BvS The Themes in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

[LamboMan]

I really wanted to create this thread so we could all share the themes we saw in this film or read about somewhere else and compile them in one place.

There's something I really want to say first: I strongly feel the reaction to BvS by many people (not all) was like the reflex reaction we have to fire, or a flame. When, as little children, our hand touches the flame, we react instinctively without thinking and we feel the pain and end up hating it. We learn that fire is bad and that we must stay away from it.

As we grow, we learn that the Sun is made completely out of fire and if fire didn't exist, life also couldn't exist; atleast life as it is on Earth. So we begin to see things in a new light (pun intended) and realise that there is much more to fire than we thought. In fact, everything in life is better because of it - food, heating, mobility, machinery, electricity. It is the basis of our existence like air or water.

The above analogy is similar to how prehistoric cavemen would have initially been scared of fire and run away at the sight of it but later on they learned that you can cook food on it and that it is useful to keep you warm on cold nights and so on.

This is what I feel BvS is; it's the fire that we reacted reflexively to but on closer and prolonged inspection, we realise that we cannot live without it and that it is extremely beneficial to us when utilized in the right manner. Of course, the fire that goes out of control is harmful, so too much of it is also bad for us. But in the controlled amounts that we are getting it from the movie industry, it is definitely good for us in the long run.

This movie has some really strong themes and depth which can be truly appreciated only if one takes the time to ponder them. These things can open up new lines of thought in our minds and teach us a lot of new and interesting things that we didn't know before or would have thought of before. It incites and encourages discussion and that is what I love about films like these.

DISCLAIMER: No, I am not comparing or equating people who didn't like this film to children or cavemen. I also reacted reflexively to this film on some of it's points but have found the following themes since I pondered it after the initial reaction went away. The analogies are only intended to draw parallels between our reaction to this film and how we react to fire before we know what it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Alright, now I'm going to list out the themes that I saw in this movie or read about somewhere:


1. Superman is a symbol for unilateral action, Batman is a symbol for the oppressed and powerless victims....just like the United States of America today and the nations it attacks/intervenes in. This was a dialogue on America's foreign policy and role in the world and how the world sees America, whose people think they are doing the right thing by intervening where they are not wanted. It wasn't painting Superman as a villain, just drawing parallels that even the best of intentions can have negative consequences and questions the need for a worldwide power/self-proclaimed international police.

The movie also touches upon the controversial nature of war profiteering and the level of corruption in the military industrial complex, where corporations have privatised soldiers (like the US has sent to Afghanistan in the past) and are selling arms to terrorists and war lords on both sides of the battlefield to fuel conflicts and maximise profits.

Thanks to 'Paradox1' from the SHH forums:

Batman also represents America but post 9/11 a nation which has become cynical, fearful of foreigners and tramples over the civil liberties of citizens in the name of security. An example of that is when Perry White representing the American people says, "no one cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman " instead ordering him to write more puff pieces. A clear dig on Americas view on civil liberties over security and obsession with celebrity.

2. The balance of the anima and animus in the human mind or the Jungian archetypes of 'masculine and feminine' in the characters of this film. The 'Martha' moment is also the convergence and resolution of this theme. Read about it in detail here > About Martha. The 'masculine' vs the 'feminine' in BVS [SPOILERS]

3. The Nietzschean concept of "God is dead and we have killed him", which is what Luthor represents. The concept is not talking about humanity killing god by sinning, it is talking about how scientific thought and progress in our understanding of the world and reality and the origin of such concepts makes the need for such a concept moot. One of the most basic supports for the non-existence of god and the existence of atheism is presented in the movie, "If god is all powerful, he cannot be all good and if he is all good, he cannot be all powerful." Therein lies the paradox and that's why Lex wants to show the world that views Superman as a God, that he is just a man and that god doesn't exist.

4. The entire movie is a commentary on our current times - cynical, oppressive and war torn BUT it shows that the world can change and for the better. It is art, and does what art is supposed to do according to Ernst Fischer in this quote, "In a decaying society, art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay. And unless it wants to break faith with its social function, art must show the world as changeable. And help to change it."

Wonder Woman leaves man's world since we created one where it is impossible for all of humanity to stand together. Superman stands for the fundamental good in all living beings, while Batman manifests the fundamental bad that comes out when it is forced to and in desperate times. Superman stands for the ideal of hope for a better world and proves that it is possible for everyone to tap into their potential for good by sacrificing his own life for the planet.

He shows the world and Batman and Wonder Woman that "Men are still good, we fight, we kill, but we can rebuild, we HAVE TO, WE WILL". It is such a positive message, one seen when the public gathers at the park and on the ground is written, "If you seek his monument, look around you" which implies that Superman has inspired enough people to start being a living example of what it means to be good by doing good actions and following his own example of always doing the right thing in the face of all odds and even in the midst of world where people always want to hurt and kill each other and doubt each other. We CAN join forces and fix this world, if we want to.

Thanks to 'springsteen86' of the DCEU Films forums >

The plot with the debates on Superman and Batman, showing the divide in public opinion is meant to mirror the world we live in today, and also meant to mirror the split in ideaology between Batman and Superman. Great art is supposed to hold a mirror up to the world we live in, and our world is completely split and divided on every single major issue. For example, a Republican and a Democrat are probably both good people, and want the same thing, a secure and just world. But they have completely different ideas on how to go about it, which stirs up debate, which stirs up resentment and can even lead to violence.

Especially now in our social media world, everywhere you look you see people debating every single issue, getting angry, getting further entrenched in their views, and progress not being made as a result. I think a major theme of BvS is that we're all part of this world and want a similar world to live in, but true change comes from compromise and working together instead of being at each other's throats. A very important and relevant theme.

5. This movie's story structure is based on the 'Greek revenge tragedy' which you can read about here > pulpklatura.tumblr.com/post/141843209469/batman-v-superman-the-modern-revenge-tragedy

It is not a typical superhero movie.

6. This movie explores what it means to be a hero, from three different points of view:

a. It is about an outcast, an alien, overcoming all the hate in the world, moving past his failures and choosing to always do the right thing in the face of all adversity and then give his life for his adopted people and home, inspiring them to become beacons of good themselves. He is a god faced with his mortality and real physical pain for the first time in his life, and that is when he learns what it means to be brave and to be a hero when he chooses to put himself in harm's way to protect the world even though he knows he will die.

b. It's about a man who has lost everything, his family, his friends, his people and for whom protecting the world from an alien threat is the only thing left in his life, but who realises that he himself has become the very thing he swore to protect others from, the killer, the aggressor, the murder of a family who took the mother away from her son or vice-versa. It's about that man coming back from the edge and realising why he started fighting the good fight in the first place, and becoming the hero he used to be.

c. It's about a demigoddess who had lost faith in humanity and left us to defend ourselves from each other, but who is now inspired by another hero's sacrifice for humanity, enough to return to man's world and begin fighting for what is right again, with a renewed sense of hope and faith in humanity and its potential for good.

