BvS The BvS Rumor/Speculation Discussion Thread! - Part 4

[rogbngp]

America dropped two nuclear bombs. I can't see how things were any more black and white back then.

In actuality they probably never have been. But the cultural narrative about how to be the good guys seemed to be more clear cut then.

 

[rogbngp]

I would agree that in Snyder's project of placing superhero characters (and their myths and archetypes) into our modern real world, there are (to me)--at least with Superman and Batman thus far--clear references to the collective American psyche and identity from 911 and our current post-911 world. MoS's destruction of a portion of a city that is intended to resemble New York (complete with images of collapsing skyscrapers--with Wayne Financial Tower (!) being pivotal to BvS's story) by an 'alien' threat seems pretty clearly symbolic. I think it is intended to mirror how our sense of the world as a dangerous place and how to protect ourselves in it (we're way more vulnerable than we ever realized) has changed by virtue of 911.

I'm older than most of you guys, but the types of anxieties our current post-911 generation faces seem a lot grayer the than the one my dad's (WWII vet) generation faced--and in which superheroes were originally defined. The enemy was crystal clear when my dad fought in WWII. The Nazi Third Reich was straight-up evil. No ifs, ands, or buts. They had to be destroyed.

It became a bit tougher as I was growing up, with Viet Nam, though. Viet Nam was all about the Cold War. The U.S. and the the Soviet Union had missiles poised at each other in a tense chess game. And the USSR's combination of totalitarianism and communism was utterly antagonistic and antithetical to life as we enjoy it in western capitalist democratic society. Given the U.S.S.R's vision it could not really ever have peacefully co-existed with us for long. So in the generation that succeeded the Viet Nam era, Ronald Reagan was able to use that effectively (and not lacking a reality base, as I said) to help American society feel a clearer sense of moral values about our cultural identity.

Still, the solution of Mutually Assured Destruction required putting the entire world on the brink of annihilation. So there was also a lot uneasiness there. And to make matters worse, in order to combat the spread of communism during the Cold War the U.S. had to hold it's nose and support a bevy of Third World thug dictators that we felt we could not afford to let side with the Soviets in the larger global framework. We sacrificed our dearest morals to hold onto those Third World chess pieces. The alternative (i.e., letting those dictators getting bankrolled by the Soviets) probably was a worse outcome for the geopolitical chessboard. But this gave us a black eye in the court of world opinion that still shows to this day. And understanding Viet Nam within this entire backdrop resulted in a generation that grew up "questioning authority" (i.e., our own government) as never before. So the sense of certitude about the U.S. cultural identity went from black and white in my dad's generation to gray in mine.

Anyway, in this post-911 world how do you fight a shadowy enemy such as jihadist terrorists? They unequivocally hate the Western way of life and have set out to brutally annihilate it without mercy or remorse. So it's not hard to define the enemy. That part is easy, at least. But tactically it's a tougher nut to crack. In the case of the invasion of Iraq, for example take the Cheney doctrine:

In the immediate wake of 911 and the vulnerabilities the U.S. felt afterward, was it a clear choice to just go ahead and take out a foreign leader who

1) clearly hated he U.S. after we humiliated him (appropriately, from our perspective) on the world stage in the Gulf War by crushing his invasion of Kuwait,
2) therefore had every reason to ally with entities that hated us even more than he did (jihadist terrorists),
3) was swimming in 'oil for food' voucher money (a U.N. scam as it turned out) with which to bankroll third party terrorist agents (whether Al Queda or many others--many were/are ultimately mercenaries),
4) was vigorously building underground facilities in no less than thirteen of his so-called 'royal palaces' that were off limits to U.N. weapons inspectors (which Hans Blix went on record in his book to agree were extremely worrisome, and he felt most likely were harboring secret weapons development programs), and
5) had even made an assassination attempt against G.H.W. Bush ("Senior")?

