Teaming up? Wasn’t the main point of the first movie that Lex Luthor would wreck Metropolis, murder a random person in cold blood, and support ethnic cleansing just to try and screw over Superman?
Because he was envious and afraid humans would be irrelevant/replaced.
If a bigger threat shows up that makes superman just as much a chump as the rest of humanity, I’d imagine this lex would absolutely step in to help out, even if only to prove his continued relevance and give a big fuck you.
This superman, giving zero fucks about lex’s inferiority complex, would accept the help to get the job done.
That sends a terrible signal. Lex is an egomaniac narcissist who was willing to fund a war because maybe it would possibly get rid of Superman who had done nothing but good up to that point. If he believed Superman was so problematic why did he make a copy of him? He’s upset he can’t control Superman. The movie sent mixed messages already, I’m not at all excited for “see how helpful wat criminals can be!” as a part 2. If you want to show S working with people he disagrees with, how about the government that agreed to lex abducting him? They are not directly responsible for what happened but there is potential for animosity on both sides. I’m sick of the good guys having to compromise and give in to literal war criminals. I’m not trying to be pro government here, but really anything but lex. Media does not need to portray war criminals as allies of good. They are not.
A signal to whom ? Genuine question.
I agree, as a full-throttle textbook narcissist he would think it was be a problem because he couldn’t control him.
An opportunity to gain partial influence might be a reasonable stepping stone until he can get full control (or remove him entirely).
I’m not sure it’s that far fetched an approach for someone so intelligent.
It might not be the story they go with, but it’s not implausible to fit his current personality in with a team up.
I’m sick of the good guys having to compromise and give in to literal war criminals.
I agree that with that kind of power, working within the bounds of corrupt/compromised systems is stupid so I’m interested to see what you think is a viable alternative.
I’m pretty sure a few of them have been done as actual comic runs.
Media does not need to portray war criminals as allies of good. They are not.
Firstly , this is a fictional space, so they can pretty much do what they want, whether or not that’s something you enjoy is a different matter.
Secondly , as a premise it’s really *really hard to portray absolute goodness to the satisfaction of everyone because good and evil are subjective constructs, unless you’re a religious fundamentalist i suppose, then reason doesn’t generally apply in any meaningful way.
A “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” or a “trolley problem” kind of subjective.
Also i’d suspect that to at least a few of the countries in this fictional setting, superman is a war criminal of the highest order, it might not be the fictional US but other fictional countries exist, with their own laws.
If you are using “War Criminal” as a benchmark you are using the definitions of the same systems of which “Boravia” is a part.
Evil is easier in general because there are common things that people will mostly agree on, but even then it’s hard to get something objectively evil (outside of supernatural entities i suppose).
A fictional space is a perfect place to try though precisely because it isn’t bound by as much realism.
I was originally not going to respond because so much of your comment is just not related to my point, but to at least answer your question, a signal to the viewer. To the rest of your comment, I’ll just say that I don’t really care about whataboutism or no true Scotsman or whatever. They could make the movie about anything at all. It doesn’t even have to include lex, but they seem to be choosing to do a team up. I guess I’ll have to see what it’s actually like, but I think there are better options that don’t potentially launder the perception of lex.
There may be fallacies in there that I haven’t spotted and there is certainly subjectivism and relativism to a degree, but there is no whataboutism or true Scotsman.
Lex as a character has gone through this same cycle a few times in both the comics and the animated series, he’s the big had one day and a reluctant team member the next.
Laundering mass murderers is also common. That you don’t approve is clear.
I wasnt trying to say a team up was a good story, only that it was possible to make it narratively feasible with the given personality we’ve seen so far.
Whataboutism was is a reference to your suggestion that Superman is also a war criminal. In the universe of the first movie we as the audience are essentially told by the text that Superman is good and Lex is bad. In introducing the idea that “Superman is also” as a reason to excuse teaming up with Lex seems to fit the bill for that.
