Originally Posted by
Mark Hughes for FORBES magazine
Batman v Superman isn’t mocking Superman’s idealism, it depends on it and uses it as the thematic basis for redeeming Batman and the entire world, and for leading us to the creation of the Justice League. The cynicism is intentionally framed as the world’s rejection of Superman, representing the modern real-life arguments about whether Superman is relevant and relatable to our real world, and the claims by a lot of people that Superman can’t be interesting because of his goodness and idealism. Batman v Superman argues that in a world with so few good guys who remain good, with so many reasons to give up and stop having faith, Superman’s idealism is more important than ever, more relevant than ever.
Batman doesn’t brand Lex Luthor in the end, notice. It’s a small thing, but it’s a hint that he is trying to change, trying to get back to being the man he used to be. He’s not there yet, granted, and he’s struggling with it, but he sees what must be done and his cynical distrust of superhumans is giving way to a willingness to reach out to them and ask them to help defend humanity by working together for the greater good Superman represented.
That Batman kills while saving Martha, and that perhaps these sequence would’ve resonated more as an example of Batman re-embracing faith and hope (due to Superman) if he’d saved her without killing anybody, is a valid viewpoint expressed by my friend Sean Gerber of Modern Myth Media. If anyone feels that way and would’ve been happier with the sequence, I won’t argue that their view is wrong, and I think it is in fact a very solid alternative point. But this is actually worth taking a few moments to address as an aside, since it relates to the point about Batman changing his behavior again after years of getting more cruel and violent due to the world changing him.
It’s important to note Batman is fighting a ticking clock to save Martha, and that this is frankly a world where there may not be any absolute “no kill” rule for Batman. After all, only ONE previous modern Batman film had a strict “no kill” rule — of the seven previous films starting with Batman in 1989 and continuing through The Dark Knight Rises, Batman killed directly or indirectly in ALL of them except Batman & Robin. In this new film, Batman v Superman, he only actually directly kills one person, the guy in the pickup truck firing the machine gun at the Bat-plane.
I’d note Batman shoots up the ground for several seconds, fair warning he’s going to shoot that truck, and the guy has a chance to clear out of the way and save himself but refuses. It’s notable that, if you watch the scene via the trailer and pause it right when the Bat-plane’s bullets strike the truck, the guy is in fact GONE. The truck is hit, blows up and flips in the air, and we never see the outcome, so the film sort of leaves it up to the viewer to interpret it as either “Batman just blew that guy up,” or — for those who are willing to suspend disbelief much farther to have mild plausible deniability — “Batman blew up that truck and the guys were all burned and critically injured but might not be dead since we didn’t see for sure, and maybe they were wearing body armor since Batman’s seeming skin-tight suit is armored.”
Anyway, I think we are supposed to assume those guys are likely dead, even if Batman never bothers to check. The point is, every other instance of someone dying is as a secondary outcome, a consequence caused by their own actions, not Batman directly killing them. Batman brands criminals, and other criminals sometimes kill those people in prison. Batman sees a thug about to toss a grenade, so Batman shoves another thug into the first guy and causes him to drop the grenade — the thug then tries to grab the grenade instead of running or rolling around the corner, and Batman can’t be said to have psychic ability to predict the future and how people will respond, so all he did was knock a guy backward who was about to toss a grenade. If that’s “murder,” then so was Batman setting fire to a room full of explosives at Ra’s house and leaving all those ninjas inside when it blew up.
Notice, by the way, this is about actions in service of good — saving Martha — and the consequences of actions arising from other factors. That’s a recurring theme in the film, and here Batman is taking actions to save Martha, that’s his intention, and to act on behalf of saving her within the few minutes of time he has left he is willing to accept consequences of his actions that might not be what he fully intends.