7. This movie is also a deconstruction of the modern myth, the modern epic, i.e., what all superheroes are and what iconic names like Batman and Superman definitely are. In religious scripts of almost all religions, there are hero characters who have superpowers and have performed great feats of strength and/or supernatural ability, which are the older counterparts to the modern myths the movie is talking about. It means to show what would happen if such things and people ACTUALLY existed in the world as of today, the reaction people would have and the impact it would have on our world as a whole.

8. It also draws parallels between Jesus and Superman, not to say that Superman is space jesus, but to show us that if a god like alien came to our world we would treat him like a miraculous messiah/savior figure OR as a devil in disguise instead of looking at him as another living being who just happened to have superpowers and who is just a guy who wants to do the right thing. It is to show us that we are wrong to think that the potential for world changing good only exists in powerful god like beings, and that we all have the potential to rise to that level of good if only we choose to.

​

9. The bombing scene was to show how corporate power has destroyed democracy both in function and form and that it is just a face, a puppet to dance to the tune of those in power and about how the media escalates stories without having any facts and paints victims as the perpetrators.

The former theme is also foreshadowed in the scene where Lex very easily manipulates the other senator into giving him access to the Scout Ship and Zod's body, showing us that democracy can be bought off by those in power.

10. Finally, this film is about how the world isn't just black and white and morality cannot be seen in those terms. Things are always in between those two extremes and are gray in the real world. A hero doesn't need to be 'absolute good' or 'absolutely perfect' for them to be a real hero, they just need to do the right thing when the right time/their time of reckoning comes.

11. Superman is also used to depict the stance of people on immigrants/people of different backgrounds and religions. This has been explained well by Harish Chengaiah of 'thegekdom.com' in this article:

After the Senate bombing there were rioters who were burning Superman effigies. This behaviour reflects the xenophobic nature of human beings and how we treat outside people based on ill-informed knowledge or bias or simply put “We hate what we don’t understand.”

The treatment of immigrants and people of other religions in real life are extremely similar to how Superman was treated in this movie. This element grounded the movie very well and also acted as a window to our own society. We clearly see that Superman is emotionally traumatized by the anti-Superman sentiments even when he gave his best efforts but the world says "Your best isn't enough" so what does he do? He endures and continually tries to do his best, another parallel between Superman and the troubled minorities/immigrants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what do you think of these? What other themes did you see in Batman v Superman? Sound off!

 

[FunkMiller]

This is what I feel BvS is; it's the fire that we reacted reflexively to but on closer and prolonged inspection, we realise that we cannot live without it and that it is extremely beneficial to us when utilized in the right manner. Of course, the fire that goes out of control is harmful, so too much of it is also bad for us. But in the controlled amounts that we are getting it from the movie industry, it is definitely good for us in the long run.

This movie has some really strong themes and depth which can be truly appreciated only if one takes the time to ponder them. These things can open up new lines of thought in our minds and teach us a lot of new and interesting things that we didn't know before or would have thought of before. It incites and encourages discussion and that is what I love about films like these.

DISCLAIMER: No, I am not comparing or equating people who didn't like this film to children or cavemen. I also reacted reflexively to this film on some of it's points but have found the following themes since I pondered it after the initial reaction went away.

What your doing is dressing up a criticism of those who dislike this movie in as many big words as possible, to make your argument sound more authentic, and make yourself sound more authoritative.

But... UGG. ME CAVEMAN NOT UNDERSTANDY BIG WORDY MAN. MUST BE DUMBO FOR NOT LOVING PUNCHY MEN MOVIE.


...and I'm pretty sure a majority of us could quite happily live without BvS, thanks very much.

 

[LamboMan]

What your doing is dressing up a criticism of those who dislike this movie in as many big words as possible, to make your argument sound more authentic, and make yourself sound more authoritative.

But... UGG. ME CAVEMAN NOT UNDERSTANDY BIG WORDY MAN. MUST BE DUMBO FOR NOT LOVING PUNCHY MEN MOVIE.


...and I'm pretty sure a majority of us could quite happily live without BvS, thanks very much.

Sigh, even after explicitly stating that the analogy WAS NOT a comparison and that even I reacted reflexively you went and did the most predictable thing possible, and completely ignored what I said and took offense and came back with an unneeded retort.

I knew I shouldn't have expected anyone to take an analogy just as it was and not as a personal attack but alas, it is not to be. The analogy was supposed to parallel our reaction as fans to that of the reflex action of our body when we are hurt and experience pain from some source.

That's all I meant, but go ahead and take personal offence to it, I can't stop you from doing that. It is a free world after all.

You might actually want to read the entire article next time before reacting, well, reflexively.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

What did the Jar of Piss symbolize? Was that foreshadowing the rest of the movie and the direction of the DCEU?

 

[FunkMiller]

Sigh, even after explicitly stating that the analogy WAS NOT a comparison and that even I reacted reflexively you went and did the most predictable thing possible, and completely ignored what I said and took offense and came back with an unneeded retort.

I knew I shouldn't have expected anyone to take an analogy just as it was and not as a personal attack but alas, it is not to be. The analogy was supposed to parallel our reaction as fans to that of the reflex action of our body when we are hurt and experience pain from some source.

That's all I meant, but go ahead and take personal offence to it, I can't stop you from doing that. It is a free world after all.

You might actually want to read the entire article next time before reacting, well, reflexively.

I did read the entire article, and while you make some interesting observations, you are also reaching massively to make this movie seem deeper and more intellectual than it is.

Your assertion that it is a greek revenge tragedy, and is therefore 'not a typical superhero movie', for instance. I could spend as much time refuting this thesis as you did making this thread, given that there are many, many superhero texts that have similar elements to a multitude of greek tragedies - revenge based or otherwise. The tragedies were pretty much the comic books of their time. The themes in superhero narratives are played out time and time again across a whole plethora of ancient cultural texts, be they Greek, Roman, Chinese, Japanese, Anglo-Saxon or Egyptian. BvS is a very typical superhero movie - it's just not a very good one. A far better superhero to use when talking about revenge tragedies would be The Punisher, for instance.

