BvS The Themes in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

[FunkMiller]

Thanks for response!
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.

"Lois, I have to go to Gotham to convince him to help me... or he has to die... No-one stays good in this world."

Exact dialogue from the movie.

I think you're attempting to interpret lines of dialogue in such a way to fit your thesis, when in actual fact, the meanings of those lines are clear and obvious.

Look, I get it, you love this movie and want it to mean more than it actually does, but you can't ignore the obvious, the plain and simple staring you right in the face. Superman means to kill Batman if he won't help him.

 

[LamboMan]

"Lois, I have to go to Gotham to convince him to help me... or he has to die... No-one stays good in this world."

Exact dialogue from the movie.

I think you're attempting to interpret lines of dialogue in such a way to fit your thesis, when in actual fact, the meanings of those lines are clear and obvious.

Look, I get it, you love this movie and want it to mean more than it actually does, but you can't ignore the obvious, the plain and simple staring you right in the face. Superman means to kill Batman if he won't help him.

And where's your response to the rest of my post? Or did you just ignore that too, so that it didn't hurt your own confirmation bias?

Question: Did Superman actually do that? Did he attack Batman and try to kill him, when Batman refused to listen or cooperate? No he didn't. He tried to end the fight and continued to try to talk sense to him until it came to the point where had had to beg Batman to listen to him and save Martha, regardless of what Batman does to him. He does get aggressive after Batman weakens him with Kryptonite, but he fights only to stop Batman and not to kill him.

Now lets take a step back. Actually listen to what he's saying instead of applying your own interpretation to it. He never said, "I will kill him", or even, "I will have to kill him," he says, "or he has to die" implying his disgust at Lex's ultimatum or the gauntlet he placed before Superman. Lex said that Batman "has to die to save Martha", which is what Superman will never do and that is what disgusts him to his core, even the thought of it, even the possibility of it.

He NEVER intended to attack Bats and that is insanely clear from his actions. So instead of accusing me of interpreting things to feed my confirmation bias, you might actually want to take what happened in the movie as fact and argue using the facts instead of what you THOUGHT Superman's words meant and parading them around as fact.

 

[FunkMiller]

I think possibly any further discussion is moot at this point.

Best we allow others to come to their own decisions regarding the intent of Superman's words in that particular sequence, and the movie as a whole.

I believe that Zack Snyder's agenda is that he wants his superheroes dark and prepared to murder if necessary. His interest is not in depicting the comic character on screen, but investing them with his own viewpoint on the world - one largely dictated by the desire to deconstruct, based on his Randian objectivist beliefs. The way he speaks in interviews about the subject backs this up. he has no love for the classic, that much is clear. I believe this to be a hideously misjudged way of making a Batman and Superman movie. His appreciation of the comics from which these characters come from is misjudged at best, and virtually non-existent at worst. He also wishes to encompass grand themes in his narratives - ones that ultimately fail to connect with an audience because his limited skill set does not give him the talent required to accomplish this. He's a middling filmmaker with ambitions to greatness.

Clearly your opinion is to the contrary, and I doubt anything I, or others can say will change your mind. You will also not change mine, so, as I say... best to let others form their own opinions.

 

[LamboMan]

I think possibly any further discussion is moot at this point.

Best we allow others to come to their own decisions regarding the intent of Superman's words in that particular sequence, and the movie as a whole.

I believe that Zack Snyder's agenda is that he wants his superheroes dark and prepared to murder if necessary. His interest is not in depicting the comic character on screen, but investing them with his own viewpoint on the world - one largely dictated by the desire to deconstruct, based on his Randian objectivist beliefs. The way he speaks in interviews about the subject backs this up. he has no love for the classic, that much is clear. I believe this to be a hideously misjudged way of making a Batman and Superman movie. His appreciation of the comics from which these characters come from is misjudged at best, and virtually non-existent at worst. He also wishes to encompass grand themes in his narratives - ones that ultimately fail to connect with an audience because his limited skill set does not give him the talent required to accomplish this. He's a middling filmmaker with ambitions to greatness.

Clearly your opinion is to the contrary, and I doubt anything I, or others can say will change your mind. You will also not change mine, so, as I say... best to let others form their own opinions.

Yeah, lets.

