Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Finally! I can give a more informed opinion on this franchise upsetting piece of work.

Disclaimer, I have only seen the theatrical version and I hear the Ultimate Edition is much better, if you’ve seen that and I don’t address something that was in it, my apologies.

The big question is: Did it suck?

Well, no.

Unlike most folks who cared enough to see this movie when it came out or at least in the same year it did, I didn’t. So my knowledge of it was based on mostly negative reviews, plus one positive one. Maybe two.

I was predisposed to fine the idea of two of my favorite DC guys fighting to the death a terrible experience.

With that somewhat unique perspective, watching this movie was not the fresh take on the characters that it seemed to be to others. And I’ve seen so much dark and gritty from superheroes now that it wasn’t so big a shock.

This movie tuns one of the most beloved superheros, if not the most, into a bad guy. Who murders and makes irrational decisions. It also turns Superman, who is normally confident and cheerful, into a troubled and uncertain hero.

But this Superman is a lot newer to crime fighting then his previous versions, so maybe I can excuse that. And honestly his perpetual frown didn’t bother me, since every scene he was in there was something depressing happening, I wouldn’t be smiling either. He’s never been the wise-cracking kid of super who never gets down.

I could forgive Batman a lot less readily. But upon seeing it for myself, I actually don’t think Batman was acting entirely on his own initiative.

It may be grasping at straws but I felt like all Batman’s nightmares and oddly rage-filled actions seemed a lot more like they were pointing to mind control then to just him. It sound convenient, but being a DC animated series watcher, I can tell you it’s just the sort of thing that they would do. So why not in a movie. (Actually the whole dream-mind control thing has been done before. It was pretty terrifying.)

Even if you don’t buy that an alien force (hint: Darkseid) could be twisting people’s minds (and I’m not the only one who thinks Luthor was acting like he was being influenced by Darkseid) I think it’s not too big a stretch to say that everyone had a darkness they have to face. Wonder Woman said that in her movie.

So with that in mind, I’ll analyze the movie.

I won’t talk about cinematography or acting, or the Martha line as it relates to good story telling; you can get that a dozen other places. I’m going to talk about what I think the story actually means if you just look at it as a story. An analogy. Which is what all superhero movies really are and always have been.

The first thing this movie introduces us to is Batman/ Bruce’s fear of bats and of superman. Which appear to be connected. The bats aren’t literal, they represent the batman side of Bruce, and how he fears it taking control of him. The reason he fears it is because deep down he knows he’s going down a dark path. With the branding and all. I think his disturbing dreams indicated that several times.

For Bruce that fear is still subconscious, and he blames Superman for the sense of danger he keeps having, of helplessness, Alfred tries to warn him about this, but he doesn’t get the hint.

So over a two year period Bruce’s resentment of Superman grows, for no real reason that we can see since Superman doesn’t destroy any ore cities and often prioritizes saving people over catching up to other people he’s suspicious of. But Bruce isn’t going to be bother with facts, since it’s the possibilities that concern him and he doesn’t realize that we can’t base our decisions on all the possible outcomes of something.

Superman is compared to God a lot. But it’s also pointed out that he should answer to God. Superman doesn’t seem to believe this himself, but the comparison bugs him. As it should. Still, he rightly thinks that Batman’s actual Brutality is a top priority over Superman’s possible damage. I mean, one is a fact and the other is a hypothesis right?

But Bruce is having none of that logic crud when Clark Kent tries to point this out to him. Instead he keeps brooding over Superman and finally decides to get rid of him by making a bunch of Kryptonite weapons. After first meeting Wonder Woman a. k. a. Diana Prince. Whom he eventually figures out the identity of.

What we are seeing with Bruce, in my opinion, is the darkness o f fear and hate clouding the judgment. Fear breeds hate anyway. And Luthor is an example of the same thing. Although his is definitely more unstable and out of control (I say more because Batman is the same way) Luthor hates God and blames Superman the way he blames God, because Superman has enough power for one to say “He could save more, but he choose not to. He could destroy us all.” Of course Superman has no wish to do that, but what he intends doesn’t matter anymore These people hate him irrationally.

So Batman tries to kill him, and seems completely shut off to any logic or decency as Superman tries to talk to him and then fights him when Batman refuses to listen. Then that infamousĀ  Martha moment.