Look, I like some of your observations, but perhaps it would have been better to have just put them in this thread, rather than prefacing them with a veiled insult that you thought you could get away with using some flowery language. Just because you state that it is not a comparison in your disclaimer, it doesn't mean we have to believe you.

Oh, and if you want to get technical, the sun is not made out of fire. It's created from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium. Big difference between that and the thing cooking the sausages on your barbecue - and however many blu ray copies of Batman V Superman I can get my hands on when it comes out on mine.

Final word: pretty much everyone of your points can be ascribed to other superhero movies. Batman v Superman is not different or challenging, or using themes and ideologies that have not been explored before. You can argue that it does attempt to engage with some interesting and philosophically challenging concepts, but it universally fails to do it well.

 

[LamboMan]

I did read the entire article, and while you make some interesting observations, you are also reaching massively to make this movie seem deeper and more intellectual than it is.

Your assertion that it is a greek revenge tragedy, and is therefore 'not a typical superhero movie', for instance. I could spend as much time refuting this thesis as you did making this thread, given that there are many, many superhero texts that have similar elements to a multitude of greek tragedies - revenge based or otherwise. The tragedies were pretty much the comic books of their time. The themes in superhero narratives are played out time and time again across a whole plethora of ancient cultural texts, be they Greek, Roman, Chinese, Japanese, Anglo-Saxon or Egyptian. BvS is a very typical superhero movie - it's just not a very good one.


Look, I like some of your observations, but perhaps it would have been better to have just put them in this thread, rather than prefacing them with a veiled insult that you thought you could get away with using some flowery language. Just because you state that it is not a comparison in your disclaimer, it doesn't mean we have to believe you.

Oh, and if you want to get technical, the sun is not made out of fire. It's created from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium. Big difference between that and the thing cooking the sausages on your barbecue - and however many blu ray copies of Batman V Superman I can get my hands on when it comes out on mine.

Whatever, do as you like. Twist my words' meaning, ignore what I said and take them however you like, call me a liar, whatever, I frankly don't care.

You want to be offended, go ahead and be offended, as I said it's a free world, do as you please. I'm not going to try to convince some random person on the internet of the latter, not worth the trouble.

 

[The_Manhunter]

What your doing is dressing up a criticism of those who dislike this movie in as many big words as possible, to make your argument sound more authentic, and make yourself sound more authoritative.

But... UGG. ME CAVEMAN NOT UNDERSTANDY BIG WORDY MAN. MUST BE DUMBO FOR NOT LOVING PUNCHY MEN MOVIE.


...and I'm pretty sure a majority of us could quite happily live without BvS, thanks very much.

I know LamboMan well - that's not his style. He is merely expressing his enjoyment of the film - this is just how he talks, much like how people in the southern United States have their own distinctive way of speaking.

I really don't see a problem with it and in fact think it's cool to get new perspectives on the movie.

 

[FunkMiller]

Whatever, do as you like. Twist my words' meaning, ignore what I said and take them however you like, call me a liar, whatever, I frankly don't care.

You want to be offended, go ahead and be offended, as I said it's a free world, do as you please. I'm not going to try to convince some random person on the internet of the latter, not worth the trouble.

Fair enough. And I'm not offended by anything you say - as you suggest, I am just some random person on the internet, as are you.

However, I also know that you are attempting to align Batman V Superman with a series of complex and challenging philosophical & cultural ideologies in an effort to make the film seem more worthy than it actually is.

As a person who obviously quite clearly liked the movie and wants to defend it, I have to applaud your conviction, but the application of academic theory without critical thinking is a fool's errand... and rather makes my teeth itch.

Just because you talk about a movie in terms of an academic theory does not make that movie better.

For example, I could say that Jingle All The Way is a commentary on the Hegelian notion of the dialectic dynamic subject in process... but it doesn't make it any less of a ****** Christmas movie starring Arnold Schwarzanegger.

Also, I am one thousand percent sure that a vast majority of the things you discuss in your post were NOT in the mind of Zack Snyder when he made BvS. If there was no intent to engage with Jungian archetypes at the time of the movie's creation, then it's intellectually dishonest to make that comparison after the fact. It ascribes more meaning than was intended, and makes the film seem more deep and meaningful than it really is.

Look, I don't mean to offend myself, but if you create a thread that trades on the intellectual and the academic, don't be surprised if some old bastard who's spent years of his life steeping in this ******** comes along and questions your critical thinking.

 

[LamboMan]

I know LamboMan well - that's not his style. He is merely expressing his enjoyment of the film - this is just how he talks, much like how people in the southern United States have their own distinctive way of speaking.

I really don't see a problem with it and in fact think it's cool to get new perspectives on the movie.

Thank you.

 

[LamboMan]

Fair enough. And I'm not offended by anything you say - as you suggest, I am just some random person on the internet, as are you.

However, I also know that you are attempting to align Batman V Superman with a series of complex and challenging philosophical & cultural ideologies in an effort to make the film seem more worthy than it actually is.

As a person who obviously quite clearly liked the movie and wants to defend it, I have to applaud your conviction, but the application of academic theory without critical thinking is a fool's errand... and rather makes my teeth itch.

Just because you talk about a movie in terms of an academic theory does not make that movie better.

For example, I could say that Jingle All The Way is a commentary on the Hegelian notion of the dialectic dynamic subject in process... but it doesn't make it any less of a ****** Christmas movie starring Arnold Schwarzanegger.

Also, I am one thousand percent sure that a vast majority of the things you discuss in your post were NOT in the mind of Zack Snyder when he made BvS. If there was no intent to engage with Jungian archetypes at the time of the movie's creation, then it's intellectually dishonest to make that comparison after the fact. It ascribes more meaning than was intended, and makes the film seem more deep and meaningful than it really is.

Look, I don't mean to offend myself, but if you create a thread that trades on the intellectual and the academic, don't be surprised if some old bastard who's spent years of his life steeping in this ******** comes along and questions your critical thinking.

The movie got me and a lot of other people to think about these things, I've compiled themes from various sources not just myself.

Why does it make you feel uncomfortable that the movie did this?

Just by saying that "I'm sure these things weren't in the mind of Zack" doesn't make it any more true than me saying that they were.......and I didn't even mention Zack in my article.

What proof do you have that these things weren't intended?

Just because you didn't like the tone or what the movie presented and since you didn't see these themes in the movie, why is it impossible for it to have had these themes and depth in the first place?

