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

[shauner111]

Because Batman now sees that Superman has a human mother, for whom he expressly cares, and whom he wishes to save even as he is about to die. For Batman the revelation is "This Superman is capable of compassion; he's not a heartless enemy of the human species." People either have a conscience, and care about others, or they do not. If Superman cares about his human mother, then it follows through understanding of the human mind that he cares about other human beings, too.

If Walter White or Tony Soprano were faced with a spear, and either Walt Jr or Antony/Meadow were held hostage...i guarantee they would yell out their names and ask the psycho to think about his kid. That another baddie was playing them both and that his kid is in danger. But does that mean Walt/Tony deserves to be let off the hook if the Batman still believes they can ruin multiple lives in their city?? Being capable of compassion doesn't mean much when you take into account what Batman thinks he knows or believes when it comes to Superman. He's not a heartless enemy of the human species because he loves ONE human? That's ridiculous! Like i said, in this movie 1 % = 100 %. It's hilarious.

If you think that if a human being cares about one person, then it means that they care about other humans....all i have to say is...you need to study more or involve yourself with more human beings. Because that's not how it automatically works. A suicidal person who is ready to bomb an entire school or kill off as many people as possible, along with their own life, could have compassion for family members and just make sure he doesn't take them with him. Come on, be realistic here.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

In the theatrical cut there is zero hints of this. As far as we know Clark doesn't know his history. All he did was get some photos brought to him of dead prisoners with a bat symbol branded on their skin. Judge. Jury. Executioner.

If you want to go by information that doesn't exist within the film, there's a manual or whatever it is that says Batman has been an urban legend for 20 years. That nobody has a clear shot of him or his batmobile. Where are the good stories other than some violent acts?

Clark is going to be 100 percent sure that Batman rescued his mother, and he's not even gonna go with him to make sure they get her in time? Or make sure Batman actually follows through with his untrustworthy word?

BAD. WRITING. Nearly every scene has it.

Again, not impossible to believe that there have been some stories over the years of Batman's exploits and Clark has heard some of them. For you, you need to actually see Clark reading about this type of story or hearing about it in some manner so it doesn't work for you. Urban legends are built on stories, that's how they become urban legends. Some could be true, some could be false but they would be out there. I choose to just not rule it out(these stories existing and Clark hearing about them).

 

[Sleiek]

I wonder how many complained about these. Batfleck blowing up the vehicles (the worst he did) was no worse than any of these.

BATMAN Killcount
[YT]psVIG7YvdjM[/YT]

The Dark Knight Series Killcount
[YT]T0kmVEjPKKM[/YT]

I think it is hilarious, right off the bat (pun intended), Bale Bat says he will not become an executioner but blows up the League's home in the next 5 minutes. Yet, people are fine with that because he didn't kill that farmer (?).

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I wonder how many of you complained about these

BATMAN Killcount
[YT]psVIG7YvdjM[/YT]

The Dark Knight Series Killcount
[YT]T0kmVEjPKKM[/YT]

I think it is hilarious, right off the bat (pun intended), Bale Bat says he will not become an executioner but goes on to blow up the League's home. Yet, people are fine with that because he didn't kill that farmer.

Anyone that has a problem with Batman killing in BvS should have a problem with Batman killing in every live action film except Batman & Robin. In the TDK trilogy, with his no killing rule, he could have saved Ra's and chooses not to(so he doesn't explicitly kill him but just lets him die, not very heroic to me), he is responsible for Harvey's death and Talia's death.

 

[shauner111]

He doesn't directly kill anyone. Just like the Nolan Batman trilogy. That is good enough for me.

And oh, thank you for calling us crazy.

Were you watching the same movie buddy? He directly kills all the thugs with his batwing. He kills a bunch of people in the batmobile chase, drags them around to make sure they're dead, and drops their car ontop of another. Bale's Batman killed people but it was manslaughter, it either by accident or it was done to save an innocent (like when Batfleck saves Martha in that room). He was not a sadistic murderer like this version. Batfleck DIRECTLY killed a LOT of people.

