All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 4

[Flint Marko]

They key word is SOLVE. The violence won't solve the problem. When violence happens, it usually is indicative that attempts to resolve a problem have broken down and people are now only interested in gaining dominance with one side subdued. It makes sense that friends would fight or be in conflict if their emotions get the better of them or because one becomes convinced that the other person needs to be stopped, but the violence itself can't solve the problem.

For Superman and Batman, a conflict over ideologies cannot be solved with violence, and if they resort to violence it suggests that one or both has become either corrupted or pushed beyond their normal status quo. If they were in their normal state as friends and had their typical philosophies, then where does that leave them after their fight? If they can't change who they are, then the cycle of violence would only repeat.

Even then, you're wrong. Saying that close friends wouldn't resort to violence to solve a problem? What are you even basing this on? Again, you are making broad statements about human behavior that aren't rooted in anything.

More importantly, at what point in Civil War is violence proposed or initiated as the ultimate solution to all problems?

This is getting off topic and out of hand.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

It really says a lot about a Cinematic universe when I was more sad when Yondu died than when Superman did. Seriously. Both appeared in two movies but I was affected more with Yondu’s death, mainly because he was willing to die to protect his surrogate son. Superman’s death felt tacked on. Okay, sure, Superman fought to protect the world, I guess, but narratively, it just felt so forced. Big reason? Doomsday came out from nowhere to drag the plot even further. And Superman ‘s death had no meaning. What makes it even worse is that we know he’ll be back. No way the DCEU has the bravery to permanently kill off its most important character.

 

[misslane38]

That right there is ridiculous. Close friends with a history wouldn't resort to violence to solve a conflict? Based on what? Not the real world, which you love to bring up. Close friends fight all the time. And you know that domestic violence is a real thing, right?

I know domestic violence is a thing. I'm saying that there is more mythic weight and value in a superhero story about two strangers fighting over a misunderstanding that leads to forgiveness, acceptance, and enlightenment rather than two old friends using violence to solve problems. Domestic violence doesn't solve problems; it doesn't resolve conflict. And, ultimately, despite the despicable nature of both violence against an "other" and violence against a friend, violence against someone one is supposed to love is a lot less sympathetic.

Even though Bruce is obviously irrational and in the wrong when he attacks Superman in BvS, I can sympathize with the fact that from his point of view, he's trying to save the world. A man or woman who abuses his or her partner, however, is not lashing out of love or protectiveness. It is naked anger and a need for control. It's manipulative. Violence within a relationship is banking on the abused partner continuing to endure the violence as a result of codependence, gaslighting, and manipulation. It's toxic and twisted love. There's no mythic weight or power to that sort of violence between superfriends in a superhero story.

In a superhero story dealing with heroes battling between good and evil, I can see the value in telling a story about how trauma creates the fear and powerlessness that fuels aggression towards a scapegoated other. Because there's a way forward from that sort of violence that adds to the conversation about good versus evil and other existential questions. When superheroes with longstanding relationships lash out at each other, though, what is the lesson? That superheroes believe they can solve ideological conflicts with violence? Might makes right?

 

[misslane38]

Even then, you're wrong. Saying that close friends wouldn't resort to violence to solve a problem? What are you even basing this on? Again, you are making broad statements about human behavior that aren't rooted in anything.

I'm saying two close friends who are supposed to be heroes wouldn't use violence to solve problems. I'm not discounting human behavior; I'm discounting what sort of human behavior has value in a story about superheroes like Batman and Superman fighting.

More importantly, at what point in Civil War is violence proposed or initiated as the ultimate solution to all problems?

I never made any statements about Civil War, so I don't know where this question is coming from.

 

[misslane38]

Good heavens, why do you even like superheroes? All they do is solve problems with their fists.

Superheroes fight villains who are beyond reason. They are not perpetually fighting their friends who are supposed to be the good guys.

If you like the PTSD angle so much, Batman can suffer from it in my hypothetical movie and it could compel him to fight Superman in some way.

I like the PTSD angle to explain how Batman could convince himself he needs to fight a stranger, Superman, to make his life worth something. I don't like the PTSD angle if Batman and Superman already have decades of friendship under their belts. Because, if that's the case, Superman should be helping his friend cope with his mental illness before it even gets to a point where Batman feels he has no other choice than to attack his beloved friend.

I'm not a screenwriter so I don't have to come up with a plot that would satisfy you. However, Civil War had Tony and Cap fighting in spite of knowing one another so start there.

I know, and I hated it.