And no I'm not attempting to make the movie look smarter, I'm simply stating the themes that many people picked up from this movie. Not imposing what I dreamed up or imagined ONTO the film, simply extracting themes from what I SAW in the film.

 

[DerekLake]

Ten themes, ten responses:

1. Batman and Superman represent America
   
   While I agree that the film alludes to interventionist themes, it doesn't really play with them to any significant degree. There is no broader discussion of Superman's heroic interventions in Mexico or Russia or Colorado without a visa or passport or overflight rights. A discussion of how Superman overrides the international system -- a system built on state sovereignty -- would have been an interesting commentary on how the 21st century world is becoming less state-centric, but the film doesn't spend any amount of time actually exploring such themes, choosing instead to propose the analogy and then move on to the next.
   
   
2. The balance of the anima and animus in the human mind
   
   There is something to be said about the contrast between Superman, Batman and Lex Luthor on the one hand and Lois, Martha and Diana on the other hand. There's certainly something to be said about the two Marthas and their influences on the two main heroes. There's also something to be said about Wonder Woman's disarming presence and her mild condemnation of both Bruce and his world. That said, the fact that both Lois and Martha are reduced to damsels in distress (Lois thrice!) undermines the impact of their roles in the story. And aside from "Martha", there is no deeper exploration of how that sort of balance addresses the deeper issues between Batman and Superman.
   
   
3. The Nietzschean concept of "God is dead and we have killed him"
   
   This is certainly a major theme of Batman v Superman, perhaps the dominant theme. From Batman's deceptive pursuit of kryptonite to Lex's equally manipulative campaign against Superman, the story of this film seems to be "we have killed him." That is, perhaps, the problem I have with this story. It is a story about men succeeding in destroying Superman. That wouldn't be a problem if it had been done in a way that maintains Superman's character. But the tale is one of Superman's defeat. The bombing destroys the idea that Superman is good for the world. Lex's ultimatum destroys the idea that Superman can inspire good in the world. Superman's death is prefaced with the idea that Superman must reduce his world to Lois. And the death itself sends the message that Superman can only inspire as a dead man, rather than a living hero.
   
   
4. Superman shows the world that men are still good.
   
   The problem with this sentiment is that Superman actually doesn't change anything except for Bruce. Metropolis STILL reveres him. The government STILL counts him as a compatriate. Lex Luthor still hates him. Lois and Martha still love him. The death doesn't accomplish anything besides changing Bruce's opinion of the world. And as I mentioned above, Superman's final act comes after two defeatist statements: "No one stays good in this world," and, "You are my world[, Lois]." So Superman's final act, rather than signifying his triumph over Lex's schemes, implies that the only act that Superman can perform in a cynical, hateful world is to sacrifice his life -- a non-controversial, harmless deed that avoids entirely the negative consequences of Superman's attempts to do good. Rather than living to find a way to mitigate the negative impacts of doing good, Superman does the one indisputable act of goodness that requires neither a determination of what he should do nor a declaration of what he stands for beyond "humanity" in general. But Superman is supposed to stand for more.
   
   
5. Greek revenge tragedy structure
   
   Terrio does confirm that he looked at the structure of revenge tragedies, but as that tumblr post explains, he looked at a Shakespearean revenge tragedy like Hamlet. The problem with this is three-fold:
   
   First, Hamlet is not at all suitable for a story about Batman and Superman that is supposed to end with a "dawn of justice." Tragedies by definition end worse than they start off, but this film is supposed to end with a dawn.
   
   Second, while a revenge tragedy makes sense for a character like Batman, this film subverts the structure and narrative in a way that short-changes the point of such revenge tragedies. In the revenge tragedy, the person carrying out the revenge is the one who ultimately dies, signifying the self-destructive nature of revenge. But here, it's Superman who bears the consequence, while Bruce lives to carry on the torch left behind by Superman. Bruce faces no consequences for the revenge path that he's been on, removing much of the "tragedy" of the revenge. In fact, the Doomsday ending marks a departure from the revenge tragedy, leaving a confusing structure that doesn't pay off the story it tells.
   
   The beautiful thing about TDK was that it was a tragic story, one that ended in a Pyrrhic victory for Bruce: Harvey Dent has a purely tragic arc, and Batman -- who has fought a long battle for the soul of Gotham (without giving up his own soul) takes the fall so that Gotham can heal. It's a true sacrificial act that is born of Bruce's own sorrow at losing Rachel. BvS doesn't do the same with Bruce, instead transferring Bruce's revenge tragedy onto Superman.
   
   
6. What it means to be a hero
   
   The revenge tragedy actually prevents this lesson from being learned. For a character steeped in hope, Batman v Superman presents a rather hopeless Superman whose faith in humanity is actually never restored. He never comes to determine that he CAN be a hero, which is why his decision to sacrifice himself didn't seem triumphant. This is particularly important because not only does Superman not triumph over his doubts and opposition, but it sets up a shaky conclusion for Justice League: if Superman comes back to a world that unilaterally adores him, what does that actually say? That he inspired the world by his good deeds? Hardly. Rather, it says that Superman can only operate in a world that wants him. And that means that he isn't relevant. It means that Superman can't really change the world. Which is why his sacrificial act is also a definitive conclusion that he can't actually change the world, not as a living hero. So he doesn't overcome anything.
   
   Bruce overcomes his hatred of Superman and his views on whether or not he can do good, but that's about it. Wonder Woman doesn't get enough development for her one statement to really impact the story.
   
   
7. Deconstruction of the modern myth
   
   Deconstruction is only good if something else is constructed in the process. Superman is entirely deconstructed, but he isn't actually reconstructed as a modern hero. He is shown to be controversial, dangerous, polarizing, radicalizing, and sacrificial. But he isn't shown to be inspiring or transformative. Such things could have been shown in a more nuanced, complex way -- hope that points the way forward even in the midst of a tragic and troubled world -- an imperfect hero who nevertheless inspires people to aspire -- a burgeoning partnership that hints at a greater pursuit of justice. But it seems that Snyder only knows how to deconstruct; he doesn't know how to reconstruct.
   
   
8. Jesus and Superman
   
   There is NOTHING about ordinary humans having the potential to rise to the level of gods. You are reading into the film was isn't there in the slightest. As for Superman being a God-like alien comparable to Jesus or the Christian God, that is precisely where the attempted portrayal falls a part. Superman is neither omnipresent nor omniscient nor omnipotent. He's neither eternal nor all-wise. He presents neither moral virtue nor upholds justice. This Superman, the one presented in Batman v Superman, bears NO possible resemblance to a monotheistic deity worshiped by 2 billion people. And that's purely on account of the actions that he does not undertake. So there is no way that anyone would actually worship him as a monotheistic deity, much less one that rivals Jesus (whose significant act is in dying to take away people's sins).
   