Which brings us to Batman shooting the flamethrower’s gas tank. Batman does NOT blow that guy up. Instead, Batman has a machine gun and could shoot the guy, but instead he sees the man will use the flame on Martha and so Batman choose to shoot the tank powering the flamethrower. This prevents the flamethrower from working, and the guy can shut off the flame and give up. But what happens? The guy turns the flame toward Martha, trying to fire it, and so the gas ignites in the air and blows up the tank. Batman dives atop Martha and protects her. This is no different from Batman diving at Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight and knocking Dent off the ledge. Batman in that scene was trying to act to save the boy’s life rather than leave it to chance, and he knows his action could cause Harvey’s injury or death — this is a major theme of that film, Batman and whether the Joker can force Batman to compromise his “one rule.” And the spirit of that rule is indeed broken at the end, a bittersweet and tainted victory for Batman.
My point is this: Batman does not in fact murder a bunch of people in Batman v Superman. Several people die as a side-effect of Batman’s actions, when those people making choices leading to their own deaths. Only once, when he shoots that truck and it blows up, can it be said Batman literally, demonstrably, directly killed someone (even if it leaves mild room for the grasp-at-straws interpretation that it’s like the A-Team TISI +% and those guys somehow survived). In that instance, I’d say Batman in this film doesn’t have a strict “no kill” rule clearly defined yet, he is still transitioning back to the hero who has faith and hope, that he gave the truck guy time to get out of the way instead of continuing to fight, and that Batman didn’t have time to risk fighting with those high-caliber machine guns when the clock was ticking down to Martha’s death.
That’s the main hope and faith Batman is demonstrating — he will save Martha, he will not fail Superman when Superman has put his own mother’s life in Batman’s hands based on that promise. Batman went from trying to kill Superman, to seeing Superman as a hero with a mom in danger and in need of rescue. Batman will over time become more of the hero he used to be, and avoid killing outright, I believe, with rare exceptions similar to in the comics (like when fighting some alien animal/monster threatening to mass murder people). That’s why he doesn’t brand Lex Luthor at the end of the film, that’s why he says he won’t fail Superman in death, and that’s why he wants to form the Justice League.
Zack Snyder honors Superman’s history and legacy in this film, by having the goodness and idealism of Superman dominant as an idea debated and argued throughout the story, until ultimately that idealism and goodness are what saves the world and becomes a great sacrifice to convince us all to have hope and faith again. Batman and the other heroes will be inspired by that goodness, that idealism, that sacrifice, and eventually Superman will of course return to life and join the other heroes.
Anyone arguing that these themes don’t exist, that Batman v Superman fails Superman, and that Zack Snyder “hates Superman” are simply not paying enough attention and are ignoring the most important and clearest narrative arc in the entire movie. It’s not coincidence that these scenes, this dialogue, and this overarching connectivity exists, nor that the characters’ arcs mirror one another, comparable and contrasting at different moments. I think a large part of the disconnect some reviewers and viewers feel toward this film arises directly from the fact the film presents interpretations and incarnations that don’t directly fit into any single purist preference for “the right way” to portray them. If you have only one Superman or one Batman you like, and/or if your conception of them lacks room for the other many interpretations over the decades, and/or if you are opposed to seeing a cinematic adaptation that actually attempts to reflect MANY eras and approaches to these characters, then that’s frankly going to affect your viewing experience and your opinion of this film.
Which is of course fine, since everyone is entitled to their opinion and to their preferences. No one preference is better than another, and we shouldn’t defend this film in a way that claims other people’s preferences and views are “wrong” or “not true fans” and so on. But what we can say, and what I think we in fact MUST say, is that this film’s interpretation and approach are likewise as valid as any other, are faithful to the comics, and do have deeper themes and characterization that give lie to any simplistic claim that it “hates” Superman or lacks substantive examination and representation of what Batman and Superman stand for.
These things exist in the film, they are important to understanding it, and Zack Snyder and the writers took pains to present this story and provide those themes. And any serious assessment of the film should recognize this, and address it, otherwise those reviews and assessments are quite frankly shallow in their examination and very mistaken in their conclusions.