There's no evidence that Snyder's Batman is suffering from a mental illness. Or if he is, this particular version is carrying a heavier weight than every version of the character shown to date. Again, this is your head canon and you are welcome to it. But don't be disappointed if others can't follow along with your personal fan fiction. And I never "kid".
(Jk!)

It's not fanfiction. I'm a licensed counselor with a M.S. in Counseling Psychology. I know how to diagnose PTSD. Bruce meets all the criteria for a complex PTSD diagnosis in BvS. Snyder's version of the character is carrying a heavier weight compared to other versions because of the context of his trauma. Not only is Bruce continuing to cope with the original trauma of his parents' deaths, but he his retraumatized during the Black Zero Event when mankind is introduced to the Superman. These two traumas are compounded by Bruce's recent loss of his sidekick, Robin. He is tormented by nightmares, he is isolating himself, lying to those closest to him, he's abusing drugs and alcohol, and he expresses suicidal thoughts. This isn't fanfiction. This is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

A thesis is an argument that can be proven true or false. The opinion I presented did not have this quality. I am not making youe point for you. But I doubt you will see it.

No, it's not. I tutor students in literature and composition, and plenty of them write thesis statements as part of a literary analysis, which do not have to fit into true or false paradigms.

You’re comparing real people, actual heroes who sacrificed their lives and made a tangible difference in the real world, to a fictional character’s sacrifice for a world that doesn’t exist.

I don’t know if you think this helped your case but it absolutely 100% did not. At all.

I see the problem now. You think fiction and reality function in totally different ways. I do not see things that way. Many filmmakers don't either. Indeed, since it's awards season, I've been watching several panels and roundtables with filmmakers, and you'd be astonished how many of them talk about the value of art being found in its ability to reflect truths in the real world. If you cannot even engage with storytelling on that most basic level, Flint Marko, then what is the purpose of art and film at all for you? Wish-fulfillment?

If I don’t care about a character, I’m not going to care how and why they died. Period, end of statement. It’s a mind-numbingly simple concept to understand.

And what's even more mind-numbing is the fact that you don't seem to be capable of acknowledging that one can empathize and feel for someone you don't know. It's mind-numbing to see someone so disengaged from the complexities of storytelling that the idea of caring about his death from the standpoint of those for whom he died is incomprehensible.

Do you actually think it was the film-maker's intention to make audience's feel cold and distant to Superman? That's.... beyond terrible. I don't think much of Snyder and the other story-tellers but even I don't think they're capable of something so moronic.

No, I don't think it was their intention. I'm saying that, even if feeling for the character didn't work for you, the symbolic nature of his death is more than enough to generate an emotional response.

Moreover, I never felt I truly knew or understood their world. Why would I care that he saved the world? Did he even really save the world? Didn’t he only do it for Lois? Was Doomsday actually going to destroy the planet? Couldn’t Wonder Woman have done exactly what Superman did without the threat of kryptonite weakening her?

You didn't understand their world? Their world is a close facsimile to our world. Didn't you see it? He saved the world, yes, absolutely. If he hadn't risked his life to kill Doomsday with the kryptonite spear, then Doomsday would have kept on killing and destroying. Superman didn't sacrifice his life for Lois. That's ridiculous. He said two things before he died: This is my world. You are my world. He died to save the world both in the abstract and in the specific. He did it for us; he did it for Lois. If he just wanted to save Lois, then he could have flown her out of there and shielded her from Doomsday's wrath until the end of all things, but that's not what he did, is it?

 

[Whatupman]

I know domestic violence is a thing. I'm saying that there is more mythic weight and value in a superhero story about two strangers fighting over a misunderstanding that leads to forgiveness, acceptance, and enlightenment rather than two old friends using violence to solve problems. Domestic violence doesn't solve problems; it doesn't resolve conflict. And, ultimately, despite the despicable nature of both violence against an "other" and violence against a friend, violence against someone one is supposed to love is a lot less sympathetic.
Even though Bruce is obviously irrational and in the wrong when he attacks Superman in BvS, I can sympathize with the fact that from his point of view, he's trying to save the world.

I love how you built up your preferred version as this epic thing and then dismissed the other version as just two old friends using violence to solve problems. You realize that you could just as easily flip those two so it becomes a story about two old friends fighting over different ideologies that leads to forgiveness, acceptance and enlightenment versus a story about two strangers using violence to solve their problems? Which one sounds more appealing? So, wait, violence against friends doesn't solve anything, but violence against strangers do? Huh. And if you can sympathize with Bruce trying to murder a stranger, just because that from Bruce's point of view, he's trying to save the world, couldn't you also sympathize with Bruce if he was attacking a friend in the belief that he was saving the world?