   This Superman only rescues people from disasters, so at most he's a guardian angel. The reverent dependence that people display toward him might constitute some form of worship, but the emphasis should have always been on Superman as an alien, not on Superman as God.
   
   
9. Corporate power has destroyed democracy
   
   This isn't really a theme in the film at all. Lex's corporate nature isn't presented at all (we get NO sense of what LexCorp is to Metropolis, the country, or the world). And aside from Finch's aborted opening remarks about democracy's role in determining good (that's never been decided by popular vote), we get no treatment of how Superman's unipolar presence undermines democracy. Not much is placed on the role of media in distorting truth or the role of journalism in uncovering truth. The one place for that to happen -- Lois's subplot -- doesn't lead anywhere.
   
   
10. The world isn't just black and white
    
    This might have been a good theme, except the film concludes by saying that the world is black, but it can become white again(?) The film doesn't actually navigate a way through the murkiness of "good" actions and negative consequences. It simply comes up with an unambiguous good action (Superman's sacrifice) that has no negative consequence or collateral, all the while failing to actually wrap up the North Africa incident OR the Metropolis battle. In short, the film presents a grey world but chooses to sidestep the issue of Superman's morally-ambiguous presence by killing him, rather than showing a divided world coming to terms with his ongoing existence.

 

[Skrilla31]

You could probably apply these same layers to Green Lantern if you tried hard enough.

 

[TheScarecrow]

This is what I feel BvS is; it's the fire that we reacted reflexively to but on closer and prolonged inspection, we realise that we cannot live without it and that it is extremely beneficial to us when utilized in the right manner. Of course, the fire that goes out of control is harmful, so too much of it is also bad for us. But in the controlled amounts that we are getting it from the movie industry, it is definitely good for us in the long run.

Hi Zack.

 

[Miss Lois Lane]

As a person who obviously quite clearly liked the movie and wants to defend it, I have to applaud your conviction, but the application of academic theory without critical thinking is a fool's errand... and rather makes my teeth itch.

Look, I don't mean to offend myself, but if you create a thread that trades on the intellectual and the academic, don't be surprised if some old bastard who's spent years of his life steeping in this ******** comes along and questions your critical thinking.

As a fellow academic who tried to reason with this person on another board and explain why critical thinking/being open to debate is a good thing, but got so beaten down by his complete lack of understanding of the concept and his insistence on calling the GA/Marvel fans 'idiots who just don't understand the brilliance of Zack Snyder' that I ended up going on a Malcolm Tucker style rant and leaving the board completely, I urge you to just step away, because attempting to engage him in debate =

 

[Miss Lois Lane]

What did the Jar of Piss symbolize? Was that foreshadowing the rest of the movie and the direction of the DCEU?

 

[FunkMiller]

As a fellow academic who tried to reason with this person on another board and explain why critical thinking/being open to debate is a good thing, but got so beaten down by his complete lack of understanding of the concept and his insistence on calling the GA/Marvel fans 'idiots who just don't understand the brilliance of Zack Snyder' that I ended up going on a Malcolm Tucker style rant and leaving the board completely, I urge you to just step away, because attempting to engage him in debate =

Oh, don't worry, I'm done with it. I can tell a brick wall when I see one

 

[LamboMan]

As a fellow academic who tried to reason with this person on another board and explain why critical thinking/being open to debate is a good thing, but got so beaten down by his complete lack of understanding of the concept and his insistence on calling the GA/Marvel fans 'idiots who just don't understand the brilliance of Zack Snyder' that I ended up going on a Malcolm Tucker style rant and leaving the board completely, I urge you to just step away, because attempting to engage him in debate =

I never said anything like that so you might want to stop saying things that aren't true or that you THOUGHT I meant, in your own mind.

 

[LamboMan]

Ten themes, ten responses:

1. Batman and Superman represent America
   
   While I agree that the film alludes to interventionist themes, it doesn't really play with them to any significant degree. There is no broader discussion of Superman's heroic interventions in Mexico or Russia or Colorado without a visa or passport or overflight rights. A discussion of how Superman overrides the international system -- a system built on state sovereignty -- would have been an interesting commentary on how the 21st century world is becoming less state-centric, but the film doesn't spend any amount of time actually exploring such themes, choosing instead to propose the analogy and then move on to the next.
   
   
2. The balance of the anima and animus in the human mind
   
   There is something to be said about the contrast between Superman, Batman and Lex Luthor on the one hand and Lois, Martha and Diana on the other hand. There's certainly something to be said about the two Marthas and their influences on the two main heroes. There's also something to be said about Wonder Woman's disarming presence and her mild condemnation of both Bruce and his world. That said, the fact that both Lois and Martha are reduced to damsels in distress (Lois thrice!) undermines the impact of their roles in the story. And aside from "Martha", there is no deeper exploration of how that sort of balance addresses the deeper issues between Batman and Superman.
   
   
3. The Nietzschean concept of "God is dead and we have killed him"
   
   This is certainly a major theme of Batman v Superman, perhaps the dominant theme. From Batman's deceptive pursuit of kryptonite to Lex's equally manipulative campaign against Superman, the story of this film seems to be "we have killed him." That is, perhaps, the problem I have with this story. It is a story about men succeeding in destroying Superman. That wouldn't be a problem if it had been done in a way that maintains Superman's character. But the tale is one of Superman's defeat. The bombing destroys the idea that Superman is good for the world. Lex's ultimatum destroys the idea that Superman can inspire good in the world. Superman's death is prefaced with the idea that Superman must reduce his world to Lois. And the death itself sends the message that Superman can only inspire as a dead man, rather than a living hero.
   
   
4. Superman shows the world that men are still good.
   
   The problem with this sentiment is that Superman actually doesn't change anything except for Bruce. Metropolis STILL reveres him. The government STILL counts him as a compatriate. Lex Luthor still hates him. Lois and Martha still love him. The death doesn't accomplish anything besides changing Bruce's opinion of the world. And as I mentioned above, Superman's final act comes after two defeatist statements: "No one stays good in this world," and, "You are my world[, Lois]." So Superman's final act, rather than signifying his triumph over Lex's schemes, implies that the only act that Superman can perform in a cynical, hateful world is to sacrifice his life -- a non-controversial, harmless deed that avoids entirely the negative consequences of Superman's attempts to do good. Rather than living to find a way to mitigate the negative impacts of doing good, Superman does the one indisputable act of goodness that requires neither a determination of what he should do nor a declaration of what he stands for beyond "humanity" in general. But Superman is supposed to stand for more.
   