I don’ think the idea behind it was terrible, I just found the build up unsatisfactory, but ignoring that, I think it’s true that something as small as a name could trigger the humanity in a person. There are true stories of it happening. And I think all of us can remember moments in our life when our perspective shifted because of one sentence someone said to us.

The idea is that love is the key. Bruce still had love for his mother, even when he’d shut himself off to almost everyone else. And the moment strangely parallels one of the Justice League show episodes in which an alternate Superman had taken over the world, along with the rest of the League, and our Batman convince the other Batman to help him by asking “Mom and Dad, they would be proud of what you did?” and that’s all. But the other Batman realizes the truth.

The truth being that if we love people, then we need to love what they valued also. Provided it was good. Bruce’s parents were clearly good people who would want peace and mercy to be apart of his life.

And since Superman’s mom represents the same a sort of compassion for him as Bruce’s does, the moment does make sense.

I get why people think it’s stupid, but I don’t find it so. In fact I don’t really see how it was much different from Darth Vader changing sides because his son ended up being alive and was almost killed by the emperor.

Anyway, the point is, love conquers fear and hate. Diana tells us in her movie that only love can save the world. And Bruce is showing us how true that is. Because he was actually becoming the greatest threat to the world by trying to kill superman.

I have to say with all it’s faults I like the point DC has been making. That love is the only answer to the fear and hatred and evil we inflict upon each other and the world. Only love will change someone like Batman from a maniac to a man again. And only love can keep someone on the right path.

Love is what convinces Superman to make Earth his new home. Because of the people in it he loves and who love him. Love is what sets Diana on her path of preserving humanity. Love is what opens Batman’s eyes to what he’d become.

And love is all that will make us able to forgive each other for the terrible mistakes we make. Which to his credit Superman does pretty quickly forgive Batman for almost killing him.

So, was this movie perfect? No. Did I like all of it? No, I actually didn’t like most of it. I don’t think I was supposed to enjoy it honestly.

But it is not without its lesson, and the lesson isn’t a total flop. It makes sense. And for setting up the Justice League this movie serves the purpose well enough.

It always could be better, and I think it should have been, but it also didn’t fail completely at what it was trying to do. At least in terms of Batman’s arc. So I’d say it’s worth seeing at least once.

Until next time–Natasha.

Wonder Woman–2

I am looking forward to this part more than the first.

Now I get to talk about the meaning of the movie.

(Let me preface it by saying I am not claiming this movie is christian. But I think they used Christian elements to tell the story. Maybe just because that was what they thought would work. I won’t assume more than that. And I think it’s good whether they did it on purpose or not.)

This is where I feel this movie did do something new.

And I also feel that the fans are entirely missing the point when they nitpick the plot for being like other films. The plot was never supposed to be what made this movie different.

It’s Diana herself.

I think I related to her more not because she’s a woman, but because I felt like her story was kind of like my story.

At least par to fit was.

She was homeschooled after all. And very, very sheltered.

So what happens when you stick that combination into the real world?

Diana’s reaction to the horrors of war really hit home with me. Her honest admission that it was horrible. And her demand that promises be kept. Her insistence that they help those who could not help themselves. And her shock when she learned that Steve, one of the good guys, was a liar, smuggler, thief, and that his people had mistreated other peoples of the world. Just as the Germans had.

Diana starts off believing that even Germans are good, truly, and that Ares is to blame for the evil they are doing, and all the evils of war. When she confronts him, she is ready to unleash justice on all their behalf. But to her astonishment, Ares, while under the rope of truth, tells her that he doesn’t make men do the evil they do. All he does is inspire certain parts of it, and manipulate them into doing more things to prolong their troubles.

I believe Ares was still mincing the truth somewhat, though not completely. He’s bound to have more resistance to the rope than a human could, and he only told part of the story.

But Are’s here is a pretty obvious representation of Satan. The tempter, the deceiver, the one who encourages man to sin. But who will say, “I didn’t make him do it.”

Well, no. Satan can’t make a person sin. As in, he can’t put a gun it their hand and make them pull the trigger. But God is pretty clear about tempters still having a major share of the guilt when someone listens to them.

But Diana and we ourselves can’t avoid the truth that man does sin, and he does it voluntarily.

