"Batman v Superman" and Its "Problems" (SPOILER DISSECTION)

This poster is majestic as FUCK.

Believe you me, no one was more surprised by the sheer quality of this movie than I. Yes, yes, I did like Batman v Superman. In fact I loved it. I understand (and resent) the fact that I am in the minority on that. Here we are handed one of the great superhero movies of our time and somehow, for reasons I can't yet entirely comprehend, people are refusing to actually consider how artful and intelligent the project is. I can't make sense of the proposed negatives of Batman v Superman, but I can make sense of how well it is made. So that's what I'll do here. It is my intention to address the most common criticisms this movie has received. I hope I hit everything, though I may leave out some positives, and please beware, for there are SPOILERS AHEAD. If anything I say doesn't make sense to you, or you don't believe what I say to be true, please, let me know how and why. But also understand that the following piece will contain very little speculation and assumption. I will only be addressing the solutions to people's problems with BvS that can actually be found within the movie itself, just to avoid any ambiguity. This is not me over-analyzing or making excuses. These are the answers present in the film itself to the questions many feel were left unanswered.
                                                                                                               

BATMAN

For those of you still unclear on Batman's reasons for hating Superman/Falling for Lex Luthor's manipulations, allow me to explain, while also addressing another major Batman v Superman complaint (He kills people now). Snyder's new Batman is not a stable fellow, nor is he entirely good, at the very least not in the traditional sense. This is Frank Miller's Batman, a vigilante made tired and weary by years of taking super special care not to hurt any bad guys too severely. This is a Batman who, much like a prequel trilogy Sith Lord, deals in absolutes. He is blinded by a rage he can't see past, and a desire to make a permanent change, something Batman has rarely ever been able to do. As Bruce Wayne tells Alfred in the film, "criminals are like weeds", it matters not how many times you put them away, some new evil-doer will always spring back up to take their place. If you still wish someone had spoon-fed you an explanation for why Batman kills people now in the movie, then I feel obligated to tell you that sometimes, when you watch movies, information is conveyed to you, the viewer, more implicitly than explicitly. That's what we call GOOD EXPOSITION, as opposed to needless exposition. So when Alfred says something like, "That's how it starts. The fever, the rage. The feeling of powerlessness. That turns good men...cruel," or when Batman states outright, "We're criminals, Alfred. We've always been criminals, nothing's changed," and Alfred responds with, "Everything's changed," maybe, just maybe, we are being left to infer that this is a very different, potentially misguided Batman. A man who kills, a man who strikes fear into the hearts of those he is protecting. That is the "cruelty" to which Alfred refers. Remember when the cops showed up at that building early in the film with the people locked in the cage in the basement? Those people, though rescued by Batman, were terrified of him and his tactics. That's the kind of shit I'm talking about.

If you wanted the noble Batman who would be rational enough to see past Lex's tricks, then great, you get that Batman by the time the film is over. However he starts in a very different place, a place where you the viewer are actually unsure of the "good" or "justice" he's upholding. Think back to the moment Bruce saves that girl in the wreckage of the Wayne Tower, and he looks up and watches Zod and Superman fly through the air. The expression on his face is not one of fear, it's one of anger, pure and seething. In Bruce's eyes, Superman is the ultimate villain, and villains do not change. It is a dangerous "us versus them" or rather "us versus HIM" mentality that allows Bruce to separate himself from Clark enough to invest all of his disdain in him without any of the compassion that comes along with disagreeing with a fellow HUMAN. So to hear that this "alien" has  a human mother named Martha, as well as seeing this alien sacrifice himself to save humanity from a much greater threat, OF COURSE that changes Batman's mind. In fact if you pay attention, during the Batman and Superman showdown, Batman's mask is damaged and the thick metal helmet surrounding his face is cracked open. His "mind" is literally OPENED, and it is only after that happens that he learns of Clark's mother. The visual cue is a neat little nod to what is happening thematically.

Batman's reaction to Superman's death makes sense as well if you consider what I've stated above. Batman realizes that Superman was one of the world's greatest assets (a TRULY good person, with the desire and power to protect humanity) and in saying "I failed him in life..." comes to terms with how fighting Superman was a mistake. Now the world is vulnerable, and Bruce feels it is his duty to locate any meta-humans that he can and prepare them to defend the planet in Superman's absence. Bruce fucked up big time, and forming the Justice League is his way of righting those wrongs.