Many who view Republican neo-cons negatively will of course say no, chanting the mantra "Ha! We knew it! No weapons of mass destruction were ever found!" Followed by various narratives about what motivates the neo-cons. But imo it should not be ignored that the U.S. and its allies stood assembled on Iraq's doorstep for damn near a year, trying to leverage Sadam to step down and avoid an invasion. That went on for almost a year. And in my view, during that time Sadam could have secreted whatever tech he might have been trying to develop in his royal places to Syria. Iraq was expert at that sort of thing. Anyway, that scenario is not the slightest bit implausible to me. In pointing these things out I'm not apologizing for the bad things the U.S. has done and does. I'm just saying that they actually make sense to me. A bad thing (i.e., invading a country on less than clear evidence) may have prevented something far worse had we not. We'll never know. But I'm not sure either how smart it would have been to have faith in the 'containment' argument about Iraq following 911. I.e., don't invade, we'll just keep an eye on him and use economic sanctions. Sadam was a Frankenstein monster that the U.S. created, and I'm sure we had plenty of reason to legitimately fear what harm he could do to us via a third party agent with all that hatred and money. (Note: hmm... will we see a Frankenstein monster that is ultimately created by the U.S. government (via Lex as their contractor) appear in BvS? Yep, sure looks like it!)

Now getting back to MoS and BvS, and 911 parallels, and how different the American psyche is now from when Superman was first created through to the Silver Age of comics... maybe the picture is actually a bit grayer than we would like it to be in terms of finding strategies to accurately assess threats to our American way of life and how to respond to them. Maybe sometimes in this world we're forced to choose a lesser evil among choices with all relatively bad outcomes. That is imo perhaps what Jonathan Kent's "I don't know... maybe" line to Clark is meant to reflect in MoS re: the moral dilemma of saving a bus of school children versus the revealing to the world who Clark is clearly before he is ready to handle that.

I think the U.S.'s cultural sense of moral identity of Superman as an archetype of "truth, justice, and the American Way" has been dragged kicking and screaming into this gray real world that we face both in MoS and BvS. That is why the film is so divisive. We want America to be like the Golden and Silver Age Superman in principle. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty in a world of difficult choices in practice, most people are actually relieved that we have Frank Miller's Batman operating in the shadows behind the scenes.

BvS first contrasts (via conflict) then unites those two archetypes. And it certainly fits that the film is partly titled "Dawn of Justice." As A Thesis on Man of Steel argues (convincingly for the most part), in MoS the archetype and myth of Superman undergoes a rebirth into our modern world of moral grays and anxieties. That is what MoS is about conceptually. And it shows that Snyder is truly an auteur (and a very skillful and important one, at that.)

Now I do also think that the modern post-911 anxieties we have in the U.S. about terrorist threats clearly result in scapegoating of immigrants, many of whom from the south are "illegal aliens." Many Americans are worried about how easy it is for jihadists to infiltrate and set up cells in this country given how porous our borders are. (With the Kryptonian invasion symbolizing this in MoS and BvS.) But I think it also speaks to a deeper worry about the changing fabric of our society, that the terrorist concerns belie. The reality is that unless one is a full blooded Native American, American citizens are all the sons and daughters of immigrants. We're a nation of immigrants and always have been. And yet!.. to see the kind of Wonder Bread world of "apple pie and Chevrolet, weird sort of American Dream" (as Snyder has put it) slowly give way to a different sort of cultural tapestry has been very disconcerting to many. Many folks who immigrate to the the U.S. now do not assimilate, at least during the first generation. I'm simply pointing out that it isn't actually that hard to understand how unsettling that could be to many white and black Americans whose ancestors came to the U.S. early on. From a psychological standpoint it is arguably actually more gray than black and white. We don't want to feel anxious about it for the wrong reasons intellectually. But I think many of us do, at least at a kind of primal gut level.

Sorry for the tl;dr long discourse here. I didn't intend to go this deep into it. But I do think that the thesis above illustrates that MoS and BvS are probably using some very sophisticated symbolism, and playing creatively with Jungian myth and archetypes, to weave a fictional world that is not only incredibly rich and engaging story-wise, but perhaps also even socially relevant. Am I reading too much in? Yeah, that certainly could be. Perhaps Snyder did not intend to tell such a deep allegory. But amazingly, even if so, I do expect that the two films (MoS and BvS taken together) will lend themselves to such a coherent interpretation.