   
5. Greek revenge tragedy structure
   
   Terrio does confirm that he looked at the structure of revenge tragedies, but as that tumblr post explains, he looked at a Shakespearean revenge tragedy like Hamlet. The problem with this is three-fold:
   
   First, Hamlet is not at all suitable for a story about Batman and Superman that is supposed to end with a "dawn of justice." Tragedies by definition end worse than they start off, but this film is supposed to end with a dawn.
   
   Second, while a revenge tragedy makes sense for a character like Batman, this film subverts the structure and narrative in a way that short-changes the point of such revenge tragedies. In the revenge tragedy, the person carrying out the revenge is the one who ultimately dies, signifying the self-destructive nature of revenge. But here, it's Superman who bears the consequence, while Bruce lives to carry on the torch left behind by Superman. Bruce faces no consequences for the revenge path that he's been on, removing much of the "tragedy" of the revenge. In fact, the Doomsday ending marks a departure from the revenge tragedy, leaving a confusing structure that doesn't pay off the story it tells.
   
   The beautiful thing about TDK was that it was a tragic story, one that ended in a Pyrrhic victory for Bruce: Harvey Dent has a purely tragic arc, and Batman -- who has fought a long battle for the soul of Gotham (without giving up his own soul) takes the fall so that Gotham can heal. It's a true sacrificial act that is born of Bruce's own sorrow at losing Rachel. BvS doesn't do the same with Bruce, instead transferring Bruce's revenge tragedy onto Superman.
   
   
6. What it means to be a hero
   
   The revenge tragedy actually prevents this lesson from being learned. For a character steeped in hope, Batman v Superman presents a rather hopeless Superman whose faith in humanity is actually never restored. He never comes to determine that he CAN be a hero, which is why his decision to sacrifice himself didn't seem triumphant. This is particularly important because not only does Superman not triumph over his doubts and opposition, but it sets up a shaky conclusion for Justice League: if Superman comes back to a world that unilaterally adores him, what does that actually say? That he inspired the world by his good deeds? Hardly. Rather, it says that Superman can only operate in a world that wants him. And that means that he isn't relevant. It means that Superman can't really change the world. Which is why his sacrificial act is also a definitive conclusion that he can't actually change the world, not as a living hero. So he doesn't overcome anything.
   
   Bruce overcomes his hatred of Superman and his views on whether or not he can do good, but that's about it. Wonder Woman doesn't get enough development for her one statement to really impact the story.
   
   
7. Deconstruction of the modern myth
   
   Deconstruction is only good if something else is constructed in the process. Superman is entirely deconstructed, but he isn't actually reconstructed as a modern hero. He is shown to be controversial, dangerous, polarizing, radicalizing, and sacrificial. But he isn't shown to be inspiring or transformative. Such things could have been shown in a more nuanced, complex way -- hope that points the way forward even in the midst of a tragic and troubled world -- an imperfect hero who nevertheless inspires people to aspire -- a burgeoning partnership that hints at a greater pursuit of justice. But it seems that Snyder only knows how to deconstruct; he doesn't know how to reconstruct.
   
   
8. Jesus and Superman
   
   There is NOTHING about ordinary humans having the potential to rise to the level of gods. You are reading into the film was isn't there in the slightest. As for Superman being a God-like alien comparable to Jesus or the Christian God, that is precisely where the attempted portrayal falls a part. Superman is neither omnipresent nor omniscient nor omnipotent. He's neither eternal nor all-wise. He presents neither moral virtue nor upholds justice. This Superman, the one presented in Batman v Superman, bears NO possible resemblance to a monotheistic deity worshiped by 2 billion people. And that's purely on account of the actions that he does not undertake. So there is no way that anyone would actually worship him as a monotheistic deity, much less one that rivals Jesus (whose significant act is in dying to take away people's sins).
   
   This Superman only rescues people from disasters, so at most he's a guardian angel. The reverent dependence that people display toward him might constitute some form of worship, but the emphasis should have always been on Superman as an alien, not on Superman as God.
   
   
9. Corporate power has destroyed democracy
   
   This isn't really a theme in the film at all. Lex's corporate nature isn't presented at all (we get NO sense of what LexCorp is to Metropolis, the country, or the world). And aside from Finch's aborted opening remarks about democracy's role in determining good (that's never been decided by popular vote), we get no treatment of how Superman's unipolar presence undermines democracy. Not much is placed on the role of media in distorting truth or the role of journalism in uncovering truth. The one place for that to happen -- Lois's subplot -- doesn't lead anywhere.
   
   
10. The world isn't just black and white
    
    This might have been a good theme, except the film concludes by saying that the world is black, but it can become white again(?) The film doesn't actually navigate a way through the murkiness of "good" actions and negative consequences. It simply comes up with an unambiguous good action (Superman's sacrifice) that has no negative consequence or collateral, all the while failing to actually wrap up the North Africa incident OR the Metropolis battle. In short, the film presents a grey world but chooses to sidestep the issue of Superman's morally-ambiguous presence by killing him, rather than showing a divided world coming to terms with his ongoing existence.

Firstly, thanks a lot for a well thought out and reasonable response and for not making random jokes and snarky comments.

Secondly, I do not agree with your points so I'm going to point towards a couple of articles that will be a reasonable response to your points, since I am not able to write a long response myself at this time.

Thanks and I hope you like the articles:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhug...and-batman-v-superman-proves-it/#75340399258e
http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-best-story-movie/
http://www.fhm.com/posts/batman-v-s...-the-most-powerful-superhero-film-ever-100241


I have one question about the Martha point, did you read the article I linked to? This one > https://dceufilms.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/about-martha-the-masculine-vs-the-feminine-in-bvs/

I have explained the significance of the moment and how all the previous scenes involving Batman actually build up to it very significantly.

 

[Miss Lois Lane]

I never said anything like that so you might want to stop saying things that aren't true or that you THOUGHT I meant, in your own mind.

I admit that I went full-on Bruce Wayne, took things personally and shouldn't have brought 'the fight' here. Luckily I listened to my inner Alfred - you are not my enemy!