In a superhero story dealing with heroes battling between good and evil, I can see the value in telling a story about how trauma creates the fear and powerlessness that fuels aggression towards a scapegoated other. Because there's a way forward from that sort of violence that adds to the conversation about good versus evil and other existential questions. When superheroes with longstanding relationships lash out at each other, though, what is the lesson? That superheroes believe they can solve ideological conflicts with violence? Might makes right?

You can't find a lesson(I don't even know why you need a lesson in the first place) in a story about two friends who's different ideologies push them to become violent and then realize how far they fallen and try to make amends for the mistakes that they have made? No lesson there at all?

 

[Whatupman]

I see the problem now. You think fiction and reality function in totally different ways. I do not see things that way. Many filmmakers don't either. Indeed, since it's awards season, I've been watching several panels and roundtables with filmmakers, and you'd be astonished how many of them talk about the value of art being found in its ability to reflect truths in the real world. If you cannot even engage with storytelling on that most basic level, Flint Marko, then what is the purpose of art and film at all for you? Wish-fulfillment?

Come on now, the value of art being found in it's abilitiy to reflect truths in the real world has nothing to do with the argument. You think good storytelling is just having characters living in their world, and then the audience just loves them and cares about what happens in their world simply because the audience can use them as stand-ins for their real world and the real people who live there? Wow, if only screenwriting was that simple, you wouldn't even need to try and write compelling characters and relationships, because the audience will do that for you. Now I understand why you love BvS. Simply a guess, but I'll take it you don't tutor students in screenwriting?

 

[Flint Marko]

I see the problem now. You think fiction and reality function in totally different ways. I do not see things that way. Many filmmakers don't either. Indeed, since it's awards season, I've been watching several panels and roundtables with filmmakers, and you'd be astonished how many of them talk about the value of art being found in its ability to reflect truths in the real world. If you cannot even engage with storytelling on that most basic level, Flint Marko, then what is the purpose of art and film at all for you? Wish-fulfillment?

You are completely misrepresenting what I'm saying, and you're presenting a mindset that doesn't sync up with reality. By your logic every heroic death ever in any film or TV show should carry immense weight.

You'll note that isn't the case... because that's not how story-telling works. You don’t just show a family being sad over the death of a cute puppy and expect me to care if I don’t care about the family or the puppy. Assumed empathy is inherently less engaging.

And what's even more mind-numbing is the fact that you don't seem to be capable of acknowledging that one can empathize and feel for someone you don't know.

You've literally compared caring about the death of Superman to caring about the death of people in the Vietnam War and people on the United 93. Do I honestly need to explain the immense difference between those two things?

I'm saying two close friends who are supposed to be heroes wouldn't use violence to solve problems. I'm not discounting human behavior; I'm discounting what sort of human behavior has value in a story about superheroes like Batman and Superman fighting.

You just discounted human behavior and in the next sentence said you weren't discounting human behavior.

I never made any statements about Civil War, so I don't know where this question is coming from.

I never said you did. I'm pointing to the only viable comparison we have available at the moment: Civil War.

Here's your quote that kicked off this entire conversation:

Violently attacking a stranger is less redeemable than attacking a friend? Seriously?

Violently attacking someone you don't know or understand after making no effort to know or understand them is inherently less redeemable than attacking a friend you have a history with and understand. Period, point blank, end of statement.

Batman and Superman have no history together and are completely uninterested in speaking to one another even though they are both clearly interested in saving and protecting innocents. That's plain to see.

It's an absolute no-brainer that they're both fighting the people who need to be fought. They have an undeniably obvious connection right from the jump.

Batman brands and kills criminals? Yes, but underground sex slaves get freed by policemen and Superman pulls people from burning buildings. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell that they ultimately have the exact same goal. Different methods? Well.... they've both killed and we don't actually know how either of them feel about murder.... but ultimately? They're about protecting innocents. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

But they both, at every turn, make dumb decisions that lead them into an unnecessary conflict that would never exist if they just talked to one another.

That's dumb. People talk to one another. People interact with others and exchange dialogue that gives you insight into their point of view that isn't thudding exposition about gods and power and knowledge. If your conflict can be fixed with one actual conversation where they would speak like human beings, it's not a great conflict. Plain and simple.