I still remember when I felt the way Diana did when she saw the men still fighting, and she realized Professor Poison really was a psychopath, only getting helped by Ares, but not set on that path by him.

I remember that sick horror when I realized the evils of things like Abortion, or the holocaust, or abuse.

The look on her face was just the look I remember having. And I remember feeling the same doubt about people. In fact, I still struggle with wondering if people can change. If there is truly anything in most of us worth saving.

And by the way, Ares does not highlight anything except the evils of man and his blindness to his own folly. That’s because that’s all Ares cares about. That’s all the devil cares about. The goodness in humanity makes him look less successful.

And like Diana, I have wished I could help everyone who needs it. I don’t want you all to think I’m saintly or anything for feeling that way. If you ask me, it’s no more than decent to want to alleviate the suffering of fellow creatures.

But the truth is, even a superhero can never help them all.

And the smart thing the movie does is come to grips with that fact. It’s basically what Civil War tried and failed to do. And what every Spiderman movie has dealt with.

Diana realizes that she can’t do it all.

I loved the moment at the end when she says she can’t save the world. Though Steve told her she could, she realized the truth: A hero can’t save the world. “Only love can save the world,” she says.

Diana doesn’t mean that just being nice to everyone can save the world. She means that, though evil still rises and men still commit it willingly, the other men who give up everything to stop them and save their people are the ones who save the world.

Essentially, only the ultimate good is more powerful than the ultimate evil. And Diana means to promote that good, and if necessary, lay down her own life, until that good wins out.

And since I believe love is a Person, I know that love has saved the world, and continues to save it. And will triumph in the end. So Diana is completely right.

And Steve’s sacrifice is our example of that love in action. It’s not just a cliche that his last words were “I love you.”

One more thing:

Earlier on, Steve tells Diana that maybe saving people isn’t about what they deserve, but about what you believe. I didn’t get it and thought it was some cheesy one line moral, until Diana was in the final battle with Ares, and she chose to spare Professor Poison’s life, even though she could have justified killing her as an act of war.

But she didn’t, because int hat moment for Diana, it became aobut more than just ending the war. And she repeated what Steve said to Ares as she turned from taking revenge.

You see, what Steve meant was not that you believe in the good of humanity. That would be flimsy and the movie proves it false.

What he meant was, you save people because you believe that is the right thing to do. You believe that somehow, someway, it’s important. It means something. You believe that there’s a different solution than just eliminating them.

If that’s what you believe, and that’s who you are, then you won’t change that just because they don’t deserve it.

And wow, was that a powerful message for me.

Maybe defeating Ares isn’t about stopping war. Maybe it’s aobut winning the war inside yourself. Maybe it means throwing off your own lust for revenge, for power, for the ultimate solution.

Because you don’t have it. But you can be part of it.

Isn’t throwing off all that what truly ends a war anyway?

In that sense, I think Diana killing Ares was symbolic. That was her personal battle. But she recognized that is was not so for all of humanity. The battle is different for everyone.

Diana starts off the movie proud but unaware of her own power; she ends it knowing what she is capable of, but humbled.

And darn it, if that’s not an amazing character arc, then there is just no pleasing some people.

So, I recommend the movie.

–Natasha.

img_1549-4

Wonder Woman–1

At last! I finally saw it.

Good luck convincing my family to go see a superhero flick in theaters. The only reason I saw Ragnarok was because they were going to see a different film at the same time. (Save for one sibling who went with me.)

So I had to buy this movie before I could see it.

Now, what did I think?

Well, some of you probably know that this movie has been widely approved by fans and I think also critics, but I’ve seen some negative stuff about it too. So I’ll start with that.

The worst thing aobut this film…it’s too short.

I’m serious, the whole opening part moves really fast, and unfortunately without a whole lot of detail besides setting up the story. I wouldn’t care, (I didn’t with Captain America) if it wasn’t for the fact that the mythological side of it is interesting, and you can’t help but wish you got to know the Amazons better and see more of Diana’s childhood there.

Still, if you want more, that’s a good sign right?

I was sure I’d like them if I had more time in which to do so. But I will say the attire and the scenery were awesome and gave me the correct idea of the island being a paradise. Heck, I’d want to train there.

People’s main problem with the film is that it’s just like Captain America, and its’ just like every other DC (or even Marvel) film to date. It did nothing new.

