Originally Posted by
SiegePerilous02
It's not that these two characters, or superheroes in general, aren't suited to exploring these types of concepts. It's just that this execution wasn't well done. For something better, we have Rucka's depiction of Diana killing Maxwell Lord. Or hell, even a dated comic like New Teen Titans has the team wrestle with the idea that they are in a different situation when they are rescuing Starfire from a war on her home world and have to kill some enemy alien troops, or Barry Allen killing Thawne. In MOS, the plot contrives itself so that Zod isn't sucked into the Phantom Zone with the others so they can drag things out with an exessive fight and have Clark be forced to kill him. In the context of the film, and the choice he had to make, Clark made the right choice. However, all we see of how he reacts to it is him screaming and crying, and then then the film never mentioning it again. And it doesn't effectively carry over into BvS; we didn't need to see Clark kill Zod to know he wouldn't want to kill Batman. Everyone knows Superman doesn't kill, or at least avoids it all cost, and the film still tests him. He could kill Batman to save his mother, but he instead tries to find another way and doesn't budge even though it nearly costs him his life. He stays true to his convictions and the narrative doesn't make it easy for him, he is put through the ringer. None of that required a previous death on his hands to work. (there is also the stupidity of making Batman a pre-meditating murderer, but that's another issue).
The thing is, when Clark pulls off the impossible victories in the comics, and if they are written well, it's because he makes them happen. Easy victories are not just handed to him. He wins through his determination, intellect, skill and powers. He finds a better way because he's goddamn Superman. And people love him for it. At most they can empathize with the guy who was forced to take a life to save innocents, and may think they'd make the same choice themselves, but I'm doubtful anybody was inspired by it. With the execution of the scene, I think most people felt uncomfortable and awkward.
And in hindsight, it just seems kind of tasteless to take a character designed with the broadest possible appeal (and is especially aimed at children) and have him kill someone in an especially raw and brutal fashion just so the director could send a "YOUR CHILDHOOD ESCAPIST FANTASIES ARE STUPID AND NAIVE!!" message. Like we don't need Zack Snyder to tell us that, we're signing up for a movie about a guy who flies and shoots lasers because of the sun. It's kind of pretentious. It is a more moral choice than some other examples of Zod's death, but it's questionable to bring it up in the first place. If so, it definitely needed to be explored within Superman's own films with more room to breath, and be saved for a sequel so we can get to know this Superman better before he kills someone.
Lol, I'm sorry but this just comes across as sour grapes that the version of Batman you liked fell on its face compared to the one that came before.
Bale's Batman avoids killing as much as he can, and adheres to that rule. He saves the Joker because he ceased being an active threat and because it was in his power to do so. Later, when he is considerably more worn down, he tackles Two-Face over the edge of a building because it was Harvey or the kid, and he had limits as to who he could save in that moment. His body gradually becomes more worn down as the trilogy develops. He's Batman in a relatively more grounded setting than the comic one, and he's more emotionally stable and healthy. he's more consistently moral than some of the modern takes in the comics who dish out excessive violence but refuse to kill period. And I'm not even a major fan of the Nolan take.
There is a false morality in presenting the BvS one as superior. He's essentially a villain at this point, but the narrative undermines it by still making his action scenes stereotypically "badass." Yeah I guess we're supposed to be disturbed by how violent he is, but the way his action shots are done still make him somewhat cool as he does it. It would be better if a filmmaker would remember that Batman doesn't HAVE to be excessively violent or psychopathic at all instead of just putting more of it out into the world. Like I re-read Alan Moore's Clayface story last night and Batman there only resorted to violence in self defense, didn't indulge in excess and showed lots of compassion to his mentally disturbed foe. Where the hell is THAT guy and can he be in a movie for a change?
This is a bit much. The movie didn't get a warm reception from either the fans or the general audience because people just straight up don't want to watch a movie where fucking Batman of all people plots to murder Superman, nor watch Superman mope in the rain for two hours while he barely gets to say anything. We also barely know these versions of the characters before we are thrown into heavy deconstruction territory. They don't know this Batman, they have not seen what he's experienced and lost, and now we are thrown into a story where he is pretty much a very misguided anti-hero if not outright villain. The general audience is not pre-disposed to dislike Batman, who exactly was asking for this? They can see Batman put through the ringer and come out the other side and be inspired by him in other ways besides "I went kind of kill crazy there for a bit." And as I said before, it'd be a risky story in more capable hands, but may be well suited for a small production, like a Black Label movie on a more reasonable budget or even an elseworld comic. Something that is meant to be a big, tent pole Summer blockbuster film that is to launch a franchise and was expensive as hell to make? They shot themselves in the foot, and we are reaping what they sowed: a rebooted Batman, and Superman banned from movies for the foreseeable future. Yet WW, Aquaman and Shazam are continuing and they don't quite line up with the Marvel mold either, so it's not as if that has to be the only option.
It's also reductive to say the fans only relate to these heroes as pure power fantasies. How do you know what else they consume with these characters in it? Synder is hardly the first creator to take things into more complex territory. The issue really is that his ambitions outweigh his talent. His films aren't that much more complex than the MCU, they are just excessive and kind of dumb in different ways