Civil War proves this. Cap and Tony have defined ideologies and a history together that come to a head in a way that works. It isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but they at least made an attempt to figure out what the other person was actually about before deciding they needed to be put down. That’s inherently more redeemable.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

 

[DrCosmic]

Sometimes friends fight.

[YT]iW2nrSOLTCo[/YT]

It's very sympathetic, because people who love each other fight, because no matter how heroic they are, they're still people, and people are jerks sometimes, and it really hurts when your friends are jerks to you. Strangers are always jerks, that's expected.

This is why writing DCU heroes is so hard sometimes because these characters are often expected to transcend humanity, but are put in story forms that rely on their humanity to work. If Superman and Batman are supposed to be Hercules and Odysseus, then you need a Homer to be the narrator-main character, like Norman McCay from the Kingdom Come comics. Wonder Woman got this, and it brilliantly made a story that was about Diana's inability to cope with humanity's inability to transcend humanity as she has. F'ing brilliant. The great DC films of yesteryear? Batman dealing with another mythic transcendent creature in the Joker and Lois Lane dealing with Superman's transcendence. The only time that they're allowed to be "I'm only human" is when they're in an entire transcendent world, then they can be jerks about heroism, but still be heroic.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Civil War proves this. Cap and Tony have defined ideologies and a history together that come to a head in a way that works. It isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but they at least made an attempt to figure out what the other person was actually about before deciding they needed to die.

They don't even fight over their differing ideologies at all. They argue about them, but that's not why they start throwing punches.

There are two fights in Civil War. In the first, Cap is trying to flee the country with a known fugitive and Iron Man is tasked with bringing them in as painlessly as possible (and he only has a limited amount of time before Ross sends in his own troops who would be far less willing to hold back). Cap doesn't want to fight at all, he just wants to escape. The second time is in Siberia, where it is completely personal. Stark wants to kill Bucky while blinded with revenge for the murder of his parents, and Cap wants to protect him. Both fights come down more to Cap wanting to protect his best friend as opposed to a disagreement over Sokovia.

 

[Zarex]

It's not fanfiction. I'm a licensed counselor with a M.S. in Counseling Psychology. I know how to diagnose PTSD. Bruce meets all the criteria for a complex PTSD diagnosis in BvS. Snyder's version of the character is carrying a heavier weight compared to other versions because of the context of his trauma. Not only is Bruce continuing to cope with the original trauma of his parents' deaths, but he his retraumatized during the Black Zero Event when mankind is introduced to the Superman. These two traumas are compounded by Bruce's recent loss of his sidekick, Robin. He is tormented by nightmares, he is isolating himself, lying to those closest to him, he's abusing drugs and alcohol, and he expresses suicidal thoughts. This isn't fanfiction. This is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

In your professional opinion, have you ever seen PTSDs turn a hero all murdery? And if so, did said fellow snap immediately back into a state of sound mental health due to a trigger word?

No, it's not. I tutor students in literature and composition, and plenty of them write thesis statements as part of a literary analysis, which do not have to fit into true or false paradigms.

My,you certainly appear to be burning the candle at both ends. Its a wonder you have the time for such lengthy replies! Anyhoo, l'll defer to you scholarly know how and say that my personal opinion was, infact, a thesis. That being Miller's TDKR is no doubt a vastly superior work of art than the dumpster fire commonly known as Snyder's BvS.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

After watching BVS, a question kept popping up in my head: Why does Luthor want Batman to fight Superman? Seriously. Why did Luthor go through all this trouble to have Batman, a man who he knows is Bruce Wayne and knows doesn't have superpowers, to fight Superman, who he knows is a powerful alien with super-strength that can shrug off most anything thrown at him?

 

[RomanticPenguin]

something about power never being innocent and he knows bats has kryptonite

 

[TheVileOne]

After watching BVS, a question kept popping up in my head: Why does Luthor want Batman to fight Superman? Seriously. Why did Luthor go through all this trouble to have Batman, a man who he knows is Bruce Wayne and knows doesn't have superpowers, to fight Superman, who he knows is a powerful alien with super-strength that can shrug off most anything thrown at him?