So your entire argument is, "I didn't like BvS since it doesn't look exactly like MY classic Batman and Superman and so I'm going to ignore everything that is actually IN the movie, the message that it is so desperately tying to put across, one of doing good in the face of all odds and and inspiring people by example - which is what Superman stands for in the comics classically too, and I'm going to not like it and I'm going to denounce Zack and his work. All because I don't like that Zack presents the character as he is supposed to be, BUT in a different more realistic way, with the hero facing more challenges and difficulties on his path to that same greatness he achieves in the comics much more easily."

 

[LamboMan]

Added to point 1:

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.

 

[AndrewOz]

Yeah, lets.

So your entire argument is, "I didn't like BvS since it doesn't look exactly like MY classic Batman and Superman and so I'm going to ignore everything that is actually IN the movie, the message that it is so desperately tying to put across, one of doing good in the face of all odds and and inspiring people by example - which is what Superman stands for in the comics classically too, and I'm going to not like it and I'm going to denounce Zack and his work. All because I don't like that Zack presents the character as he is supposed to be, BUT in a different more realistic way, with the hero facing more challenges and difficulties on his path to that same greatness he achieves in the comics much more easily."

There are 2 quotes from the same scene in BvS that sum it up perfectly, in the order they are delivered in the film:

"It's silly. The magical thinking of orphan boys".

and

"Take a Bucket of Piss and call it Granny's Peach tea. I'm not gonna drink it"

Those are the primary themes of BvS:

If I make a movie that rips themes from popular critically acclaimed stories featuring the most popular characters on the planet, bungle the execution and rely on ridiculous coincidence to advance the plot and have magical instead of logical resolution to the story, will the fans be distracted enough to swallow it?

Well, because of excellent marketing, a lot of people lined up in gleeful anticipation to buy a jar of Granny's peach tea.
The magical thinking required to believe the sales pitch after that just added to the the aftertaste.
Few went back for seconds.
Most warned their friends.

The end.

 

[AndrewOz]

I think possibly any further discussion is moot at this point.

Best we allow others to come to their own decisions regarding the intent of Superman's words in that particular sequence, and the movie as a whole.

I believe that Zack Snyder's agenda is that he wants his superheroes dark and prepared to murder if necessary. His interest is not in depicting the comic character on screen, but investing them with his own viewpoint on the world - one largely dictated by the desire to deconstruct, based on his Randian objectivist beliefs. The way he speaks in interviews about the subject backs this up. he has no love for the classic, that much is clear. I believe this to be a hideously misjudged way of making a Batman and Superman movie. His appreciation of the comics from which these characters come from is misjudged at best, and virtually non-existent at worst. He also wishes to encompass grand themes in his narratives - ones that ultimately fail to connect with an audience because his limited skill set does not give him the talent required to accomplish this. He's a middling filmmaker with ambitions to greatness.

Clearly your opinion is to the contrary, and I doubt anything I, or others can say will change your mind. You will also not change mine, so, as I say... best to let others form their own opinions.

Exactly.
There are 2 quotes from the same scene in BvS that sum it up perfectly, in the order they are delivered in the film:

"It's silly. The magical thinking of orphan boys".

and

"Take a Bucket of Piss and call it Granny's Peach tea. I'm not gonna drink it"

Those are the primary themes of BvS:

If I make a movie that rips themes from popular critically acclaimed stories featuring the most popular characters on the planet, bungle the execution and rely on ridiculous coincidence to advance the plot and have magical instead of logical resolution to the story, will the fans be distracted enough to swallow it?

Well, because of excellent marketing, a lot of people lined up in gleeful anticipation to buy a jar of Granny's peach tea.
The magical thinking required to believe the sales pitch after that just added to the the aftertaste.
Few went back for seconds.
Most warned their friends.

The end.

 

[Paradox1]

I liked what the OP said and I agree with a great deal of it. I'd add argue Superman doesn't represent America today but up to Hiroshima. When it was the only country capable of completely destroying another. I do think however that Batman also represents America but post 9/11 a nation whose 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.

It does take a look whose at whose a hero. The point starts in the opening with Bruce rescuing people during the Battle of Metropolis risking his own life. Asking the question are you a hero if you never risk your life. This reminds of something Max Lamdis said in that Superman's heroic acts are his kind of charity acts. As most of people do giving money and time to this cause or another. A point hammered by Batman when he says " you aren't brave, men are brave." In that regard Clark does have a arc from a guy just saving lives here in there in situations where he is actually never in danger to putting his life jeopardy in the end.

 

[AndrewOz]

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

 

[AndrewOz]

I liked what the OP said and I agree with a great deal of it. I'd add argue Superman doesn't represent America today but up to Hiroshima. When it was the only country capable of completely destroying another. I do think however that Batman also represents America but post 9/11 a nation whose 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.