Once again, apologies for this painfully tl;dr rambling essay.

Bullet points:

• MoS and BvS bring Batman's and Superman's myths into a space that more closely mirrors our modern real world, and then lets a synergy between the two take place (this unmistakably makes Snyder a formidable auteur)
• The Superman archetype has been rooted in a past vision of the American self-identity; MoS drags Superman into a new world (our modern real one) in which the archetype/myth is (violently and painfully) reborn
• MoS places the Superman archetype into a morally grayer world than 40s and 50s Superman in which choices are sometimes forced between the lesser of two evils; this is illustrated by Jonathan Kent's "I don't know... maybe..." line
• destruction of Metropolis' significant part of downtown (evidently including part of its financial district) by "aliens" symbolizes 9-11
• post-9-11 world is one in which it is harder to determine black and white moral strategies in terms of "how to be the good guy"
• In previous films Superman was still grounded in a WWII era through 1950s worldview that seemed like a simpler time psychologically to self-identify as the good guy
• Viet Nam and the Cold War began to present more challenges to sense of certainty that U.S. was always doing the right thing in the world ("how to be the good guy")
• post-9-11 war on terrorism drives home difficulties of how to be the good guy with this new type of enemy; sometimes bad things need to be done to prevent even worse things from happening
• Cheney Doctrine is quintessentially post-9-11, and it illustrates current problems in defining "how to be the good guy" in this new world; (whether or not Iraq invasion was the right or wrong call it illustrates the problem)
• currently "war on terror(ism)" fears get projected over into immigration concerns, but the latter is really reflecting a deeper anxiety about the changing face of America and its cultural identity; MoS's and BvS's "alien invasion" motif represents this
• Batman and Superman myths/archetypes reflect the need, on the one hand, for a pure moral compass based on lofty principles and ideals that we hold dearest (Superman) with the need to "get hands dirty" and making more difficult choices for self-protection (Batman), on the other; these opposing archetypes will collide and then merge in BvS

Further thoughts:

"MoS drags Superman into the this new world in which the archetype/myth must be reborn": A visceral sense of this is given by Superman's fight with Zod in which the Superman myth/archetype is, symbolically, violently dragged into our modern new world. When Superman cries out in anguish at after killing Zod it is like the distress of an infant being violently pushed out of the womb into a harsh new world (compare scenes). I.e., Superman archetype: welcome to the real world. I think it is fair to say also that Supes' distress there is also about his inability to save 5000 or so lives during that battle--had he tried Zod would have used the opportunity to take even more lives. Anyway, there was no perfectly good outcome there. Just the lesser between two evils. The cry also represents that the Superman myth's mold of the past that he can never, ever kill was painfully shattered by entering and dealing with the real world.

"MoS places the Superman archetype into a morally grayer world than 40s and 50s Superman in which choices are sometimes forced between the lesser of two evils; this is illustrated by Jonathan Kent's 'I don't know... maybe...' line": Same thing applies for the controversial scene in which Jonathan forbids Superman to rescue him from the tornado. Perhaps a final moral lesson is intended there by Jonathan that the virtues of self-sacrifice and adherence to principles may sometimes come at the cost of one's own life. But mainly it illustrates that Superman is now in a world in which there sometimes cannot be perfect solutions. Rather, he will often be choosing between two very bad outcomes, both of which has he lacks the power to prevent. Note the infant-like cry of pain motif there as well.

"currently 'war on terror(ism)' fears get projected over into immigration concerns, but the latter is really reflecting a deeper anxiety about the changing face of America and its cultural identity; MoS's and BvS's 'alien invasion' motif represents this": BvS deals with humankind's fears and anxieties about an "alien among us" (formerly hiding!) that has potential to do extraordinary harm.