Anyone that has a problem with Batman killing in BvS should have a problem with Batman killing in every live action film except Batman & Robin. In the TDK trilogy, with his no killing rule, he could have saved Ra's and chooses not to(so he doesn't explicitly kill him but just lets him die, not very heroic to me), he is responsible for Harvey's death and Talia's death.

You mean he's responsible for saving a boys life (Harvey) and an entire cities life (Talia)? Could he have saved Ras? Sure. But he didn't put him on that train. It was a suicide mission. Batman saved the city and made sure Ras went down by himself, since Ras wanted to go down with innocent lives.

 

[The Joker]

I wonder how many complained about these. Batfleck blowing up the vehicles (the worst he did) was no worse than any of these.

BATMAN Killcount
[YT]psVIG7YvdjM[/YT]

The Dark Knight Series Killcount
[YT]T0kmVEjPKKM[/YT]

I think it is hilarious, right off the bat (pun intended), Bale Bat says he will not become an executioner but blows up the League's home in the next 5 minutes. Yet, people are fine with that because he didn't kill that farmer (?).

People are fine about them because they were not executions. He didn't try or intend to blow up the LOS. He created a distraction to escape. It wasn't an inescapable doom trap to kill everyone otherwise he'd have been screwing himself over, too. They all had ample chance to get out. He did, and carrying an unconscious Ra's, too. But they decide to stay and try and fight him, in spite of the obvious growing danger. They killed themselves.

Bruce saved the one person who was incapable of saving himself - Ra's. Compare that to Batfleck on his murder spree in his Batmobile and Batwing. Branding crooks to be killed in jail etc.

 

[Sleiek]

Were you watching the same movie buddy? He directly kills all the thugs with his batwing. He kills a bunch of people in the batmobile chase, drags them around to make sure they're dead, and drops their car ontop of another. Bale's Batman killed people but it was manslaughter, it either by accident or it was done to save an innocent (like when Batfleck saves Martha in that room). He was not a sadistic murderer like this version. Batfleck DIRECTLY killed a LOT of people.

You mean he's responsible for saving a boys life (Harvey) and an entire cities life (Talia)? Could he have saved Ras? Sure. But he didn't put him on that train. It was a suicide mission. Batman saved the city and made sure Ras went down by himself, since Ras wanted to go down with innocent lives.

Can you skip to 1:40 in The Dark Knight video I linked above, please? I wonder whether you consider that an accident or to save an innocent.

 

[Vortigern99]

That doesn't make one iota of a difference. How does this make Superman any less of the potential threat Batman previously thought he was? He had a human mother in MOS during the Zod fight. Did that make any difference there to the destruction caused and the lives lost? No.

So what's to stop that kind of thing from happening again. Nothing. Hence why the Martha moment is so idiotic.

Here's the difference: Batman didn't know about Martha Kent during the Zod fight. He realizes in the "Martha" moment that he had the alien all wrong. "This person has compassion for human beings, which I didn't know before."

Yes it is stupid. Incredibly stupid.

In your subjective opinion. You're welcome to it, but it's not a factual conclusion based on material evidence. It's your personal emotional response.

You BvS defenders need to come up with a new line besides accusing people of not understanding this absurdly stupid movie. There's a reason why that Martha scene is one of the most mocked things in a CBM, and it's got nothing to do with a huge mass case of people not understanding it.

You BvS detractors need to come up with a new line besides hating the movie for stuff that is cogently explained through action and dialogue that you evidently missed.

And he still thinks that way. That's why he took on Watchmen. He said that was more his "scene".



The reason he took on MOS is because Chris Nolan had to convince him to do it in the first place,;

http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/zack-snyder-talks-serious-man-of-steel-and-why-he-took-the-job/

Snyder was like one of the last choices in a long list of directors Nolan wanted for the job. What does Superman rescuing people in this film have to do with the point I made?

