Batman vs Superman: Too Soon?

For me, Man of Steel (MOS) was the most anticipated film of 2013. Where many attempts have been made throughout the past decades to capture Superman in all his prowess, philosophy & resonance in a live action film, almost none of them has succeeded on all fronts. Despite being one of the most recognized fictional characters, modern audiences still have trouble 'getting into' Superman. What the world needed was a Superman film that finally breaks this barrier & makes the character relevant to a whole new generation. While MOS had some glaring issues, it did get the relevance part right with it's huge emphasis on the sci-fi aspect of Superman's lore. However,the impeding sequel of MOS as more about the foundation of the Justice league film and less about a Superman solo film seems to me like a rushed decision.

Don't get me wrong, I, too want to see a film comprising of Superman & Batman as much as anyone else. But after watching MOS, I believe, the characterization of Superman which was the weakest part of the film needs to be addressed first in the sequel. Instead of creating the launching pad for a team based superhero film, MOS2 should be about fleshing out Superman's character in it's most faithful way. A Superman & Batman team up movie can come right after that.

When watching MOS, it's not hard to see that the movie was centered largely around this question----'what if Superman existed in this day & age?' While the movie answered this with confidence & extreme consequences, it also makes way for a natural second question, which is, I believe essential to the character development & the aftermath of MOS----”Do we really need someone like Superman among us? ”. MOS2 can be about the answer to this question.
 
MOS was more about Kal-El, the last son of Krypton than Superman & while that's not necessarily a bad thing, the portrayal of Kal could've been much more optimistic or hopeful, so we could see traces of the character that he will eventually become or the icon that we're familiar with since childhood. While he did rescue the workers in the oil-rig scene & saved the falling soldier from the helicopter, for the majority of the film, Kal was shown as little more than a fighter alongside the humans, albeit with superhuman powers. Sure, he turned against his own race to save mankind, but he never quite becomes the symbol of hope & ideals, which the movie itself tried to sell at many instances. At the end of the film, Superman is turned into just another action hero with superpowers.

A defining trait of Superman is though he is alien by birth, he represents humanities' greatest ideals----that's the reason why Superman is one of the most revered character of all time. MOS focused (or stressed) too much in the alien heritage of Kal-El & completely missed the mark on the ideals part. While it's true that Superman has killed before in both comics & movies, the fact is that it was after almost 50 years of his first appearance when his strict no-killing rule has been firmly established to the world. In that case, Superman taking a life is viewed as a huge mistake on the part of the writer & largely viewed as an out-of-character moment. That flaw in judgment at best served as a reminder that Superman, even with all his powers & intents is just a man & like the rest of us, is sometimes vulnerable to breaking his own rule & suffer the consequences.

But in MOS, Superman took a life on the very first day of his emergence, on the first day the world came to know about him. There's a world of difference in terms of implication on both these cases, it seems Superman in MOS doesn't have any rule at all & is just willing to do whatever it takes to stop the bad guy which is exactly what all other action heroes do. Villains are always willing to kill innocents, but that doesn't mean Superman should kill them too or sink to their level. In all possibility, Superman making a choice to kill in his first public appearance doesn't feel right, considering his history & significance.

Also MOS shows that it was Kal who's actually responsible for bringing Zod & his minions here on Earth by accessing the Genesis chamber. This arguably puts some blood of all the people died during the World engine terraforming incident on Kal's hands. Also, when Superman was desperately needed in Metropolis to save all the people, the plot required him to fight the World engine on the Indian ocean. True, it's not entirely his fault but this kind of grim direction in narrative feels totally wrongheaded for a bright & inspiring symbol like Superman.

Whatever way one might look at it, it's obvious that Superman needs more character development----and this could've been the focus of MOS2. Creating a Batman & Superman team-up movie right after MOS means that the version of Superman we saw in MOS is pretty much conclusive when it comes to character development----this is simply a grave betrayal of the character that's been a part of many people's lives for over 76 years.

The makers of MOS have stated that Superman killing Zod at the end was simply unavoidable & there was no other way. But in the rationalization of the scene, MOS have only affirmed a notion that is fundamentally wrong not only for Superman fans, but for humanity at large: Only an act of violence can end conflicts & save people. In the end Superman didn't really save those people that Zod wanted to kill, an act of killing did. Anyone with a kryptonite or powerful enough to kill Zod could've saved those people. Then where lies the difference between them & Superman? Violence ended all conflicts, the end justified the means----problem solved. After all, if Superman can't find any other way besides killing his enemy, can there truly be any other way? That's not realism, that's wrong & immoral. This kind of short term, quick fix approach towards conflict should never be part of a Superman film. Heroes aren't heroes because of the power they wield, it's because what they stand for. And just what did Superman stood for in MOS? What can a viewer learn from Superman? What kind of ideals did he inspired in the film?

