door open on the reading that maybe he does have it in him to get that unstable... if. Maybe she is all that keeps him anchored, and connected, and engaged. Then he dies saving the world, and people do appreciate it. But going back to Jor-El's vote of confidence that he would inspire people, it's unsatisfying that the only way he could do that is apaprently by dying.

 

[Travesty]

or you could have just said what his arc was if it were so obvious to you.

Why is that my job, when someone has already denied an obvious arc to begin with? That's like me trying to teach an adult that 2+2=4. If you can't understand something so simple, it's beyond me to try and explain it to someone who obviously doesn't care, or is incapable of trying.

And that's not to say Superman had the best arc, or he had the most prominent arc, but to deny he had one, just to take a jab at the movie? lol, ok....

 

[Aurakles]

Clarks arc has him start out confident in himself and his role in the world. He believes that being Superman is morally right, that it helps people and makes the world a better place.

Luthor challenges that idea, he uses General Amajagh, Kahina, Keefe, Senator Finch, Batman etc to do this.
Luthor tries to convince Clark that wearing the cape and intervening in tragedies is actually making the world a worse place. Luthors finds those who have concerns about Superman and plays up their fears, uses them as weapons. He changes the worlds perception of Superman, has humanity question whether he is doing more harm than good.

Luthor, rather than just attacking Superman physically, attacks him mentally. Luthor makes Clark question whether he is doing any good, whether there's any point, whether being Superman is morally right.
And like most Luthor stories, he get Superman on the ropes, nearly wins the day, but in the end he loses.

Clark regains his belief that what he does is worthwhile, that he does have a place in the world, and that acting, that being Superman is morally right

 

[Vaibow]

Why is that my job, when someone has already denied an obvious arc to begin with? That's like me trying to teach an adult that 2+2=4. If you can't understand something so simple, it's beyond me to try and explain it to someone who obviously doesn't care, or is incapable of trying.

And that's not to say Superman had the best arc, or he had the most prominent arc, but to deny he had one, just to take a jab at the movie? lol, ok....

Well, just trying to have a flowing conversation really... i like your opinions on superman s you know your stuff... so asking what it was as it can more forward rather than - i know you are, but what am i, lol - playground stuff. I find it interesting again you had the opportunity to explain it, but didn't. Anyways, i think he didn't have the best arc, reason is because, at least in my mind, is it's so contrasting from MOS's ending and there is a lot the audience has to second guess - the arc isn't clear than being used as a plot device - the world doesn't know what to do with superman and therefore he doesn't know how to be in return - which is such a let down from the hopeful MOS ending, then walking out with him buried... that sucked.

Let's be honest, Clark doesn't say much in this film, he can talk, sure, but what is he saying. It just came across awkward.

So going back to the post, sure mate, it's not down to you to explain, but it wouldn't have hurt. Anyways, it's fair to say Snyder was never the director to give a fleshed out story, it always feels like a mega trailer - like stuff is missing. I liked the fact in MOS clark worked in a bar and the glances he gave the other bar staff was nice, but that whole scene was wasted as it wasn't fleshed out... same with on the fishing trawler - how cool would it have been with like a jaws moment, they all around a table, playing cards, drinking - except clark and one guy gives him a hard time and clark brushes it off, then next day, storm brewing, the mast falls and heading towards the guy who had beef with clark - yet clark instinctively saves him, without any grudges etc - it just gives weight to scenes. It's like Zak Snyder had the perfect movie in his head and was about 4 hours long lol, if that makes sense.

How do you see Superman moving forward post JL?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Clarks arc has him start out confident in himself and his role in the world. He believes that being Superman is morally right, that it helps people and makes the world a better place.

Luthor challenges that idea, he uses General Amajagh, Kahina, Keefe, Senator Finch, Batman etc to do this.
Luthor tries to convince Clark that wearing the cape and intervening in tragedies is actually making the world a worse place. Luthors finds those who have concerns about Superman and plays up their fears, uses them as weapons. He changes the worlds perception of Superman, has humanity question whether he is doing more harm than good.

Luthor, rather than just attacking Superman physically, attacks him mentally. Luthor makes Clark question whether he is doing any good, whether there's any point, whether being Superman is morally right.
And like most Luthor stories, he get Superman on the ropes, nearly wins the day, but in the end he loses.

Clark regains his belief that what he does is worthwhile, that he does have a place in the world, and that acting, that being Superman is morally right

Yep, the talk with Jonathan on the mountain top is a lot to do with this as well. The media/Lex focus make him question if it's all worth it, and makes him feel guilty about the people he can't/couldn't save. Lois is the key to dealing with all of that, just like Martha was for Jonathan and his nightmares. Clark accepts in the end that as long as he has Lois's love and approval, it IS all worth it.

 

[Vaibow]

 

[DACrowe]

So Dick Grayson is dead in this movie. Until he comes back as a serial killer to get Carrie Kelley in a Batman movie that'll never be made now. 'Tis surely a missed opportunity.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

So Dick Grayson is dead in this movie. Until he comes back as a serial killer to get Carrie Kelley in a Batman movie that'll never be made now. 'Tis surely a missed opportunity.

It's almost impressive how many bad ideas Snyder can have.