I was addressing the "filled with sex and murder" slam. This movie is not filled with sex and murder, it's filled with rescue and self-sacrifice. Yes, criminals die, unfortunately. But it's not murder to apply lethal force to someone trying to kill you, which is what Batman is compelled to do. Nor is there any sex, beyond the implication that Clark and Lois are lovers in the bathtub scene. I found that scene quite tasteful and descriptive of character. To you, apparently, it supports your contention that Snyder wants comic books to be filled with sex and murder. Hoooookay.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Were you watching the same movie buddy? He directly kills all the thugs with his batwing.

Bale's Batman killed people but it was manslaughter, it either by accident or it was done to save an innocent

And Affleck Batman killed people because he was being shot at first by heavy powered artillery and needed to save an innocent life.

He kills a bunch of people in the batmobile chase, drags them around to make sure they're dead, and drops their car ontop of another

Show me the dead bodies. I could just as easily say they were severely hurt but not killed.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

You mean he's responsible for saving a boys life (Harvey) and an entire cities life (Talia)? Could he have saved Ras? Sure. But he didn't put him on that train. It was a suicide mission. Batman saved the city and made sure Ras went down by himself, since Ras wanted to go down with innocent lives.

You mean Affleck was responsible for saving an innocent woman's life?

I've heard people say he should have found a way to not kill those people before saving Martha. So I will say he should have found a way to save the boy, Harvey, the city and Talia without killing anyone.

 

[shauner111]

I would think the fact that Batman just defeated Superman would be testament enough to his skills being sufficient to the task. If this guy can defeat a Kryptonian in hand-to-hand combat (with the aid of the green glowy stuff, natch), then surely he can take on Lex's goons and save Mom. Also, Clark already knows about Batman's expertise in buttkickery from articles about the branding. It is well and widely known that he's more than a match for criminals, that is made abundantly clear in the early portions of the film. "BAD. WRITING" = "DIDN'T. PAY. ATTENTION."

I payed attention. It's just not well executed or written.

I never said Batman can't take care of criminals. Read with more attention next time. This has nothing to do with Batman's skills or how he can get a job done. It's about Superman relying on Batman's word after he just tried to kill him, had a breakdown over a name, and already has a history with killing, being irrational, being reckless.

Bale's Batman killed people but it was manslaughter, it either by accident or it was done to save an innocent

And Affleck Batman killed people because he was being shot at first by heavy powered artillery and needed to save an innocent life.



Show me the dead bodies. I could just as easily say they were severely hurt but not killed.

They are dead. Even if they weren't, Affleck intended on killing them. It's clear as day. That's the point. MURDER with intent. Not death because of an accident or to save a life.

Keep reaching to make your defenses stronger. They're getting weaker by the post.

Batman doesn't kill thugs because he's getting shot at lol. Read a Batman comic please. Im not sure if you have.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Because Batman now sees that Superman has a human mother, for whom he expressly cares, and whom he wishes to save even as he is about to die. For Batman the revelation is "This Superman is capable of compassion; he's not a heartless enemy of the human species." People either have a conscience, and care about others, or they do not. If Superman cares about his human mother, then it follows through understanding of the human mind that he cares about other human beings, too.

Which is, of course, ridiculous. Plenty of evil people and characters are capable of compassion. Joffrey Baratheon loved his 'father' too. Does that make him a morale character?

 

[The Joker]

Here's the difference: Batman didn't know about Martha Kent during the Zod fight. He realizes in the "Martha" moment that he had the alien all wrong. "This person has compassion for human beings, which I didn't know before."

This Batman must be even more stupid than we gave him credit for. Or did he just conveniently miss the plethora of media documented examples of Superman saving lives all over the world all the time.

In your subjective opinion. You're welcome to it, but it's not a factual conclusion based on material evidence. It's your personal emotional response.