Since Batman had the kryptonite, he was hoping for Batman to kill Superman. I think.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

Yeah, Batman has kryptonite... because he stole it from Lex Luthor. Remember the 'Do you bleed?' line. It happened after the scene where Batman was chasing a truck containing kryptonite. And afterwards, there's another scene where he stole the kryptonite. Which brings me back to my question: Why does Luthor want Batman (and again, specifically Batman) to fight Superman? To kill him? If so, why not just hire mercenaries to do the job? He's rich, he can do that. Just give the mercenaries kryptonite and they can do it in an instant, without wasting twelve minutes on a needless, boring fight. It'd certainly be cheaper than the convoluted, confusing plot involving the slaughter of an African village and blowing up a Senate hearing. I know this is hindsight being what it is, but apparently he knows Deathstroke. Just hire Deathstroke. Deathstroke's a contract assassin and he has Batman-level fighting skills and Captain America abilities because of some serum he took. That makes him better than using Batman for some bizarre reason. It'd certainly be cheaper than the convoluted, confusing plot involving the slaughter of an African village and blowing up a Senate hearing. Plus his mother's name isn't Martha so there's that.

 

[Micromind]

If Superman kills Batman, then he becomes a dangerous 'alien vigilante', who cannot be trusted, denting his image and acceptance in the eys of general population. Which, in turn would justify what Lex Luthor wanted, a license to make weapons against super-powered aliens.

If Superman is killed by Batman, this accomplishes what Lex Luthor wanted without him getting his hands dirty. Lex is attacking Superman's credibility, his image and by making him kill Batman, his morale not to mention physical attack on him.

Either way, Lex Luthor benefits.

 

[fan4stic]

If Superman kills Batman, then he becomes a dangerous 'alien vigilante', who cannot be trusted, denting his image and acceptance in the eys of general population. Which, in turn would justify what Lex Luthor wanted, a license to make weapons against super-powered aliens.

If Superman is killed by Batman, this accomplishes what Lex Luthor wanted without him getting his hands dirty. Lex is attacking Superman's credibility, his image and by making him kill Batman, his morale not to mention physical attack on him.

Either way, Lex Luthor benefits.

He doesn't, because he already has Doomsday set to go no matter what happens, which will destroy the city and kill him.

Superman's already killed Zod and Lex has already framed him for the killing of others in another country. Him killing Batman for real won't change much of anything. And What if Superman just finds Martha, which apparently Lex knows he can do, and we've established in MOS he can lock onto. And then we have Lois running around with knowledge of what Lex did and of him shoving her off of roof.

 

[fan4stic]

It's an absolute no-brainer that they're both fighting the people who need to be fought. They have an undeniably obvious connection right from the jump.

Batman brands and kills criminals? Yes, but underground sex slaves get freed by policemen and Superman pulls people from burning buildings. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell that they ultimately have the exact same goal. Different methods? Well.... they've both killed and we don't actually know how either of them feel about murder.... but ultimately? They're about protecting innocents. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

But they both, at every turn, make dumb decisions that lead them into an unnecessary conflict that would never exist if they just talked to one another.

That's dumb. People don't do that. People talk to one another. People interact with others and exchange dialogue that gives you insight into their point of view that isn't thudding exposition about gods and power and knowledge. If your conflict can be fixed with one actual conversation where they would speak like human beings, it's not a great conflict. Plain and simple.

Civil War proves this. Cap and Tony have defined ideologies and a history together that come to a head in a way that works. It isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but they at least made an attempt to figure out what the other person was actually about before deciding they needed to die.

The simplest solution to what I think is this problem is to make it so Lex frames each of them for something, so that they each think the other is the bad guy. Instead of what I think are all the forced problems Superman has with Batman (because a vigilante branding human traffickers who get killed in prison is a larger issue to Superman than the human trafficking) being what causes their fight, that's all made pointless, by having Lex just kidnap his mom and force him to fight Batman.

 

[Micromind]

He doesn't, because he already has Doomsday set to go no matter what happens, which will destroy the city and kill him.

Superman's already killed Zod and Lex has already framed him for the killing of others in another country. Him killing Batman for real won't change much of anything. And What if Superman just finds Martha, which apparently Lex knows he can do, and we've established in MOS he can lock onto. And then we have Lois running around with knowledge of what Lex did and of him shoving her off of roof.

Zod was alien who attacked Earth, by killing him Superman was seen as a hero by some people, this would have been different, it would change many things as Lex was going to use it in his propaganda against Superman. Lois couldn't manage to get her story against Lex published, so I doubt Lois could have managed to get Lex arrested for doing anything illegal.

Lex foolishly assumed that he can control Doomsday ("knowledge is power"), so as per plan of Lex Luthor, Doomsday would have just killed Superman, I doubt Lex knew how powerful Doomsday was going to become.

