EDITORIAL: How BATMAN VS SUPERMAN Can Succeed On MOS's Strengths & Weaknesses

Nice article.

I would like to go a little deeper in what you're saying and go more specific, thinking about how to work your suggestions in a level of theme and meaning, giving what I would see as substance to the characters and the story.

"- Lex Luthor’s motivation for hating and mistrusting Superman can come from the way Metropolis was destroyed in the fight with Zod"

Yes and no. Actually, I don't know exactly what you meant, so I'll just try to shape it the way I see it. Lex Luthor SHOUDLN'T use Metropolis as an example of how Superman is bad in the common sense of "look what he did to our town, he should've taken the fight away". That's what most fans wants to hear and that's... well, nonsense. From what the world knows, Zod was threatening Earth and Superman fought him and stopped him. Superman kills Zod, Earth is not destroyed, therefore Superman fought for Earth (and the military can confirm that), so using the destruction as a main argument in itself doesn't really make sense.

What would make more sense and be more meaningful is using the destruction as a premise for a more engaging argument: Lex should be trying to warn people about how Superman is a threat to democracy. After all, even though he fought by our side against Zod, who knows if tomorrow he won't be our enemy? More than that: he's fighting for "good", but who defines what's "good" or "bad"? Himself? So he's fighting for his own beliefs and his own morality. And what if somebody disagrees? Nobody has the power he has, so basically we're hostages of HIS set of values in our own world. Although we're not being affected yet, Superman is a potential dictator and we should find a way to control him, to impose actual limits. A power with absolute control and that answers only to itself is anti-democratic in a world as complex as ours.
And this themes should resonate with Clark too. Show him questioning his place in the world as a hero and struggling to become this symbol of hope he aims to be. At least I think that's a more compelling concept than to simply see Lex Luthor crying because a part of Metropolis was destroyed while Superman was avoiding Earth's destruction.

"Clark ought to be haunted by memories of killing Zod (it would have been tough on him), while also feeling guilty about the way his own people killed so many…"

I agree Clark should be haunted by memories of killing Zod. But again, let's go a little deeper. He shouldn't be sorry about what he did (God, I really hope Warner will show some artistic integrity and keep their approach instead of making Batman vs. Superman become a sort of "apology" for what some people disliked about Man of Steel), he did what he had to do. What should REALLY haunt him is the notion that he killed a man because he had no choice. He's really disturbed about how the world can be so cruel and ugly that not even himself could avoid a situation like that. And that's what makes him different and special: he's not corrupted by what he did. He isn't ok with killing Zod and he struggles to stay righteous even after facing such a horrible situation. This whole internal conflict about doing the right thing and keep being a good person is really what should come with Zod's death, not just the shallow "I broke my code" thing (also, he shouldn't have a non-killing code. Not killing is not a "code", is a moral compromise that, generally, a socially sane human has).
About him feeling "guilty"... meh, it's irrelevant. It's not like if he knew those kryptonians.

"- It should be emphasised that this happened because Superman is a raw and untrained hero – at the beginning of his journey. Use Batman as an example of a more experienced hero – whom Clark can learn a few things from."

Here I will completely disagree. Batman never fought someone with super-powers, Batman doesn't even have super-powers, therefore there's nothing Batman can teach to Superman. He never faced a situation like that, he never had to make a choice between a villain and the world, so, basically, no, there's nothing Bruce could teach Clark. There should be some natural changes that comes from the interection between characters, of course, but please, nothing about Batman actually "mentoring" Superman. Superman was raw, yes, and he should grow mostly by himself.

"- By the end of the film – we should be seeing a much more experienced Clark, who has learned from his mistakes in the first film – he has become more like the classic Superman, no longer feared, or hated, but loved."

Again, kinda. We should see a more mature character, of course. I wouldn't say necessarily loved and accepted, but more self-confident and, yes, a more inspiring figure - for some part of the population, at least. Now, learning from his mistakes? No, he should be learning from his experiences as a whole, not from his "mistakes". He should be more aware about his powers and the effects they cause, he should be more concerned about representing something good to humanity and making people trust him. If you're talking about "learning to take fights away from populated areas", then I just think that's a too silly concept to draw something interesting from. He takes fights away from populated areas if he can, if he's not fighting someone as powerful as Zod or Faora or whatever. It shouldn't even be an issue, so I hope they won't try to address it.

Anyway, those were just some personal notes I wanted to make, because my opinion goes somewhat against the grain. Nice editorial, though!

Exceptionally good editorial. Props, and I pretty much totally agree. Especially how you noted that the real flaw was in the writing.

However, I just have to say that I think that the "destruction complaints" strike me as purely ludicrous. I cannot relate to people who feel as though Superman was responsible. The logic does not compute for me. *shakes head, calms down*

Now, Lex Luthor being distrustful, that I can believe. And Clark should be feeling haunted internally.

I want Superman's actions in Man of Steel to be questioned by crazy ol Batman, but supported by Wonder Woman.

i agree with everything except "lower expectations." i know thats your own opinion but ive never been so excited for a film haha

Hypocrites will probably complain anyway. If you are going to use a version of Superman, just use Greg Pak's or Morrison's Superman.

When Superman becomes a figure that is loved not feared or hated,it should be because he has earned that right not that it should be taken for granted the world thinks Superman is a hero. Use Batman to help Superman become a better hero by upping his game while Superman can help Batman by restoring his willingness to fight the never ending battle.

Anyway, I gotta agree with Mister Moustache as well. I also like that you noted that the real flaws in the movie was the writing, not Zod's death or the destruction, that's just nitpicking.

Great editorial. Mirrors my thoughts. My biggest worry though is possibly presenting Batman as a grizzled old veteran who comes out of retirement to address the Superman issue. At comic con they read a specific monologue which leans toward a fight and a version of Batman even farther along than Bales. I would love to see a Batman at the top of his game not past his prime.

@ thebaroness This one might be further along but I think he will have accomplished a lot more eg an Arkham full of rogues, the training and partnerships with at least one Robin etc.

I'm hoping for that anyway

And I really hope they take nothing from The Dark Knight Returns. Ever since Henry Lennix read that quote, I've been worried that Bats is going to be throwing Superman around and talking down to him like he's a child. They should butt heads, not throw down.

It will be a battle of dialogue just as much as it is a physical fight. I think we're all hoping the dialogue is handled really well during these shots

@ Darth not advice, just hopes and preferences

I love this! Definitely agree with your points (although I though Man of Steel was [frick]ing amazing).