Based on emotional response? You're not talking to Batfleck here It's based on factual evidence as presented in the movie. That's why it's so easy to rip apart. That's why it's ripped apart so much. It's not conjured out of thin air. But it's easier for you to think so many people just "didn't get it". The lowest common denominator of argument.

You BvS detractors need to come up with a new line besides hating the movie for stuff that is cogently explained through action and dialogue that you evidently missed.

Sorry we're not into seeing things that are not there

I was addressing the "filled with sex and murder" slam. This movie is not filled with sex and murder, it's filled with rescue and self-sacrifice. Yes, criminals die, unfortunately. But it's not murder to apply lethal force to someone trying to kill you, which is what Batman is compelled to do. Nor is there any sex, beyond the implication that Clark and Lois are lovers in the bathtub scene. I found that scene quite tasteful and descriptive of character. To you, apparently, it supports your contention that Snyder wants comic books to be filled with sex and murder. Hoooookay.

I didn't say his movies was filled with sex and murder. I said that's what Snyder said about comics. That's what gravitated him to directing Watchmen, because it was in his own words more his scene. This is how the guy thinks. That's why he makes the moronically bad decisions he makes. From killing off Olsen, to making Batman Rorschach v2.0. only with even less intelligence.

Yes, it is murder to apply lethal force when you don't need to. Batman was not in any direct danger from the comfort zone of his Batmobile or Batwing. Nor is he when he's branding criminals to be killed in prison. Batman, as well as every hero, are always having their lives put in danger. That's routine. They don't need to stack up a body count to get the job done. None of the instances in this movie validated Batman having to take a life, except MAYBE the flamethrower guy about to roast Martha.

 

[shauner111]

Can you skip to 1:40 in The Dark Knight video I linked above, please? I wonder whether you consider that an accident or to save an innocent.

Harvey or Talia? He killed Harvey not because he wanted to, it was to save Gordon's son. He kills Talia's driver because he has to save millions of lives. This is why im fine with Batfleck killing KGBEAST. However, im not fine with the rest because it's straight up execution. Batman should be Batman. Punisher should be Punisher. ETC. When you take away their code, their individuality, you make them less interesting. You turn them into another character. Batman becomes just another action hero or anti hero.

 

[Sleiek]

They are dead. Even if they weren't, Affleck intended on killing them. It's clear as day. That's the point. MURDER with intent. Not death because of an accident or to save a life.

Keep reaching to make your defenses stronger. They're getting weaker by the post.

Batman doesn't kill thugs because he's getting shot at lol. Read a Batman comic please. Im not sure if you have.

Thugs use Tumbler missiles at Batman and Batman plays "catch me if you can" and uses the same missile to take down the thugs. Batman uses the Bat's bullets and grenades to take down Talia's armored truck killing the driver and it was neither an accident or with an intention to save an innocent. I wonder what you feel about these scenes.

Harvey or Talia? He killed Harvey not because he wanted to, it was to save Gordon's son. He kills Talia's driver because he has to save millions of lives. This is why im fine with Batfleck killing KGBEAST. However, im not fine with the rest because it's straight up execution. Batman should be Batman. Punisher should be Punisher. ETC. When you take away their code, their individuality, you make them less interesting. You turn them into another character. Batman becomes just another action hero or anti hero.

Oh come on, if Batman needs to kill a driver to stop a goddamn truck then Batfleck can kill the thugs shooting back at him with machine guns in order to gain entry into the warehouse. If you give a free pass to one of them, then it is only fair to give another free pass.

 

[Vortigern99]

If Walter White or Tony Soprano were faced with a spear, and either Walt Jr or Antony/Meadow were held hostage...i guarantee they would yell out their names and ask the psycho to think about his kid. That another baddie was playing them both and that his kid is in danger. But does that mean Walt/Tony deserves to be let off the hook if the Batman still believes they can ruin multiple lives in their city?? Being capable of compassion doesn't mean much when you take into account what Batman thinks he knows or believes when it comes to Superman. He's not a heartless enemy of the human species because he loves ONE human? That's ridiculous! Like i said, in this movie 1 % = 100 %. It's hilarious.

