Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Omniscience is a very specific trait having knowledge of everything at all times. That is different from having spiritual perception, which is situational knowledge. Beyond that Christian theology differs on how that applies to Christ.

To bring it back around to Superman, one of the primary differences in his characterization is how aware he is of what is going on in the world and how he is capable of resolving all these problems. Can he visually or audibly hone in on any part of the world or is he limited to a few hundred miles? Can he move fast enough to rescue everyone in the city at the same time or is he limited to a couple of disasters at a time. In terms of what he can do compared to a regular person he is certainly god-like, but he lacks certain vital elements that would make him an actual God. It's really his limitations in spite of such power that can make him an interesting character.

the most important that would be superman going to his family for advice, everytime he is lost he goes back to his parent to understand what he need to, is the biggest point about him not being this impersonal-god like entity that both Lex and Batman made him to be, I find that part intersting

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Wait, does Superman ever actually beat up Toyman? That seems really unnecessary.

The paradox with Superman's attitude and characterization, both in the DCEU and in some comics, is that a lot is made out of how he can't save everyone, he can't be there for everyone, but that at the same time, he's not too appreciative of other people not holding out for him, and, by necessity, employing methods far less wholesome than his own. The focal point of both Batman and Luthor is that there was no Superman for them, so they took matters into their own hands. And unlike Batman, Luthor is invariably a victim of poverty and/or parental abuse. His status as a self-made orphan may be taken as him being an enfant terrible, to easily dismiss him as a bad seed from the start... because otherwise, given his situation, this sort of act takes on an even darker meaning, with consequences more than enough to ruin anyone's psyche.

Even in DOJ, the flaw in Superman's initial confrontation with Batman is that, for some reason, Clark takes offense to the vigilante himself, rather than, y'know, taking an interest with just how bad the Gotham justice system must be for such a man to operate indiscriminately. The "bat brand is a death sentence" issue is one that actually affects real-life prisons, in that rapists and child murderers aren't exactly popular even without such decorations. Does he make a point on that? Nope. He's more concerned about another guy's relatively low-key brand of vigilantism, when his own actions are the cause for national hearings. Consistent.

edited 1st May '16 7:58:17 AM by indiana404

Well, it would probably help if this version of Batman wasn't basically the living embodiment of every thinkpiece about how Batman is only the good guy by virtue of the writer saying he is

At best, Toyman is coded mentally ill. With Batman rogues, it's often explicit text - most of them are locked up in Arkham Asylum because the criminal justice system has ruled them clinically insane. And it's not just the villains being sent there - it's the goons too. The whole Batman mythos is mired in obsession and mental illness - it's the thematic glue that connects it.

As for a world-class intellect? Eh. Outside of All-Star Superman he's not exactly Ted Kord, or Batman. He's a bright guy, but he's not a world-class intellect.

edited 1st May '16 11:53:29 AM by math792d

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

I've never read any comic where Superman disparages someone for employing drastic measures to save themselves. In fact, I've read comics where Superman says that it's okay for other people to kill in self-defense, but not for him, since he's invulnerable, etc.

Max Landis (for all the stupid, stupid things he's said) had a good point about Supes: The reason Supes doesn't kill is because he's well aware that (physically) he's an adult walking amongst children. He doesn't want his villains to die, he wants them to reform. He genuinely wants to try and help them, turn their lives around.

I don't know how far he'd go re: killing in self defense because, much like with the Flashes, how much he sincerely believes in other people killing (or, say, state-sponsored death penalty) varies from writer to writer (looking at you, Geoff Johns.) But him and Bats are friends in the comics for a reason - the two have different methods and different means, but each can see the value of the other and acknowledge that they can't be the other.

edited 1st May '16 11:58:45 AM by math792d

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

Yeah, I'd say there's a reason that, unlike the film, in the comics, Batman and Superman have a good relationship.

I find the reaction to Batfleck rather funny, in that it's probably closest to how a lot of readers felt about the original Batman - a brutal gun-totting vigilante not squeamish about breaking necks - so much that there was an outcry to soften him up. Not that I'd mind, but unless his rogues follow suit, I don't think it's gonna work.

It definitely depends on the writer how Superman views extreme measures employed by other people - Garth Ennis has him outright refuse to pass judgment, while Rucka's Checkmate flanderized the usual one rule from "superheroes shouldn't use lethal force" to "nobody around superheroes should use lethal force, including government agents in a firefight with terrorists". Speaking of which, given that good old-fashioned guns are still the standard issue of soldiers and police officers, it's a bit of a gamble on how well superheroes in general work around them when facing humanoid threats. It's like seeing Alfred with a shotgun every once in a while - the particulars of the Bat-code definitely seem blurrier after that.

Regarding Superman's intelligence, I'd say it's like the Flash's speed - he exhibits a few specific related feats, like reading books in an instant, but otherwise he's about as smart as the writer in charge.

Re: Superman's intelligence: Silver Age Superman literally made real, functional, blueprints for a perpetual motion machine just to catch Lex in the act of patent-stealing.

How often in those old World Finest comics did Superman rescue Batman or vice versa? In one story, alien gamblers captured Batman to make Superman play their games.

edited 1st May '16 12:58:20 PM by bookworm6390

That very much depends on which Flash we're talking about - Barry Allen is almost a certified super-genius with a nigh-perfect memory and speed-reading, and Bart Allen is much the same way. Wally West, however, is still a speed-reader, but he retains the information at a rate relative to regular human beings. He can read up on things quickly, but he doesn't retain everything.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

If IQ refers to proccessing speed, shouldn't every character with super speed have fast thought proccesses and thus a high IQ? Of course, intellect isn't the same as wisdom. And I think of Batman having more street smarts than Superman. Because Bruce actually needs to use survival skills.