It does take a look whose at whose a hero. The point starts in the opening with Bruce rescuing people during the Battle of Metropolis risking his own life. Asking the question are you a hero if you never risk your life. This reminds of something Max Lamdis said in that Superman's heroic acts are his kind of charity acts. As most of people do giving money and time to this cause or another. A point hammered by Batman when he says " you aren't brave, men are brave." In that regard Clark does have a arc from a guy just saving lives here in there in situations where he is actually never in danger to putting his life jeopardy in the end.

[

The problem I have with that explanation of his arc is the existence of MoS. he started the movie as an incompetent bumbler with no sense of self, burdened by the justifiable guilt resultant from standing his ground like an impotent tool when his father was threatened by a twister, to a character who identified himself as a protector of Earth and humanity, prepared to surrender himself to save it, albeit not particularly intelligently or competently.
At the end, he gave a clear message about who he was and what he stood for, if only to a lone General and a childishly immature major who better not get turned into Star Sapphire.
BvS shows that there was no matching public declaration and acts like the character growth of MoS never happened, taking him back emotionally to sad, lost and confused as he was at the start of MoS. Except worse, because it's a regression of his character.
Putting yourself in harms way to protect others is not the same as throwing your life away in a needless act. He did the former in MoS and the latter in BvS.

 

[Jaxon]

"Lois, I have to go to Gotham to convince him to help me... or he has to die... No-one stays good in this world."

Exact dialogue from the movie.

I think you're attempting to interpret lines of dialogue in such a way to fit your thesis, when in actual fact, the meanings of those lines are clear and obvious.

Look, I get it, you love this movie and want it to mean more than it actually does, but you can't ignore the obvious, the plain and simple staring you right in the face. Superman means to kill Batman if he won't help him.

No he doesn't otherwise instead of pushing him and throwing him he would have ripped off his head or eye fried him. Superman only tries to subdue him to get him to a point where he has no choice but to listen to him.

Superman is simply repeating to Lois the conditions that Lex has put him under. The line "no one stays good in this world" is just an exasperation of the events that got him here, a bit like saying "oh ffs why is everyone so f****** in the head."

 

[Jaxon]

[[/B]

The problem I have with that explanation of his arc is the existence of MoS. he started the movie as an incompetent bumbler with no sense of self, burdened by the justifiable guilt resultant from standing his ground like an impotent tool when his father was threatened by a twister, to a character who identified himself as a protector of Earth and humanity, prepared to surrender himself to save it, albeit not particularly intelligently or competently.
At the end, he gave a clear message about who he was and what he stood for, if only to a lone General and a childishly immature major who better not get turned into Star Sapphire.
BvS shows that there was no matching public declaration and acts like the character growth of MoS never happened, taking him back emotionally to sad, lost and confused as he was at the start of MoS. Except worse, because it's a regression of his character.
Putting yourself in harms way to protect others is not the same as throwing your life away in a needless act. He did the former in MoS and the latter in BvS.

But this is the point where growth occurs, it's Act 2 of his life. How does Luke Skywalker grow by leaving Yoda to impatiently confront Vadar? He doesn't, but it's a necessary step that allows him to overcome doubt and focus on what he needs to do to be a better hero. It's the same journey for Clark to Kal El, and Kal El to Superman.
Kal-Els sacrifice ultimately will transform him to Superman and it happened in the moment he told Lois "this is my world" and then did the most Superman thing of all and gave his life to save others.

 

[AndrewOz]

No he doesn't otherwise instead of pushing him and throwing him he would have ripped off his head or eye fried him. Superman only tries to subdue him to get him to a point where he has no choice but to listen to him.

Superman is simply repeating to Lois the conditions that Lex has put him under. The line "no one stays good in this world" is just an exasperation of the events that got him here, a bit like saying "oh ffs why is everyone so f****** in the head."

You haven't refuted M1ll3r's point.

Superman wasn't repeating Lex's conditions, he was telling Lois where he was going and what he was going to do.
Otherwise he would have said "I have to convince him to help. Lex has demanded his head in return for my mothers life. His actual head. What is wrong with that guy?"
Superman is clearly losing his temper when he throws Batman down. The script moronically then has him revert to pointless threatening bravado, guaranteeing a violent response.
You don't do that if you want to engage in conversation and ask for help, unless you're an idiot with no emotional control.
M1ll3r directly quoted the source. What he says is correct. When Superman says "no-one stays good in this world" he's talking about himself in preparation for the potential murder ahead.
The only difference between him and Batman is he hasn't already committed himself to that course.
This movie is not what you want to believe it is.