The simplest solution to what I think is this problem is to make it so Lex frames each of them for something, so that they each think the other is the bad guy. Instead of what I think are all the forced problems Superman has with Batman (because a vigilante branding human traffickers who get killed in prison is a larger issue to Superman than the human trafficking) being what causes their fight, that's all made pointless, by having Lex just kidnap his mom and force him to fight Batman.

Superman won't kill anyone just because somebody (Batman) is framed for some Crime (Breaking Law is something that Batman does on a regular basis, so that' not a big enough reason for Superman to kill him.) Branding thugs is an issue but still not big enough.

For Superman to act against his own set of principles, Lex needs to focre him emotionally, which is accomplished when he kidnaps Martha.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

If Superman kills Batman, then he becomes a dangerous 'alien vigilante', who cannot be trusted, denting his image and acceptance in the eys of general population. Which, in turn would justify what Lex Luthor wanted, a license to make weapons against super-powered aliens.

If Superman is killed by Batman, this accomplishes what Lex Luthor wanted without him getting his hands dirty. Lex is attacking Superman's credibility, his image and by making him kill Batman, his morale not to mention physical attack on him.

Either way, Lex Luthor benefits.

Wasn't Superman already a polarizing character? There were already protestors outside the White House for that. I'm pretty sure most people still don't trust Superman after the Metropolis incident. He's not this beacon of hope this movie is trying so hard to show, he's still a controversial figure.

And why would Superman kill Batman? Yeah, Luthor has his mother, but it didn't seem like Superman was going to kill him for that. It looked like he was going to get his help. Also, Superman could've just looked for his mother and find her easily, without the need for a nonsense fight, but that's another can of worms.

 

[Micromind]

Wasn't Superman already a polarizing character? There were already protestors outside the White House for that. I'm pretty sure most people still don't trust Superman after the Metropolis incident. He's not this beacon of hope this movie is trying so hard to show, he's still a controversial figure.

And why would Superman kill Batman? Yeah, Luthor has his mother, but it didn't seem like Superman was going to kill him for that. It looked like he was going to get his help. Also, Superman could've just looked for his mother and find her easily, without the need for a nonsense fight, but that's another can of worms.

He was a Polarizing figure for a select few people (it's would be impossible to get everyone on same page, but that doesn't mean that majority of citizens viewed him as a anti-hero, Is Spider-Man universally loved in NY city ?), most of the City didn't view him as a threat, hence the statue they built for him.

Superman might not have found Martha in time, it's debatable, depending on what's the point of view of the person posting.

As for Superman's intention, yes he was not going to do it as wanted to talk Batman out of it, but Batman was the antagonist here, who was not acting rationally, who attacked Superman first instead of listening to what Superman had to say, he wastes time and comes close to killing Superman, at that point.. had Lois not showed up , one of them could have died.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

He was a Polarizing figure for a select few people (it's would be impossible to get everyone on same page, but that doesn't mean that majority of citizens viewed him as a anti-hero, Is Spider-Man universally loved in NY city ?), most of the City didn't view him as a threat, hence the statue they built for him.

Superman might not have found Martha in time, it's debatable, depending on what's the point of view of the person posting.

As for Superman's intention, yes he was not going to do it as wanted to talk Batman out of it, but Batman was the antagonist here, who was not acting rationally, who attacked Superman first instead of listening to what Superman had to say, he wastes time and comes close to killing Superman, at that point.. had Lois not showed up, one of them could have died.

The movie doesn't properly convey that he's well-liked in this universe. I never got that from watching the movie. Sure he has a statue, but that amounted to nothing. All there is are these annoying scenes of talking heads about Superman and what that means for this world and a Senate hearing about him. And really, all of that is superfluous, because the movie isn't interested in exploring Superman's place in this universe. It has no interest in what happens when an alien with god-like abilities appeared in the world. The movie just wants that fight between Batman and Superman at the end, and a massive action piece with the DC Trinity and Doomsday, which wasn't earned.

Also, yes, Superman would've saved his mother from Luthor's men. I dunno. If he rescued Lois so quickly and easily (TWICE, in fact), then I'm pretty sure he could've found his mother just as fast.

And again, Superman still wouldn't kill Batman. Batman may be the aggressor, but I doubt Superman would still murder him. So again, I ask, why does Luthor want Batman and Superman to fight each other?

 

[BestGirl]

Does Lex know for a fact that Superman wouldn't kill Batman? He knows that Superman killed Zod when sufficiently threatened.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

Does Lex know for a fact that Superman wouldn't kill Batman? He knows that Superman killed Zod when sufficiently threatened.

Good question and one where the movie doesn’t give a clear answer.