 

[Cats]

Nice article. Another parallel here - society has so consumed the concept of "political correctness" that they become too easily offended - if today's form of terrorism is any indication. They will dig to the bowels of any statement that doesn't align with their own in order to be offended. And Lamboman, you have just experienced it, as has the entire movie of BvS. It's fine if people have certain things that they'd have done differently but it's gone way past and some are at angry mob level now as though Snyder murdered their families. Ridiculous imo

 

[Flint Marko]

4. The entire movie is a commentary on our current times - cynical, oppressive and war torn BUT it shows that the world can change and for the better. It is art, and does what art is supposed to do according to Ernst Fischer in this quote, "In a decaying society, art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay. And unless it wants to break faith with its social function, art must show the world as changeable. And help to change it."\

Let me just say that while I disagree with a lot of what you are positing here, I do admire the breadth of your analysis and enjoyed reading it.
But it's this selection right here that I take issue with - I honestly don't believe we live in a decaying society. Is it changing? Absolutely, arguably faster than ever. But is it decaying? I'm inclined to think not.
Maybe this is me being young and naive, but looking back at just the eras where Superman had his greatest moments in the sun, things were arguably bleaker than they have been in decades. He was birthed in the late 30's, while our country was still in the throes of the Depression, and forever cemented himself as a part of western culture in Donner's first Superman movie in a post-watergate America. Things were very bleak in both instances, and Superman served as a beacon of hope that has largely defined the character for the better part of the century.
In regards to your other observations, I think you are, for the most part, on the money. But that doesn't mean it was executed in a satisfying, coherent manner that made for a worthwhile experience. The bloated story they tried to tell was killed by the frantic editing and desparate world-building. Batman V Superman showed promise, but it was Dawn of Justice that sunk the ship.

 

[LamboMan]

I admit that I went full-on Bruce Wayne, took things personally and shouldn't have brought 'the fight' here. Luckily I listened to my inner Alfred - you are not my enemy!

It's fine MLL! I also replied to your post on the DCEU forums. I'm sorry if anything I said offended you.

Peace!

Nice article. Another parallel here - society has so consumed the concept of "political correctness" that they become too easily offended - if today's form of terrorism is any indication. They will dig to the bowels of any statement that doesn't align with their own in order to be offended. And Lamboman, you have just experienced it, as has the entire movie of BvS. It's fine if people have certain things that they'd have done differently but it's gone way past and some are at angry mob level now as though Snyder murdered their families. Ridiculous imo

Thanks for posting your point of view. I might agree with most of it. You're right, when people's firmly held views are challenged and questioned, as this movie has done, then the reaction can be quite negative. Pretty much the same with religion. If you question it, there will be a lot of people who will react negatively to even the idea that God 'might' not exist.

Let me just say that while I disagree with a lot of what you are positing here, I do admire the breadth of your analysis and enjoyed reading it.
But it's this selection right here that I take issue with - I honestly don't believe we live in a decaying society. Is it changing? Absolutely, arguably faster than ever. But is it decaying? I'm inclined to think not.
Maybe this is me being young and naive, but looking back at just the eras where Superman had his greatest moments in the sun, things were arguably bleaker than they have been in decades. He was birthed in the late 30's, while our country was still in the throes of the Depression, and forever cemented himself as a part of western culture in Donner's first Superman movie in a post-watergate America. Things were very bleak in both instances, and Superman served as a beacon of hope that has largely defined the character for the better part of the century.
In regards to your other observations, I think you are, for the most part, on the money. But that doesn't mean it was executed in a satisfying, coherent manner that made for a worthwhile experience. The bloated story they tried to tell was killed by the frantic editing and desparate world-building. Batman V Superman showed promise, but it was Dawn of Justice that sunk the ship.

Thanks for your response! You are free to disagree with me and I appreciate that you picked out that quote since I was waiting for someone to notice it, haha.

From what I have learned about this world, we are way worse off than what we were as a species in the past 100 years. Yes, the negative effects which were VISIBLE back then were WAY worse than those visible today, but today countries fight economic wars and corporations and industries have taken over the planet and the people and are squeezing every last bit out of them in the name of profit with zero regard for the world or it's state of degradation. So what is NOT VISIBLE is far worse than what happened earlier and it's because its not visible that we feel we live in a better world.

What we saw in the past 100 years was as bad as it looked, and nothing else was hidden from the public. War was war and when it got over things became better over time.

But in the last 20 to 30 years the world has changed so drastically that all the major countries have realised that you cannot win by sheer military force anymore (except America who has been raping the middle East for the past 15 years in the name of terrorism, but actually for oil) and so almost ALL countries in the world, who are anyway run by either profiteering politicians or hegemonic corporations, have been at economic 'war' with the people of the world, especially the third world.

I'm from the third world (India) so I know what I'm talking about. The country I live in is pillaged by international corporations for the mental power and man power of the people which they get at throwaway prices since we're a country with a currency 65 times less value than the dollar and 100 times less than the pound.

China is pillaged for it's slave labour by the largest electronic corporations such as Apple, where hordes of slaves make Iphones. Africa is pillaged for its resources and the war lords are kept in power by the first world countries that profit from the slave labour and resource theft, so they can do their dirty work and keep the well oiled machine running.

If earlier there were millions who were suffering due to the physical violence of war, now there are billions suffering due to this 'structural violence' and yes that's a technical term used to describe this phenomenon. Poverty is the largest form of structural violence and it's the largest killer in the world today.

And this isn't the half of it. We live in an Orwellian world where everyone is monitored and suspected and where people who tell the truth about the system are incarcerated or hunted.

Don't even get me started on planned obsolescence and the fact that even though we can solve most problems of today's world with technological solutions, bureaucracy, money, power and control get in the way and stop us from fixing this world since those in power realise that if those problems are solved we won't need money or the economic system as it is now and they will lose their power if the status quo of scarcity of items isn't maintained.

We are actually destroying this world and ourselves, thanks to insane levels of pollution of all kinds but no one cares since everyone is too distracted to focus on the real problems and to try to fix them.

Well, I know that's a lot to take in right now and I'm sorry if some of it doesn't make sense since I just threw a lot at you. I suggest watching the 'Zeitgeist Movement' documentaries and that will explain everything that is wrong in the world right now, the kind of stuff they don't teach in school or talk about on the news since that would disrupt the status quo. They also present various solutions so it's not all doom and gloom, there is hope for the future if only we decide to act and not ignore that THERE ARE problems in the world that are only getting worse by the minute.