 

[ernesth100]

Thats actually a really good point comparing BvS and MoS to terrorism. It goes much deeper than just superheroes punching eachother.

 

[Marvin]

sooo, assuming this hasn't been already pointed out but,
character witness?

Spoiler

seems more plausible than the flash at this point.

 

[Angel0fDeath]

sooo, assuming this hasn't been already pointed out but,
character witness?

Spoiler

seems more plausible than the flash at this point.

Some think he might be Jimmy.

Spoiler

 

[Clark-Kent]

I'm actually thinking he is a new character

 

[souperman]

Some think he might be Jimmy.

Spoiler

40 year old cub reporter Jimmy Olson reporting for duty Chief...


...and don't call me sugar !

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

I would love a true World's Finest film with Luthor and Joker.

Same here.

 

[Spoonman]

40 year old cub reporter Jimmy Olson reporting for duty Chief...


...and don't call me sugar !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrQCro68sRU

 

[rogbngp]

Thats actually a really good point comparing BvS and MoS to terrorism. It goes much deeper than just superheroes punching eachother.

I actually did not set out to write that, I'm a little surprised at how far I was able to extend the line of thinking. It turned into a kind of thought experiment to see how far I could run with the post-9-11 world parallels when I began pondering Krypton's observation that in the recent TV spot Bruce Wayne's the "one percent chance = treat as absolute certainty" formulation reminded him of the Cheney doctrine's justification for deposing Sadam Hussein. Once it got rolling, it seemed to tie pretty well into other things I had been considering about what Snyder has said regarding bringing the myth of Superman into the real world.

Who knows what Snyder intended, but it can be intelligibly read into the film--which is at least fun for me, even if Snyder meant no such symbolism at all.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Nice thoughts, but some of it seems a serious stretch into Snyder's intentions.

 

[rogbngp]

Nice thoughts, but some of it seems a serious stretch into Snyder's intentions.

Almost for sure. t: Still fun, though.

 

[Rapunzel]

Nice thoughts, but some of it seems a serious stretch into Snyder's intentions.

I think it's clear that xenophobia/fear of the unknown is an intentional theme on Snyder's part. Snyder is obviously setting up Batman as being so scared of "the other" that he's harming himself, and ignoring the real issues due to prejudice.

 

[ernesth100]

I wonder if we'll get to see Batman take on a parademon? Or they just ignore him?

 

[rogbngp]

I think it's clear that xenophobia/fear of the unknown is an intentional theme on Snyder's part. Snyder is obviously setting up Batman as being so scared of "the other" that he's harming himself, and ignoring the real issues due to prejudice.

Well, some things I observed are accurate. Snyder is very, very much into mythology and examining superheroes as our modern day contemporary myths. (I can cite quotes and sources if anyone's interested.) He even has a famous Joseph Campbell quote sewn across Superman's "S" insignia (!), which I think speaks volumes about that. Zack has said that what he is doing is bringing the superhero myths into the real world that we actually occupy to see what happens. He has also said that he along with Terrio, almost obsessively, doted on "the why of it" for the many symbols and representations of this new mythology. He has said that with the DCEU he is striving to create a mythos that is on par with Tolkien's Middle-Earth in terms of its detail, depth, breadth, and sophistication. So it is actually maybe not totally far-fetched that some of the parallels I noticed might have occurred to him. I do hope that one day he writes a book, or at least does an extensive documentary, (or both) that explains all of the various layers to what he set out to accomplish with the DCEU.

 

[rogbngp]

I wonder if we'll get to see Batman take on a parademon? Or they just ignore him?

That is a very curious scene in the nightmare/vision. The parademons seem to be ignoring Bats. The parademon assault could be just a representation within his dream/vision of alien creatures attacking humans in general, and then to have him fighting the same humans could reflect some sort of conflict within himself, I suppose. But it sure looks like in that scene they are behaving like the ancient Greek harpies by indiscriminately swooping down on any human that they see. Um, well, except for Batman.