 

[LamboMan]

I liked what the OP said and I agree with a great deal of it. I'd add argue Superman doesn't represent America today but up to Hiroshima. When it was the only country capable of completely destroying another. I do think however that Batman also represents America but post 9/11 a nation whose 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.

It does take a look whose at whose a hero. The point starts in the opening with Bruce rescuing people during the Battle of Metropolis risking his own life. Asking the question are you a hero if you never risk your life. This reminds of something Max Lamdis said in that Superman's heroic acts are his kind of charity acts. As most of people do giving money and time to this cause or another. A point hammered by Batman when he says " you aren't brave, men are brave." In that regard Clark does have a arc from a guy just saving lives here in there in situations where he is actually never in danger to putting his life jeopardy in the end.

Thanks a lot! You totally got it right! I like the part about Batman representing post 9/11 america, I'll add that to the post if you don't mind, I'll credit you for it.

And yeah, the point of Superman being faced with his own mortality for the first time and still choosing to be the hero and put himself in harm's way to protect the world instead of letting other's take the fall, shows why he is the perfect Superman.

[[/B]

The problem I have with that explanation of his arc is the existence of MoS. he started the movie as an incompetent bumbler with no sense of self, burdened by the justifiable guilt resultant from standing his ground like an impotent tool when his father was threatened by a twister, to a character who identified himself as a protector of Earth and humanity, prepared to surrender himself to save it, albeit not particularly intelligently or competently.
At the end, he gave a clear message about who he was and what he stood for, if only to a lone General and a childishly immature major who better not get turned into Star Sapphire.
BvS shows that there was no matching public declaration and acts like the character growth of MoS never happened, taking him back emotionally to sad, lost and confused as he was at the start of MoS. Except worse, because it's a regression of his character.
Putting yourself in harms way to protect others is not the same as throwing your life away in a needless act. He did the former in MoS and the latter in BvS.

It wasn't a needless act. Was it a needless act when Superman fought Doomsday in the 90's comic arc? Was it a needless act when he doesn't let Wonder Woman or Batman risk their lives and takes it upon himself to kill Doomsday, knowing full well the risk of attacking that powerful a creature alone AND with a Kryptonite spear in his hands weakening him too?

Why was it a needless act? He put his life on the line and didn't expect Wonder Woman to kill DD even though she could, since she'd be risking her own life at the end there. If DD could kill Supes with his bone spike, he could very well kill Wondy with it too.

No he doesn't otherwise instead of pushing him and throwing him he would have ripped off his head or eye fried him. Superman only tries to subdue him to get him to a point where he has no choice but to listen to him.

Superman is simply repeating to Lois the conditions that Lex has put him under. The line "no one stays good in this world" is just an exasperation of the events that got him here, a bit like saying "oh ffs why is everyone so f****** in the head."

Haha, I love the way you put that.

 

[Paradox1]

No problem Lamboman

 

[AndrewOz]

Thanks a lot! You totally got it right! I like the part about Batman representing post 9/11 america, I'll add that to the post if you don't mind, I'll credit you for it.

And yeah, the point of Superman being faced with his own mortality for the first time and still choosing to be the hero and put himself in harm's way to protect the world instead of letting other's take the fall, shows why he is the perfect Superman.



It wasn't a needless act. Was it a needless act when Superman fought Doomsday in the 90's comic arc? Was it a needless act when he doesn't let Wonder Woman or Batman risk their lives and takes it upon himself to kill Doomsday, knowing full well the risk of attacking that powerful a creature alone AND with a Kryptonite spear in his hands weakening him too?

Why was it a needless act? He put his life on the line and didn't expect Wonder Woman to kill DD even though she could, since she'd be risking her own life at the end there. If DD could kill Supes with his bone spike, he could very well kill Wondy with it too.

Haha, I love the way you put that.

It absolutely was not a needless act in the comic.
He was literally the only option in the comic.
That's what made it a noble sacrifice.
If he was the only option here, it could have worked.
It's a little thing called context.

Your point about the bone spike and WW is moronic as well because of context.
Do you know what the great advantage of a spear is?
It can be thrown.
The Ancient Greeks developed an entire series of sporting events around their weapons of war. They still celebrate these events at a thing called the Olympics.