 

[InvisibleWoman]

Just having a Batman v Superman rewatch and I still think the opening 15 mins from where we see Bruce's parents get murdered to the attack on Metropolis from Bruce's perspective is some of the strongest visuals from any comic book movie ever. It's so powerful.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Just having a Batman v Superman rewatch and I still think the opening 15 mins from where we see Bruce's parents get murdered to the attack on Metropolis from Bruce's perspective is some of the strongest visuals from any comic book movie ever. It's so powerful.

I do love that moment, it puts a whole new perspective on the MOS final fight also.

 

[The Endless]

Yep, the talk with Jonathan on the mountain top is a lot to do with this as well. The media/Lex focus make him question if it's all worth it, and makes him feel guilty about the people he can't/couldn't save. Lois is the key to dealing with all of that, just like Martha was for Jonathan and his nightmares. Clark accepts in the end that as long as he has Lois's love and approval, it IS all worth it.

But then that creates the question... if he didn't have this connection with Lois... would he even give a **** about the world? It's like he's saving Earth simply because Lois lives on it.

 

[-JKR-]

Superman's arc is a bit of a mess and it's the reason it doesn't pack a bigger punch. It all seems to reach a climax with the "You are my world" moment. I really like that line, I think it's golden. It's him dying to save Lois -- but he would've done that at the beginning of the film, too. Yet throughout the film he's shown incapable of, or uninterested in, establishing connections w anyone else outside of his circle of two. So where's the arc? Would it also be his world w/o Lois? After a film full of the questioning, second-guessing and rejecting of Superman, it probably needs to be stressed that his commitment to a life of helping folks is less tenuous than one single frail person. And after making it a point to show that Superman is just one dead Lois away from going rogue, reinforcing that she's his one and only visible motivator keeps the door open on the reading that maybe he does have it in him to get that unstable... if. Maybe she is all that keeps him anchored, and connected, and engaged. Then he dies saving the world, and people do appreciate it. But going back to Jor-El's vote of confidence that he would inspire people, it's unsatisfying that the only way he could do that is apaprently by dying.

He's not. It's the people who are too scared to create a true connection to him. The whole point of the movie is: in cynical times like these... how the **** would the world REALLY react to a Superman. Especially after the destructive invasion in 'Man of Steel.'

How is this not really 'Man of Steel 2'? It IS 100%.

 

[misslane38]

But then that creates the question... if he didn't have this connection with Lois... would he even give a **** about the world? It's like he's saving Earth simply because Lois lives on it.

That's an incredibly cynical take on the idea that Lois is a source of inspiration for Superman. In the comics, specifically a story by Joe Kelly featuring Manchester Black called "Ending Battle," losing Lois doesn't change Superman. Her memory and her belief in Superman is something Superman honors even in her death. He is never broken.

Losing Lois doesn't make Superman turn on humanity. The only time that story has ever been played out is in elseworlds (and typically with added contributing factors too). The most mainstream version, however, took place in an episode of Bruce Timm's Superman: The Animated Series. His Superman became a dictator in an AU when Lois died ("Brave New Metropolis").

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

But then that creates the question... if he didn't have this connection with Lois... would he even give a **** about the world? It's like he's saving Earth simply because Lois lives on it.

He was saving people before he met Lois so I think he would. However Lois is the thing that helps him get over the feelings of guilt he has for the people he cannot save. The whole reason he gets depressed and questions his role in the world is because humanity (unbeknownst to Superman fuelled by Lex) questions and criticises him, if he didn’t care, he wouldn’t have got down and questioned himself in the first place. So yeah, I think he cares. By the end he just realises with Lois at his side those things won’t be a question for him anymore and the criticisms and guilt can be overcome.

He's not. It's the people who are too scared to create a true connection to him. The whole point of the movie is: in cynical times like these... how the **** would the world REALLY react to a Superman. Especially after the destructive invasion in 'Man of Steel.'

How is this not really 'Man of Steel 2'? It IS 100%.

agreed.

 

[unholyrevenger]

Losing Lois doesn't make Superman turn on humanity. The only time that story has ever been played out is in elseworlds (and typically with added contributing factors too). The most mainstream version, however, took place in an episode of Bruce Timm's Superman: The Animated Series. His Superman became a dictator in an AU when Lois died ("Brave New Metropolis").

They tell that story to in

 

[Aurakles]

I've always interpreted that Lois is symbolic. Clark doesn't believe she's the only good in the world, but she proves that it exists and can be found in others.
It's a little like how Silk Spectre makes Dr Manhattan see the value of human life.

 

[misslane38]

I've always interpreted that Lois is symbolic. Clark doesn't believe she's the only good in the world, but she proves that it exists and can be found in others.
It's a little like how Silk Spectre makes Dr Manhattan see the value of human life.

Reminds me of a quote from Kevin Smith's unused Superman Lives script:

Yes, I do it all for the multitude. But when I save lives, or fight for the weak, I’m saving one life, fighting for one person – again, and again, and again. It’s her – don’t you see? She represents all of them – their hopes, their fragility, their passion. And if I ever feel like no matter how much I do, it’s not enough, I think of Lois. And then, I’m off, faster than a speeding bullet to be Earth’s champion…but always hers first.

and this too...