None of it is based on conspiracy theories either, its all backed up by facts and things that can be cross checked. Almost all these things are reported on few news channels but since so few of them focus on truth and important stories instead of the most 'controversial' and buzz generating ones, they often get lost in the mix and it can be hard to look for them, if you don't know what you're looking for.

Here's links to those documentaries I just mentioned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrHeg77LF4Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

Check out the number of views those videos have gotten, millions upon millions. The first one might seem a BIT conspiracy theorist but the second and third ones are to the point. Also check out 'Culture in Decline' a YT episodic show made by the creator of the above movies:

https://www.youtube.com/user/CultureInDecline/videos

 

[FunkMiller]

Now that's some critical thinking...

I'd argue that statistically the world is the safest and best it's ever been for the human race as a whole, but then I appreciate that you live in a country that has been screwed over by western greed many times, so I can entirely understand your viewpoint.

And to turn it back to Batman V Superman: in such an uncertain and complicated world, we could do with more examples of people acting in a selfless and even, dare I say it, heroic manner. Even if they are fictional.

We should never underestimate the power our beloved fictional figures have to change the way people think here in the real world.

That's why I despise Zack Snyder's take on Superman. He had a chance to let Superman do what he is best at - shine a light on the darkness, and instead he gave us a morose, selfish mono-syllabic cypher, in a movie that thinks it's far cleverer than it actually is.

Snyder has a teenage boy's view of the world - it's dark and hard and cold and horrible, so bother to fight it? Why not just embrace it - because there is no option but to?

Superman needs a grown-up at the helm. Someone who believes that no matter how bad things become, how dark the world seems, there is always hope, there is always light, there is always the chance of a better tomorrow. Because that's the way the world actually is.

"Somewhere in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down…"

 

[Legendver2]

Superman needs a grown-up at the helm. Someone who believes that no matter how bad things become, how dark the world seems, there is always hope, there is always light, there is always the chance of a better tomorrow. Because that's the way the world actually is.

Until Trump wins

 

[LamboMan]

Now that's some critical thinking...

I'd argue that statistically the world is the safest and best it's ever been for the human race as a whole, but then I appreciate that you live in a country that has been screwed over by western greed many times, so I can entirely understand your viewpoint.

And to turn it back to Batman V Superman: in such an uncertain and complicated world, we could do with more examples of people acting in a selfless and even, dare I say it, heroic manner. Even if they are fictional.

We should never underestimate the power our beloved fictional figures have to change the way people think here in the real world.

That's why I despise Zack Snyder's take on Superman. He had a chance to let Superman do what he is best at - shine a light on the darkness, and instead he gave us a morose, selfish mono-syllabic cypher, in a movie that thinks it's far cleverer than it actually is.

Snyder has a teenage boy's view of the world - it's dark and hard and cold and horrible, so bother to fight it? Why not just embrace it - because there is no option but to?

Superman needs a grown-up at the helm. Someone who believes that no matter how bad things become, how dark the world seems, there is always hope, there is always light, there is always the chance of a better tomorrow. Because that's the way the world actually is.

"Somewhere in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down…"

Thanks for response!

What I find baffling is that what you said in the last paragraph is ACTUALLY there in the film, word for word. That is exactly what I saw in it and it's clear as day to me.

When Superman says things like, "No one stays good" or "Superman was never real" that IS NOT an indictment of Superman's morality or place in the world.

It is merely showing us that Lex has won for that moment and Superman is in another no-win situation which does not make Superman lesser, it just makes his conviction to always do the right thing even stronger and more meaningful since it actually means something now instead of being a hollow platitude.

When he says, "No one stays good" it shows us that he UNDERSTANDS why Batman became the way he did and not that he was considering killing Batman. He merely states that he is being forced to consider that option by Lex and that disgusts him to his core. The FIRST thing he does when he faces Bruce is to NOT fight him and try to talk to him. He apologises to him since he understands how people in this world can become bad when they lose everything and he was on the brink of that by losing his mother and now he understands why Bruce became cruel.

I repeat, he apologises to him. The FIRST thing he does is apologise to him for judging him and he knew that Batman was a good guy who had just lost his way due to whatever reasons (he knows Bruce has suffered some losses and is a cynical man due to his past thanks to what he says at the party).

When he says, "Superman was never real" that is him feeling like he has failed in what he thought was the right thing (the farmer's dream - which refers to HIMSELF since Pa Kent NEVER told Clark to be Superman), that doing the right thing with his powers for the world would just make everything right automatically.

He then realises that HE WAS WRONG to think that he failed, since Pa Kent's memory reminds him that any action however good will have some ripple effects and consequences (just like in the real world) and that even though they might be negative that doesn't mean that he just gives up and stops doing good and stops using his abilities for the greater good.

Superman learns that he must continue to do good in the face of all adversity and in the face of negative consequences which are out of his control (government reaction, people's reaction etc.) since that is the RIGHT thing to do.

He shows that world that seems to hate him for what he does, that he will continue to be an example for 'absolute good' which Lex despises by staying on the right path and giving his life TWICE for the right cause of protecting the world from evil.

TWICE, not just once. He takes Doomsday right into space to avoid casualties on the ground due to collateral, he drives him right into the NUKE, not knowing whether he would survive the blast and he did it without even a split second of thought. He KNEW what he needed to do, his own life be damned. As long as he gave it his ALL to save the world, he would do it till his last breath, even if it meant he needed to sacrifice himself in the process.

Then he goes in and gets the Kryptonite spear knowing FULL well what it could do to him. And finally, when he comes to terms with the fact that the EARTH will always be his world, that all he needed was Lois' love, just like Pa Kent only needed Martha's to reassure him that he was doing the right thing regardless of the backlash, he went ahead and did it.

This is a movie in which Superman is the bravest of us all, he is faced with his mortality for the FIRST TIME in his life, thanks to Kryptonite and instead of running away from it, he grabs it and faces it head on and takes the charge of destroying Doomsday and NOT letting Diana or Bruce do it since they could as easily be killed by him and is the real brave and selfless hero at the end.

ALL of the above was seen by the world, through the military and the news, and so it inspired people to also be the best versions of themselves - "If you seek his monument, look around you". It inspired people and Batman to band together and work towards a better world, which we will see most probably in JL1, just like we saw the world's reaction in BvS, which was brought up in MoS.

I would very much appreciate it if you read the following articles, which explain this in full detail, using ONLY what is presented in the film and nothing else:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhug...and-batman-v-superman-proves-it/#4da6ff95258e
http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-best-story-movie/

Thanks for your time!