If you think that if a human being cares about one person, then it means that they care about other humans....all i have to say is...you need to study more or involve yourself with more human beings. Because that's not how it automatically works. A suicidal person who is ready to bomb an entire school or kill off as many people as possible, along with their own life, could have compassion for family members and just make sure he doesn't take them with him. Come on, be realistic here.

Thanks for the advice. After studying this question a great deal in recent months, pursuant to a novel I happen to be writing, I'm certain it's you who have it wrong. I can't address Walter White or Tony Soprano because they're fictional characters, not living human beings. BvS aside for a moment, I'm talking here about actual human psychology, not what we imagine an invented character might do in a given fictive circumstance.

People are either sociopaths -- meaning they lack empathy or respect for other people's feelings -- or they are not. Obviously there is a spectrum of variation between the "either/or", in which a person might have a highly developed sense of empathy for his children or parents, but lack that for strangers. But that person (who has empathy for a relative) cannot also be a psychopath who wants to destroy others. Sociopathy and psychopathy (really two words for the same phenomenon, or different degrees thereof) simply do not work like that. They are inborn conditions.

Returning to BvS and the "Martha" moment, the instant Batman registers that this is a being who has the capacity to love, he realizes that he cannot also be a psychopath intent on destroying the world. You're welcome to continue disagreeing, but my research into this condition makes me secure in my position.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Keep reaching to make your defenses stronger. They're getting weaker by the post.

Batman doesn't kill thugs because he's getting shot at lol. Read a Batman comic please. Im not sure if you have.

I've read plenty of Batman comics but I am willing to grant some flexibility with these characters depending on the situation. I never bought into no killing no matter what situation.

 

[The Joker]

Which is, of course, ridiculous. Plenty of evil people and characters are capable of compassion. Joffrey Baratheon loved his 'father' too. Does that make him a morale character?

Excellent point

Thugs use Tumbler missiles at Batman and Batman plays "catch me if you can" and uses the same missile to take down the thugs. Batman uses the Bat's bullets and grenades to take down Talia's armored truck killing the driver and it was neither an accident or with an intention to save an innocent. I wonder what you feel about these scenes.

With minutes on the clock to stop a bomb that would nuke the whole city and kill millions. You tell me what should he have done in that situation? Asked Talia to politely pull over, tell her Tumblers to back off, and let him take the bomb?

What non lethal alternative did he have in that situation? Paint me a picture. Then try and paint one where Batfleck's actions were the only course of action he could have taken. Describe to me how Batman can't take on some gun toting thugs without killing them.

 

[Flint Marko]

This whole thing where people keep "randomly" pulling up old Snyder quotes and broadly interpreting them or simply willfully misinterpreting the actual text of what he is quoted to have said and then whining about that is getting to be a bit much.

I'm also getting pretty tired of the knocks about “13 year old sensibilities” if someone has stated they like to explore darker or more violent aspects of characters, etc. It’s an offensive and ultimately meaningless comment to make. What, someone has to be a certain age to like certain concepts? That's beyond ignorant.

What would that make the sensibilities of someone who wants characters or a specific character to be warm, caring and kind most of the time? 7 or 8 years old? Naïive?

Come on, people. Enough with this kind of thing.

Hmmmm..

I had a buddy who tried getting me into ”normal” comic books, but I was all like, ”No one is having sex or killing each other. This isn’t really doing it for me.” I was a little broken, that way. So when Watchmen came along, I was, ”This is more my scene.”

For context, he dropped this gem when asked how long he was into comics and starts discussing how his mom encouraged him to do "inappropriate" things and used to teach him how to toilet-paper other people's houses and such because she was a "cool" mom. I'm not joking.

