"Fighting" was the wrong word to use on my part. I meant that I didn't buy Superman's reasoning for engaging in a conflict with Batman. But, actually, you saying that it was because of selfish reasons, makes me understand it a little bit more. Batman gave heroes a bad name, meaning he gave Superman a bad name. It makes Superman look a little bit pathetic, but I can at least understand his reasoning better now.
It's "pathetic" to stand up for yourself, for hope and good, so that heroes can be there to save people from natural disasters and evil in all its forms? It's "pathetic" to use the press to expose an abuse of power and to attempt to end that abuse of power? Just because the ends Clark hopes to achieve also happen to benefit him does not mean that he's the sole beneficiary. He wants to preserve the public good because it's good for him
and good for others. His motivations are complex, which means his characterization is complex.
But Wonder Woman isn't even the one who meets the Flash in that scene, so that scene has no impact on Wonder Woman's journey.
I didn't mention anything about Flash. Wonder Woman's journey does not depend on Flash or his call for Batman to "Find us!" Her journey, by itself, is about a mysterious woman who has chosen to step away from her power and her heroic mission because she no longer believed good people could stand together in this world to someone who is willing to join the fight and recruit others to fight alongside her. She is the proof that the resolution of the Batman v Superman conflict is necessary for there to be a
dawn of justice. Her journey is a microcosm that every subsequent new hero will take: having witnessed a fight between god and man in which both find common ground, other heroes will take their own first steps into the light and into the fight.
So Batman wants to kill Superman partly because he drove Wallace to become a suicide bomber, but he doesn't take responsibility himself, even though Wallace put some blame on him, and yet thinks that killing Superman is a redemptive act? Batman doesn't really make sense, does he?
According to Bruce who receives the checks from Lex, Wallace put some blame on him, but Wallace, as Bruce understands it, blames him because he failed to protect his family. For Bruce, the only way to redeem himself from this failure is to protect the world from Superman even if it kills him. Wallace blames Bruce for not protecting him from the fallout Superman leaves in his wake, so Bruce can best square things for Keefe by acting against Superman. It makes perfect sense. If a mother blames a cop for not protecting her son from gang violence, then the best thing that guilty cop can do to make things right is to take on the gang that killed her son. The only thing the cop and Bruce take responsibility for is their respective inaction or inadequate action, so the act of taking responsibility and accepting blame demands finally dealing with the problem.
But that still means that Batman stopped trying to kill Superman because their mother's shared the same name. If Superman's mother would have had another name, which wouldn't have ignited Batman's own humanity, he would have killed Superman. That is ridiculous.
It's not about the damn name! Batman doesn't truly stop fighting until Lois tells him that it's Superman's mother's name. The actual name "Martha" seemed to enrage Bruce further; it didn't calm him. Learning that name was of the mother Superman wanted to protect with his last words is what made all the difference.
Well, I don't see how engaging in a fight with Batman was a better alternative.
Superman was told that he couldn't save his mother unless he brought Lex the head of the Batman. Any attempts to find her or rescue would mean certain death. So Superman either needed to get someone else to save her, or he needed to follow Lex's orders. He had two choices: join together with Batman to save Martha OR kill Batman and save Martha. Superman started with the first option, the better option, of course. Batman's refusal to listen to reason, however, drew Superman into a fight in which he still attempted to primarily defend himself long enough to subdue Batman and try again to find in him an ally. Batman still cannot be quieted, and Superman ultimately finds himself in a deadly battle with someone he hoped would have been able to see reason. What other alternative was available to Superman? He could have sought out another ally, but that would have taken time he did not have. He could have risked rescuing his mother himself, by why not try Batman first? I suppose after the first entreaty failed, he could have endeavored to save his mother, but there was still no reason for Superman to believe Lex was bluffing about his safeguards. What would you have suggested he do?
Right, so she's in it because of Justice League, not because it serves this story.
The story is served by featuring a resolution that establishes a
dawn of justice. This story was about the world's response to metahumans and gods among men. It was about whether or not heroes could stand together rather than stand apart against a mutual foe: a devilish puppetmaster. Wonder Woman, as a demigod who abandoned her heroic mission on Earth because she lost hope that heroes could stand together, is tangible proof that the world is ready for heroes and heroes are ready to be heroes. If
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice were the last film in the DCEU, then Wonder Woman's role would not only remain vital, it would indeed be more important than ever.
I wouldn't have a problem with Bruce's hypocrisy if someone actually called him on it. And considering he was able to kill Superman if he wanted to, you could make the argument that he's more dangerous than Superman.
Alfred called Bruce out on his own hypocrisy and mania throughout the entire film. He's the one who warned Bruce that his grudge against Superman was the stuff that turns good men cruel.
Yeah, you're right about it actually being Lex's fault, I shouldn't blame Superman for that. But there's definitely worse people than Batman who needs to be stopped, and Superman has to see that. But if we go by the reason that he acts because he's being selfish, then I can understand it more.
I'm sure there are worse people than Batman who need to be stopped, but those people were not in this film. Had the film presented Clark as choosing Batman over a fictional villain like Brainiac or a real world villain like ISIS, then the film would have ill-served Superman. It's not even like Superman should intervene in dealing with the "worse people" of the world because then we're getting into Injustice Superman or Justice Lord Superman territory. That's more a job for the Clark's and Lois's of the world. I find it difficult to fault Clark, as a fledgling reporter, for taking on a relatively local and current threat to civil liberties.