True. Of course intelligence and a high IQ are only causal if you're a member of the Mensa society.

Here in the real world we have other measures for intelligence

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

And it's not just the villains being sent there - it's the goons too.

Actually, the goons and mooks, and even a few of the villains here and there, are sent to Blackgate/Stonegate, which is a 'normal' prison.

At least pre-DCNU. I don't know about the current status quo in this regard.

There have been Batman writers who've had it that all of his villains end up in Arkham, even ones that couldn't pass for mentally ill. In recent years, the allocations between Arkham and Blackgate have made more sense. I can see them, for instance, sticking Joker in Arkham, but Penguin definitely belongs in Blackgate.

I think the whole Arkham scenario has come back to bite DC in the butt. It'd probably be best if they just retired the concept and rethought their approach to Batman's villains. Arkham's only been around since, what, the 70's? I think it's an idea that's past it's prime, especially since even the worst of Batman's villains would likely not qualify as legally insane.

edited 1st May '16 2:14:21 PM by Robbery

Don't the leaked images of Suicide Squad only label it as 'Arkham Prison'? Making it a maximum security prison but still keeping the mythology name Arkham likely works fine.

edited 1st May '16 2:19:25 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

Um, Suicide Squad isn't based out of Arkham nor Blackgate. The Suicide Squad is actually based out of Belle Reve, a penitentiary in Louisiana.

There have been images showing tapes (likely on the Joker, or Harley's stint as a psychiatrist) just labeled 'Arkham Prison'.

The Joker and Harley were both at Arkham, but generally, the Suicide Squad is based out of Belle Reve.

Yeah, but the movie seems to deal with a flashback to Joker and Harley's shared past. It makes sense to include Arkham as well as Belle Reve.

On the topic of collateral damage (again, I know), there's been something that's come up in my mind ever since watching BVS. There are those videos made about Man of Steel's Metropolis and Smallville battle, slowing down and freeze framing it to argue why Superman chose his particular course of actions, aiming to prove that he wasn't being callous at all during his fights and prevented as many deaths as he could. I had been skeptical of those videos, because it's easy to overanalyze anything, and not much in a normal speed viewing indicated that those were Superman's chosen actions and not just Zach Snyder going overboard, as opposed to Hulk vs Hulkbuster where each of Tony's actions were clearly described for the viewers. But I wanted to see if BVS would prove me wrong, and show the context of Superman's actions more clearly. The congressional hearing seemed like it would be the perfect time for that, possibly comparing Superman's testimony with video of the battle.

As it turns out, not only is nothing accomplished with the hearing because it blows up almost immediately, but BVS actually edited its perspective flip of the Zod-vs-Superman fight so it was more destructive than it was in the original film. For instance, when the scout ship falls in MOS, it crashes through several already wrecked skyscrapers, but in BVS it falls through undamaged ones. Then in the "Zod uses lazer eyes" part, in MOS the building he and Clark land in is empty. In BVS, it is the very populated Wayne Tower, with Zod's beams visibly melting rooms full of people.

So yeah. What it tells me is that there was no "he was saving people the whole time" during MOS that was intended all along. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as they say, and Zach Snyder thought showing the battle more explicitly killing people was what we wanted when that's not what we were saying at all.

The whole "This island is not populated" and later "there is no one in this part of the town" showed that he totally missed the point of why people were complaining. Honestly, those were the most insulting parts of the movie.....especially when they culminated to Batman bringing the monster in the city instead of grabbing the spear and bringing it to the monster.

"The focal point of both Batman and Luthor is that there was no Superman for them, so they took matters into their own hands"

the focal point both of them other super into this element of destruction

"Clark takes offense to the vigilante himself, rather than, y'know, taking an interest with just how bad the Gotham justice system must be for such a man to operate indiscriminately."

sure because, bad law=a men in a bat costume....that dosent make sense, if Bat is doing that kind of thing is because on his own decision and bruce refute saying super have bring tones of destruction.

"As for a world-class intellect? Eh. Outside of All-Star Superman he's not exactly Ted Kord, or Batman. He's a bright guy, but he's not a world-class intellect. "

Superman inteligence is like batman detective skill, they exist when it need but otherwise matter not.

"So yeah. What it tells me is that there was no "he was saving people the whole time" during MOS that was intended all along. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as they say, and Zach Snyder thought showing the battle more explicitly killing people was what we wanted when that's not what we were saying at all. "

Yeah, I think that was the point, a titanic battle between this two will bring death, Marvel have try to doge the issue with diferent levels of sucess(from the Hulk battle to the awfull helicarrier ex machina) after all Zod dominate the entire fight so is hard to save people that way.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Zod's scout ship falling (oh, but Superman caused the ship the ship to fall, so we can ignore that it would have shot down the plane that had the only thing that could stop the small army of angry alien gods who would have destroyed the world), and Zod personally killing more people than we thought don't make great arguments for Superman being a callous asshole.

Neither does Tony punching Hulk into a crowd of people.

And letting Doomsday wander into the populated Metropolis port would have been better.

edited 1st May '16 3:31:59 PM by Ekuran