He continues later on:

Everyone says that about [Christopher Nolan’s] Batman Begins. ”Batman’s dark.” I’m like, okay, ”No, Batman’s cool.” He gets to go to a Tibetan monastery and be trained by ninjas. Okay? I want to do that. But he doesn’t, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that’s how that would go.

Feel free to point out how I'm "willfully misinterpreting" anything he's saying here.
If none of that strikes you as something that can reasonably be called a 13 year old boy's idea of "cool", then you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Because Batman now sees that Superman has a human mother, for whom he expressly cares, and whom he wishes to save even as he is about to die. For Batman the revelation is "This Superman is capable of compassion; he's not a heartless enemy of the human species." People either have a conscience, and care about others, or they do not. If Superman cares about his human mother, then it follows through understanding of the human mind that he cares about other human beings, too.

That realization dawning, coupled with Bruce's own feelings of failure
for not being able to make much difference after all, leads him to see that at least he can save this Martha.



It's not "stupid"; you personally don't like it or understand it or appreciate it. There is a distinction.



Snyder was like 13 when he thought that. MoS and BvS are not filled with "sex and murder". Did you blink and miss all the rescuing Superman does in this film? Did you head out for a smoke during the part where he sacrifices his own life to save the world from Doomsday?

I think Bruce blinked and missed all the rescuing Superman has done post MoS if he needed the Martha scene to realise that Superman is capable of compassion.

 

[shauner111]

Thugs use Tumbler missiles at Batman and Batman plays "catch me if you can" and uses the same missile to take down the thugs. Batman uses the Bat's bullets and grenades to take down Talia's armored truck killing the driver and it was neither an accident or with an intention to save an innocent. I wonder what you feel about these scenes.



Oh come on, if Batman needs to kill a driver to stop a goddamn truck then Batfleck can kill the thugs with machine guns outside in order to gain entry into the warehouse. If you give a free pass to one of them, then it is only fair to give another free pass.

How you can compare the two makes me laugh. I have happiness in my belly right now!

Ticking clock. Minutes away from an entire city being turned into ash, including himself, millions of lives, and suicidal terrorists. A real bomb. It's going to happen. Batman kills a driver so he can take control of the bomb himself. Saving how many? Hmm.

Now, let's compare that to Batfleck being shot at by thugs, with just one lady in a warehouse. This kinda thing is what Batman does night in, night out. With fists, gadgets. He could easily drop some rubber bullets on them outside the warehouse, or i don't know, dodge them with his batwing? He kills them because it's easy, they're in his way, he's a killer, that's the end of that. Unnecessary.

How you can even compare the two, and ask me why Batman shouldn't kill those thugs, makes me wonder if you read Batman comics. Like, at all.

 

[Sleiek]

How you can compare the two makes me laugh. I have happiness in my belly right now!

Ticking clock. Minutes away from an entire city being turned into ash, including himself, millions of lives, and suicidal terrorists. A real bomb. It's going to happen. Batman kills a driver so he can take control of the bomb himself. Saving how many? Hmm.

Now, let's compare that to Batfleck being shot at by thugs, with just one lady in a warehouse. This kinda thing is what Batman does night in, night out. With fists, gadgets. He could easily drop some rubber bullets on them outside the warehouse, or i don't know, dodge them with his batwing? He kills them because it's easy, they're in his way, he's a killer, that's the end of that. Unnecessary.

How you can even compare the two, and ask me why Batman shouldn't kill those thugs, makes me wonder if you read Batman comics. Like, at all.

I am not saying Batman should kill those thugs, I just don't see much difference between that and what we get in other cinematic Batman iterations.

Just like you are having a laugh, I am also having a laugh about why you think Batman needs to kill someone to stop a goddamn truck. The bomb is ticking, we get it. You see, I don't have a problem with any of it. I just don't get why one gets a free pass. He didn't need to kill the driver just like he didn't need to kill those thugs.