As far as no true Scottsman, there’s potentially a fallacy that fits better, and no true Scotsman may not even really fit the bill at all, but essentially this concept that you cannot portray someone as universally good. I just think that’s not really relevant in this context and I disagree with it. I’m not saying that Superman has to be perfect. I just don’t think it’s good to team up with Lex. The idea that some people might not see it as a negative doesn’t change the fact that some people would. And conceptually I understand that where I’d draw the line might differ from where other people draw the line, but the suggestion that where I draw the line is somehow unreasonable to the point of bringing up the idea that nobody could be perfect seems strange. I’m not suggesting that Superman is held to some high minded unrealistic standard. I think most people would agree that Lex is a bad guy and from a moralistic standpoint would prefer if Superman not have to work with him. I’m not saying it would necessarily make better media, just that we probably don’t need to watch war criminals have a redemption arc at this moment in history.
Additionally, I don’t care very much about what was and was not the case in the comics. My understanding is that in the comics his parents never suggested he form a harem. I think that each reboot should be considered as its own incarnation, and I think Lex in this incarnation is an objectively bad person. I do not think that the movie left any real room for interpretation there. He’s not misguided, or misinformed. He’s a bad guy because fundamentally at the core of his being he has these flaws that affect the way he sees the world and treats others.
Like I said, I will have to reserve ultimate judgment for when we know more about the actual content, but I just don’t think it’s a good premise. You seem to at least understand my subjective opinion on the matter.
Whataboutism was is a reference to your suggestion that Superman is also a war criminal. In the universe of the first movie we as the audience are essentially told by the text that Superman is good and Lex is bad. In introducing the idea that “Superman is also” as a reason to excuse teaming up with Lex seems to fit the bill for that.
Hmm, i see what you mean and i hadn’t considered it as a whattaboutism as i wasn’t using it as a foundation of another argument, merely using it to illustrate the weakness of using the term “war criminal” in a context where that term is hugely subjective.
But i concede that it could be considered as such.
As far as no true Scottsman, there’s potentially a fallacy that fits better, and no true Scotsman may not even really fit the bill at all, but essentially this concept that you cannot portray someone as universally good. I just think that’s not really relevant in this context and I disagree with it. I’m not saying that Superman has to be perfect. I just don’t think it’s good to team up with Lex. The idea that some people might not see it as a negative doesn’t change the fact that some people would. And conceptually I understand that where I’d draw the line might differ from where other people draw the line, but the suggestion that where I draw the line is somehow unreasonable to the point of bringing up the idea that nobody could be perfect seems strange.
I’m not sure where i was making the argument that superman has to be perfect, but that was not my intention, i was merely pointing out that the term “War Criminal” is subjective to the point of being useless in my opinion, because it’s a term that comes from the in world corrupt and broken systems.
The term “Criminal” is used to assign a negative status to whomever the current regime deems it to be so.
In this film specifically superman is considered a “War Criminal” by Boravia.
I’m not disagreeing with your subjective moral position, i’m saying the term you are using is weak.
I wasn’t suggesting your subjective opinion was incorrect (or unreasonable), i was just positing that alternative positions are possible.
A difference of opinion.
I’m not suggesting that Superman is held to some high minded unrealistic standard. I think most people would agree that Lex is a bad guy and from a moralistic standpoint would prefer if Superman not have to work with him. I’m not saying it would necessarily make better media, just that we probably don’t need to watch war criminals have a redemption arc at this moment in history.
I think that’s unsubstantiated opinion, but it’s not like i have reams of data to prove otherwise so again, a difference of opinion.
Additionally, I don’t care very much about what was and was not the case in the comics. My understanding is that in the comics his parents never suggested he form a harem. I think that each reboot should be considered as its own incarnation, and I think Lex in this incarnation is an objectively bad person. I do not think that the movie left any real room for interpretation there. He’s not misguided, or misinformed. He’s a bad guy because fundamentally at the core of his being he has these flaws that affect the way he sees the world and treats others.
The comic were used as a point of reference to support my subjective opinion that it’s possible to have a plausible redemption arc with lex, i then used that as a basis to provide a situation in which it could occur.
I fundamentally disagree that objectively bad exists, but i agree he was an across the board arsehole in this one.
Like I said, I will have to reserve ultimate judgment for when we know more about the actual content, but I just don’t think it’s a good premise.
Fair enough.
It’s RFK Jr and a planet of worms.
Nazis?