If you sum it all up plus the massive destruction in metropolis during the Zod vs Superman fight, the protagonist we see in the end is more of a victim of circumstances than a true hero. Some outside his control, some not quite so. That's not Superman, even if the costume is similar. I think both Superman & his readers deserved a more inspired treatment of the character than this gloom-and-doomed one.

A point in case here is Captain America: the winter soldier which I consider to be the second best comic book film ever made (after The Dark Knight). Now whenever I think of the film the first thing that comes to my mind is not Cap's superhuman prowess but his strength of character & nobility. Sadly whenever I think of MOS, the only thing comes to mind is the super powered fight scenes & the visuals. This is a fine example of a film that's faithful to it's source material while another completely abandons it in favor of urgency & 'realism'. There's a huge difference between an action movie & a Superman movie. MOS had it in the first half of the film but lost it & completely forgot about it by the time the credits rolled.

But here's where MOS2 can save Superman. Instead of laying the foundation for a team based superhero film, it can be about the ascension of Kal-El from a man with unimaginable powers to Superman----a living embodiment of humanities greatest virtues. Superman is not just a good man, he is too good. No matter the circumstances, he always finds a way to do the right thing & what's best for everyone involved. This trait might be hard to accept for some, but this is exactly what makes Superman not just a superhero but an icon. He is the one character who has got no shades of grey in him. Superman is as pure & immortal as the ideals he represents. But make no mistake, Superman is not about being perfect, he's about being selfless, doing whatever it takes to do the right thing & standing for something that's greater than him. Unlike Batman, Superman isn't driven by his demons or guilt but by his willingness to give back to the world.

While it's true that MOS got many of these character traits wrong, it's equally true that it was a film about Superman's origin which like any other origin story provides room for further character development. MOS was about someone with superhuman powers willing to help mankind in ways he knew, someone whose childhood was spent as a sad, isolated kid & whose true identity was suppressed by giving into fear of radical changes in public perception. The story arc in MOS was about this man facing both the world & himself in his true identity. Character developments span over the courses of several story arcs and if MOS was about Superman's emergence in the public eye, MOS2 could be about his establishment. If MOS showed his arrival, MOS2 could be about his purpose for staying. About Superman proving to himself & to mankind why he's not just an uninvited visitor from another planet.

The real world setting of MOS can work wonders to this theme. In this 21^st century the crimes being committed against humanity is more complicated and sophisticated in nature than ever before & the real bad guys don't have any uniform. Global warming, poverty, corruption, lack of unity & above all, a population drowned in voyeurism, competition & greed----these are some of the major threats that humanity faces in this modern world which I believe is no less intimidating than an alien invasion.

With the power to change everything, what will be Superman's response to these real issues that plague humanity at large? Will he stand aside & let mankind remedy their own created problems or will he become a cradle of truth, justice & peace for all of mankind to share? Throw in Lex luthor, Superman's archenemy who tries to prove to the world why we're better off without Superman. After the events of MOS with all the death, destruction & the fact that it was Superman who led the Kryptonians here on Earth, it would be sufficiently easy to portray Superman as unwanted among mankind. The narrative of MOS2 can go in plenty of directions based on the foundation of the modern world setting & the aftermath of MOS. While it's true that this kind of story will be much more harder to write & tell but I believe it's totally worth it. After all, there needs to be a Superman film with a lot less death & destruction and a profound exploration of what Superman really stands for, why he is needed on Earth. Once it is accomplished then DC can move into the direction of a JLA movie. 

   
Kal-El may have the costume in MOS but he's far from being Superman or at best has just started his journey. The man who lets the people closest to him give into fear or chooses violence as a primary means to end conflicts has a long way to go to become the man of tomorrow----whom mankind will look up as an inspiration, who will help them believe in themselves & show them a better way to resolve their differences. How about MOS2 being about this journey? An inspiring character study about a visitor from another planet trying to show the people of Earth that they can be better. After all, is it too much to hope for a live action film where Superman's strength of power is evenly matched by his strength of character?