I feel really bad for these truck drivers. They have a family, you know, just like those thugs. I feel especially bad for the garbage truck driver in the underpass in The DARK KNIGHT.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

I think Bruce blinked and missed all the rescuing Superman has done post MoS if he needed the Martha scene to realise that Superman is capable of compassion.

Well, to be fair if you blinked during the movie you probably missed that, too.

 

[shauner111]

Thanks for the advice. After studying this question a great deal in recent months, pursuant to a novel I happen to be writing, I'm certain it's you who have it wrong. I can't address Walter White or Tony Soprano because they're fictional characters, not living human beings. BvS aside for a moment, I'm talking here about actual human psychology, not what we imagine an invented character might do in a given fictive circumstance.

People are either sociopaths -- meaning they lack empathy or respect for other people's feelings -- or they are not. Obviously there is a spectrum of variation between the "either/or", in which a person might have a highly developed sense of empathy for his children or parents, but lack that for strangers. But that person (who has empathy for a relative) cannot also be a psychopath who wants to destroy others. Sociopathy and psychopathy (really two words for the same phenomenon, or different degrees thereof) simply do not work like that. They are inborn conditions.

Returning to BvS and the "Martha" moment, the instant Batman registers that this is a being who has the capacity to love, he realizes that he cannot also be a psychopath intent on destroying the world. You're welcome to continue disagreeing, but my research into this condition makes me secure in my position.

Superman can care for a family member, for their safety, well-being, and still put other lives in danger. Still kill other humans that aren't his mother.

This was also another fictional character. Superman is not even human. Which is why i compared this situation to other fictional characters. Characters that were written as human beings with flaws, but who care for other human beings in their life. They can still cause damage, still kill people, kill strangers, even have the ability to kill other family members. You can love your mother and kill your brother. This is fact. Batman doesn't know if Superman is a sociopath, a psychopath, he doesn't know anything other than he seems to care about his mother. An alien who STILL has the ability to directly or indirectly light the earth on fire.

 

[AndrewOz]

Ah well, different horses for different courses. I like the two note, but my favourite part of The Dark Knight suite is, as I say, Like a Dog Chasing Cars, which I believe Zimmer himself considers to be the Batman 'theme' from his movies. This section just about makes me tear up every time I hear it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox7S0Nttbh0&t=2m35s

I explained it this way to someone who was claiming all detractors simply couldn't understand the movie and if they could comprehend it properly, everyone would love it: it's not that the supporters see/understand something the rest of us don't. It's that the level of complexity and competence required of the filmmakers to pass your standard for the suspension of disbelief are lower than ours.
We understand it fine. We just think it's stupid. Because our standards are higher. Which is ironic, as their justification is that this film is meant to challenge us.
To take it further, a child may find basic arithmetic complex and confusing and believe they have discovered something profound when it clicks into place for them. Imagine them explaining the complexity of basic mathematics to someone well versed in calculus. They would be puzzled and angered by the bemusement apparent in their audience and likely decry it with "you just don't understand how deep and complex and profound this is".
There's nothing profound in the bizarre ghost dad scene. Jonathan is simply saying that every time you save something you love, you destroy something someone else loves. Like a city, or people for example. And the best way to deal with any guilt over collateral damage is to take lead from Peaches and **** the pain away.
They may think they were trying to be profound, but strip it down and that's as basic as it gets.
That's to be expected when you superficially explore concepts that have been fleshed out to far greater depths in the comics, such as what consequences ensue when Superman meddles in world affairs even with the best intentions. Such as when Azzarello took him to Africa. It's why trying to cram multiple works into one movie make it appear shallow and muddled.
Or Perhaps the best summation of this movies problems are this: ‘An intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius––and a lot of courage––to move in the opposite direction.’
Now we can hope WB can demonstrate a touch enough of courage and genius to save the JL