Also, in reference to Batman's sudden decision to spare Superman...well I just sorta cleared that up I suppose. Additionally if you don't like the nightmarish dream sequences then fine, but do understand that those are both a prominent feature of the Frank Miller Batman, AND that they help develop Bruce's feeling of paranoia, which may or may not be well-founded.

SUPERMAN

Ok sure, there is a monument to Superman built soon after he saves Metropolis (make no mistake, despite the destruction and casualties, he 100% saved a good number of people). Many of you might think this is inconsistent with everyone's apparent hatred of Superman in the film, and if you feel that way, you didn't pay attention. First off, not everyone wants that monument there. A lot of people see it as being indicative of the idolization of Superman and this is made abundantly clear by the desecration of the statue. In case the painting of "False God" on the Superman logo wasn't on the nose enough for you, I'll just say that people in the film certainly disagree over whether or not the statue should even exist.  Secondly, there are plenty of humans in the film that fucking LOVE Supes, and they make that clear. Just like in real life, there are people on both sides of the issue.

The issue of Superman is a complex one. To boil it down as efficiently as the movie does, I'll explain it like this: Civilians primarily love Superman simply because Superman saves civilians. That's kind of his big thing. Not every civilian loves him, but most do. However, the government is not his biggest fan. Now when you work for the government you (in theory) work for the American people. Yet here is this God-like creature who operates outside of that chain of command. How do you hold a person like that accountable when they can fly off the planet whenever they want? That is the big issue, that is why Senator Finch sees Superman as a problem. Finch is not as extreme as Batman, nor is she as devious as Lex. She has an ethical issue with the existence of Superman, and works to bring him in without ever over-stepping her boundaries as senator or breaking the law. She's one of the good guys, and she is killed for it.

Also, Superman's death. It was sudden, it was abrupt, it was out of the blue, but it makes such perfect sense. Superman proves Batman wrong and changes his mind because in the instant where he realizes Doomsday can't be reasoned with or stopped, he decides (without hesitation) to sacrifice himself. THAT is the Superman I have always known and loved.

Now why is Superman blamed for the fiasco in Africa? Well it is simple. Nobody (except for Lex, and eventually Lois) knows what really went down in that town. Here is what Finch knows: Superman entered a hostile situation on foreign soil in which the CIA was implicated and acted with total autonomy to save his girlfriend. Just take a second to consider the real-world ramifications of that decision. When Lois says she isn't sure if Superman can "love [her] and be [him]" she means that she isn't sure that he can rush in and save her whenever she's in trouble without incurring the wrath of the government and US citizens who want him to go through the same red tape every government agent has to go through before FLYING TO A DIFFERENT COUNTRY AND TAKING PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AMERICAN DOWN.

LEX LUTHOR

I won't fault you for disliking this portrayal of Lex, it is certainly different, and it takes some getting used to. However do not make the mistake of classifying his motivations as "sloppy", because they are so SO clear. Lex hates Superman, that has always been a thing, but this movie takes that concept a step further, and even does us the favor of spelling that shit out in a pivotal roof-top scene. Lex wants Superman to fight Batman because if Superman loses, he is dead and therefore he is not all-powerful. However, if Superman wins, then he has killed Batman for selfish reasons (saving Martha) and is therefore not all-good. The common and Christian definition of God is that of a being who is both benevolent and all-powerful. In Lex's mind, no matter the outcome of the Batman v Superman fight, Superman has proven to the world that he is not a God. That is what it boils down to. Doomsday is just extra insurance.

If you feel as though they didn't do the character of Doomsday justice, then fine, but don't all of a sudden pretend that Doomsday has always been one of you favorite characters just because they did something different with him. Doomsday from his very conception has been a character with little to no development who is thrown into the story at random for the sole purpose of killing Superman. That has ALWAYS been his use for the writers of Superman stories. If anything, Doomsday's creation and birth is better explained/explored/hinted at throughout Batman v Superman than in any of his comic book/animated film outings. There is really no other way to do a character like Doomsday, the motherfucker doesn't speak or think, he can't be on screen for too long, nor can he be a movie's ONLY villain.