Perhaps you've heard of a javelin?

Even without that, she could use a typical lance technique and guess what? She still has her magic shield which was also demonstrated to be proof against anything DD could dish out.
She didn't want to risk her life? Superman didn't want her to? Why didn't he tell her to leave when she first showed up then? By that time in the fight, she'd already proven she was far more effective at fighting Doomsday than Superman was.
Batman could have killed him with the spear.

Why is Superman even flying with the spear at all? Apart from the most idiotic of all possible ideas, it is contextually impossible according to the rules created by the movie itself.
mere minutes before, he was unable to retrieve the spear from the water by himself. He was weakened so drastically and so quickly that he had to be fished out and saved from drowning by Lois. She had to throw the thing away so he could regain consciousness.
How the bad place is he flying with it?
If your answer is momentum, he could have simply thrown it then. And no Doomsday couldn't have gotten out of the way, because he didn't move while he was flying it at him.
What happened to the good idea of flying him into space?
Did Superman forget?
Or are we expected to believe that the idiot President who thought launching a nuke at a disappearing problem was such a good idea after completely failing the first time could possibly be guitared enough to do it again?
It would have had more impact if Superman resolved it in a way that neither of his allies could have replicated.
Doomsday could still have impaled him on his spike and have him crash to Earth while Doomsday is flung into space.
For the second time (How exactly did Doomsday fall back to Earth the first time, when it was shown they had already passed beyond the gravitational pull of Earth? I forgot. Reasons)

The problem with the scene and the reason it fails is because it was not constructed around the idea of Superman giving his all in a final heroic noble moment, but around a shot Zack had in his head. Logic was not applied around making it sensible or believable.

He wanted to recreate the climactic scene from Excalibur, so he could book end both of his characters with Boorman's 1981 classic.
Batman is born after watching Excalibur, Superman dies in a recreation of the death of Arthur at the hands of Mordred.
Why did Superman pull himself further up the bone spike to plunge his weapon through Doomsday?
Kryptonite is toxic. Having it inside Doomsday's chest cavity is the best place for it. Pushing it out the other side is stupid, because it lessens the effect immediately. Why on earth would he do that? Is it because he's an idiot?
No, it's because Arthur did it in Excalibur.
The only reason the spear exists is so that Zack can shoot his Excalibur shot.
It's a ridiculous weapon for Batman to craft as part of his murder plot, when kryptonite bullets end it before it even starts. Mission accomplished. Or are all the main characters in this movie criminally stupid on purpose?

 

[AndrewOz]

But this is the point where growth occurs, it's Act 2 of his life. How does Luke Skywalker grow by leaving Yoda to impatiently confront Vadar? He doesn't, but it's a necessary step that allows him to overcome doubt and focus on what he needs to do to be a better hero. It's the same journey for Clark to Kal El, and Kal El to Superman.
Kal-Els sacrifice ultimately will transform him to Superman and it happened in the moment he told Lois "this is my world" and then did the most Superman thing of all and gave his life to save others.

It is not the same journey. Not remotely. You continually apply emotional response without context as comparisons with no specific detail to validate them.
Luke rushes off in the middle of his training to save his friends.
Superman runs away from the world to listen to stories about "no good deed goes unpunished" from Ghost Dad (has Costner become one with the force as well after Death?). His arc is the opposite of Luke's.
Then he throws his life away in what is meant to be seen as an act of nobility but is contextually demonstrably avoidable.
It's just such poor writing.
There is a reason this movie is so heavily mocked around the world, a reason it has spawned so many memes.
It's not because it is misunderstood.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Maybe the truth is that good or bad, all actions have reactions? And that we have to learn to live with that and continue on? That the perfect is the enemy of the true good? I for one think it's a lesson this country and the world needs more than ever right now.

And that's not just intellectually but emotionally as well. Is it a fist bumping, fill your heart with joy type of thing? No. But it's a somber truth none the less as I see it. Using a hero like Supes to hand out that somber truth is fine in my book.

 

[AndrewOz]

Maybe the truth is that good or bad, all actions have reactions? And that we have to learn to live with that and continue on? That the perfect is the enemy of the true good? I for one think it's a lesson this country and the world needs more than ever right now.

And that's not just intellectually but emotionally as well. Is it a fist bumping, fill your heart with joy type of thing? No. But it's a somber truth none the less as I see it. Using a hero like Supes to hand out that somber truth is fine in my book.