[YT]YZVqFmVNobA[/YT]

 

[ernesth100]

Maybe Batman doesnt see himself as any human. Thus the parademons ignoring him? But when the mask is off he becomes a man again.

 

[ernesth100]

Did I kill this thread. Or is there just nothing to speculate about anymore?

 

[MAN O STEEL]

Think about it. Both Batman and the Parademon's are fighting the Superman soldiers. is it possible in this nightmare/vision that Batman has made a deal with Darkseid to destroy Superman?. I mean the Parademon's are attacking everyone but Batman. Maybe Darkseid sensed Batman's troubled soul and is using him. It also makes sense as to why Batman is snapping necks, despite his no kill rule.

 

[ernesth100]

Oooo, AMAZING idea Steel. It's quite possible. It woild make sense as well. Superman is one of the only heroes with strength near that of Darkseid. He could prove dangerous against Darkseid if he is let roam free. Same to Batman. Superman is an enemy. And the enemy of my enemy is a friend. Or however that saying goes. I really like that, very possible Steel

 

[Zordan]

Think about it. Both Batman and the Parademon's are fighting the Superman soldiers. is it possible in this nightmare/vision that Batman has made a deal with Darkseid to destroy Superman?. I mean the Parademon's are attacking everyone but Batman. Maybe Darkseid sensed Batman's troubled soul and is using him. It also makes sense as to why Batman is snapping necks, despite his no kill rule.

I like it!

 

[rogbngp]

Okay, how about this then... We have seen the poster with what appears to be a "2" on Supes' forehead, a possible Easter egg.

This has been suggested before, but what if the "2" is actually half of Darkseid's Omega symbol? If so, perhaps that is meant to represent that Darkseid controls Superman's mind for a portion of the film. (Superman would presumably be fighting the effects but at times succumbs--and maybe even has amnesia afterward.)

Says Wikipedia re: Darkseid's powers and abilities:

In "The Great Darkness Saga," Darkseid displayed a range of awesome deitylike powers, such as... instantly absorbing all the information from another being's mind, manifesting the worst fears of other beings as realities... [to] bring forth and manipulate the darkness within a person's heart, allowing him to turn any that are not "pure" to the path of evil. ...[H]e has also displayed the ability to take possession of living beings that have darkness in their hearts...

So with something like this we don't need an evil clone Superman who is behaving badly to make batman fear Superman. Superman will at times be behaving darkly by virtue of Darkseid's telepathic influence.

Batman's dream/vision is then of the Superman the actually could come into being if Darkseid succeeds in taking full control of Superman.

Not stating that I expect anything like this, but just trying to brainstorm some new speculations.

 

[AnneFan]

Think about it. Both Batman and the Parademon's are fighting the Superman soldiers. is it possible in this nightmare/vision that Batman has made a deal with Darkseid to destroy Superman?. I mean the Parademon's are attacking everyone but Batman. Maybe Darkseid sensed Batman's troubled soul and is using him. It also makes sense as to why Batman is snapping necks, despite his no kill rule.

I like your thinking.

 

[RadioSha]

Think about it. Both Batman and the Parademon's are fighting the Superman soldiers. is it possible in this nightmare/vision that Batman has made a deal with Darkseid to destroy Superman?. I mean the Parademon's are attacking everyone but Batman. Maybe Darkseid sensed Batman's troubled soul and is using him. It also makes sense as to why Batman is snapping necks, despite his no kill rule.

Lex, Doomsday, Darkseid.

#Overcrowded

 

[WitchTrialz]

Think about it. Both Batman and the Parademon's are fighting the Superman soldiers. is it possible in this nightmare/vision that Batman has made a deal with Darkseid to destroy Superman?. I mean the Parademon's are attacking everyone but Batman. Maybe Darkseid sensed Batman's troubled soul and is using him. It also makes sense as to why Batman is snapping necks, despite his no kill rule.

That's actually an amazing idea. We all assumed superman having soldiers means he's the bad guy. But what if those are good men fighting a just war against Batmans reign of terror