WONDER WOMAN

I'll sort of give you this one. The big issue here is the fact that Diana wants her photo back despite the fact that she has already left the world of man. Why does she want to keep her identity/immortality a secret? Well I can venture a guess even though it is never confirmed in the film. Upon seeing the chaos Superman's existence has caused in the world of man, Diana might desire to insulate herself from being involved by retrieving the only proof that exists that she is immortal. Not that she's scared of how people will react, but she certainly doesn't want people investigating her origin (Themyscira). Leaving the world of man entails protecting her world from man, and that would mean keeping anyone from asking too many questions.

PACING

This movie has a different cadence to it than  Marvel movies generally do. Where MCU entries rely on ever-expanding action set-pieces to keep us watching mostly static characters, Batman v Superman clearly put its characters first, taking the time to make sure that it makes sense for action to happen before it does. Before Batman and Superman can actually fight, they must be brought to the point emotionally and logically where they WOULD  fight. It's the Godzilla (2014) problem. Audiences wanted more 'splosions and monsters without considering how sitting back and watching tension rise between characters might have actually enhanced the experience when the fighting went down. In terms of cutting the run time down, there are some scenes here or there that I could see being omitted, but I don't consider any of these scenes superfluous. I don't want any of them gone, however they could hypothetically be cut out, at the expense of the already exquisite character development. Next time you watch Batman v Superman should you watch it again, take note of how efficiently the information is delivered during each scene. Pay close attention to how each scene is written and structured to maximize time.

THEMES

There is a lot going on here thematically, and this is where the analysis/reading between the lines comes more into play. Terrio's screenplay dives into theology, morality, mortality, things that we would be discussing were superheroes to actually exist. I just think it is important that we take the time to consider what this script has to say about "heroes". Take Lex Luthor for example, a character who gets off on the idea of manipulating Gods. He orchestrates this grudge match not only because he wants to see Superman defeated in the ideological sense, but also because he is proving to himself that there is no person he cannot steer in a useful direction. He sees people not as friends, or family, or thinkers, but as pawns. For him, human beings stand between him and his endgame, whatever that may be to him at one time. It's exciting to think how this will contrast with the new Joker we're getting this summer; a force of chaos who is interested less in the big picture cosmic level stuff, and more in targeting the individual. Lex may have Darkseid coming to Earth, but the Joker took a healthy, sane human being (Harley) and broke her utterly and irreparably. Two sides of the same spectrum of evil.

                                                    ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS 

I'll be the first to admit that this movie is packed with things. However, Marvel had a whole first phase to get the ball rolling on their shared universe without any pressure from the competition (DC). Now, in a world where Marvel is killing the game, the folks at WB and DC have managed to work an insane amount of necessary information into a single film. On top of all that, this movie feels vastly different from any MCU entry. That is commendable. Working on a scale this big without copying the people who have been the most successful.

My biggest fear is that the reception Batman v Superman gets will influence the decisions of the producers at Warner Bros. I do not want that to happen. I don't want anything about the trajectory of this franchise to change. If Batman v Superman is any indication, this could dethrone the MCU as being the go-to set of superhero movies.

Again, if any of this doesn't make sense to you, let me know. I would like to open up a discussion with the people who deny that any of this is present and clear in the movie itself. I would have liked to have delved into more of this movie's coolness, but I also wanted to be concise in addressing the main concerns people have. I don't mean to come off as pretentious in saying that people aren't doing enough thinking while watching this film, but I can't help but feel as though the poor reception is less about the quality of the movie and more about the subversion of most expectations.

Here's a list of stuff I really liked about Batman v Superman that I would have talked about but couldn't really fit in this piece:

Costuming and Production Design
Cinematography
Acting
Score (FUCK THIS SCORE IS GOOD IN FACT I'M DOING A SEPARATE REVIEW JUST OF THIS MOVIE'S SCORE SO LOOK OUT FOR THAT)
Action Sequences
Suspense/Tension Building
Character Development
Easter Eggs and Fan Service
New DC Shared Universe

Ok.

That's my two cents.

Thanks for reading.

"The rules only make sense if you force it to..."
                               
                                                        -Zack Snyder's Batman.
Fucking love it.