The movie unarguably presents many interesting ideas, the question becomes was it done competently.
Jokes about dead horses aside, Ghost Dad was clearly stating all actions have consequence, often unintended.
"No good deed goes unpunished" is clearly the depressing moral of that tale.
Then again, the Incredibles movie did it better. Without being so devoid of joy.

 

[Paradox1]

The movie unarguably presents many interesting ideas, the question becomes was it done competently.
Jokes about dead horses aside, Ghost Dad was clearly stating all actions have consequence, often unintended.
"No good deed goes unpunished" is clearly the depressing moral of that tale.
Then again, the Incredibles movie did it better. Without being so devoid of joy.

I think being Superman is a pretty joyless existence. Being able to fly would be fun but the burden of caring for the entire world, would be awful. Imagine knowing that every single moment you take for yourself, means someone somewhere is going to die or worse.

 

[AndrewOz]

I think being Superman is a pretty joyless existence. Being able to fly would be fun but the burden of caring for the entire world, would be awful. Imagine knowing that every single moment you take for yourself, means someone somewhere is going to die or worse.

Kurt Busiek covered exactly this idea decades ago in "Astro City". Far more competently and interestingly. Without making his Superman-analogue Samaritan so much a victim.
Kingdom Come shows a Flash that never slows down, preventing every crime and accident in Central City, but also fostering an entitled, careless attitude amongst its citizenry.

The comics have tackled this aspect many times over the decades because there's an easy argument that every minute he takes for himself is a moment he could prevent a crime, accident or death.
The conclusion is always the same. He's not God. God doesn't even save everyone. "God helps those who help themselves", after all
Superman is a man and just the same as everyone else, has limitations he has to accept.
Otherwise he'd go insane and drown in misery and futility.
He's no different than a volunteer emergency worker. He donates time when he can, does what he can but needs time for himself as well. This would make for an interesting arc if it was explored.

Snyder has managed to convey a deep sense of burden, without much sense of caring.
I am left with the distinct impression his Superman cares less and less for humanity as he cares more and more for Lois. As first evidenced by the bath dialogue.
I think that is deliberate.
I don't know if it's meant to come off as unhealthy as it does, but if they are planning to go the Injustice route, then it makes sense that it is unhealthy on purpose.

 

[Paradox1]

Kurt Busiek covered exactly this idea decades ago in "Astro City". Far more competently and interestingly. Without making his Superman-analogue Samaritan so much a victim.
Kingdom Come shows a Flash that never slows down, preventing every crime and accident in Central City, but also fostering an entitled, careless attitude amongst its citizenry.

The comics have tackled this aspect many times over the decades because there's an easy argument that every minute he takes for himself is a moment he could prevent a crime, accident or death.
The conclusion is always the same. He's not God. God doesn't even save everyone. "God helps those who help themselves", after all
Superman is a man and just the same as everyone else, has limitations he has to accept.
Otherwise he'd go insane and drown in misery and futility.
He's no different than a volunteer emergency worker. He donates time when he can, does what he can but needs time for himself as well. This would make for an interesting arc if it was explored.

Snyder has managed to convey a deep sense of burden, without much sense of caring.
I am left with the distinct impression his Superman cares less and less for humanity as he cares more and more for Lois. As first evidenced by the bath dialogue.
I think that is deliberate.
I don't know if it's meant to come off as unhealthy as it does, but if they are planning to go the Injustice route, then it makes sense that it is unhealthy on purpose.

The comics is different in that they operate on Superman being one of many capable heroes protecting the world. In the movie universe meta humans aren't common knowledge. There is a much bigger burden on him in this universe than comics.

 

[AndrewOz]

The comics is different in that they operate on Superman being one of many capable heroes protecting the world. In the movie universe meta humans aren't common knowledge. There is a much bigger burden on him in this universe than comics.

That's not true in all cases, only after the development of continuity and the JL in particular.
Post COIE, when they rebooted, Superman was again the first Superhero. Byrne covered the burden, the need for anonymity and a life of his own.
In the first 6 issue limited run to reinvent and reintroduce the "new" Superman, the first costumed vigilante he is aware of is Batman. Who he decides to (try to, anyway) arrest.

All of Snyders ideas and the circumstances can be traced back to comics. He just bungled the execution by trying to reinterpret them.

 

[LamboMan]

Update: Added a new 11th point and added a quote in the 4th point by 'springsteen86' of the DCEU films forums.

 

[BarryAllen]

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