Well, considering Marvel is using the same plotline in every single one of its films and getting away with it more often than not, does that seem like a fair complaint?

But I’m not here to take sides in this stupid fan base war.

Was it like Captain America? Yes. More so than some people have been willing to admit. There’s a wired evil genius making dangerous weapons and getting help from a god (instead of just a thing belonging to the gods). There’s a ragtag team of unlikely heroes gathered by the main characters to do a mission the authorities think is insane. Wonder Woman goes off alone to do something she was strongly advised against doing in order to save people. She loses someone close to her. And there’s other similarities too.

But. Wonder Woman was already like Captain America in a lot of ways. And perhaps we shouldn’t blame DC for taking a page from the book of more successful writers.

It worked out well for them.

Anyway, originality is not what makes or breaks a superhero film. All superheros are somewhat unoriginal now, if only because there was so many of them back in the early days of their conception. You will never get complete originality for all of them if you have dozens to wade through.

I personally don’t care.

That said, should this movie have tried something new?

Well, I think it did, but I’ll probably put that into part two.

For now I’ll address the plot.

Was it new? No.

Sorry, making it about a woman isn’t enough to make it new. That’s a dead horse to keep beating if you ask me.

But my question is, why does it need to be new?

How exactly do you make an origin story new? They changed enough as it was.

Making the War WWI instead of WWII was an interesting step. But I liked it after thinking it over. One major point of the film is whether mankind is naturally evil or not. Wonder Woman seeing multiple wars gives her a lot more time and a lot more stakes to reckon with when she makes her choices. And that she keeps choosing to be a protector every time gives her the mark of consistency and faithfulness that, honestly, I have yet to see with another of these rebooted heroes.

Think about it, Wonder Woman has seen more terrors, more of man’s own evil, in her life time, than even Captain America, or the Avengers. And yet she has more resolve to do the right thing than the Avengers even have about their own role in the world.

I’ll get more into that later, suffice it to say, I like it.

And making Professor Poison a woman ought to be a progressive enough leap for the feminists out there, since it’s highly unlikely. And not historically accurate.

But I thought it was a good choice because in the past Wonder Woman has fallen into the cliche “blame the men and their pig pigheadedness for everything” attitude. When she came face to face with Professor Poison, there was no way to say that evil and malice and stubbornness are only male problems. They are human problems.

Also, Ares is not a respecter of sexes. he uses either to accomplish his purpose. So apparently, does Zeus.

One of the best things about his movie is how little it even brought feminism up. Or sexism. It was there. But the main focus is on humanity and its failings as a whole. Not what gender you are.

Again, one wishes there was more time to develop everyone’s character. By the end Diana and Steve are the ones we know best. But I felt like there was so much more to know aobut Steve before he was gone.

And yes, Diana and Steve’s relationship was way too fast, but they didn’t have much choice about that. And they did build up to it fairly well. With Steve’s fascination with her being apparent without being creepy. And hers in turn, though hers was more innocent.

I will say I could have done without the whole sexual implications, or discussions. I felt the latter was poor taste when they’d only just met that day. IT seemed forced in for laughs. And later on when another man mentioned being “aroused” by her, I didn’t like it. The fact is, nice guys in the early 1900s didn’t say things like that. To a woman’s face anyway.

But I suppose nice wasn’t exactly what Steve was looking for in his friends at that particular time. SO maybe we can let it slide.

(but it wasn’t necessary, movie, it really wasn’t.)

Other than that I have no complaints. I’ll dive deeper into the meaning in part 2

Until next time–Natasha.

Expectations (for the new Justice League.)

I’ve finally seen a trailer for the Justice League movie, and I am still skeptical at best. It’d be hard to beat the show.

The key to superheroes as a tool in the creative world, is, as my sister and I have narrowed down, to put a person in a normal human situation, magnified by super abilities and super villains and over the top circumstances.

All this makes it clearer to the audience what the stakes are, what the choice is, and what the difference between the good and the evil character is.

So what I think the new film needs is not to progress further into the dark, gritty and melodramatic world that the genre has become, but to regress into more human terms.

I have nothing against climatic events and galaxy sized stakes, but it should never be about that. Making the problem with the world the main focus of any movie risks making it too vague. What the film needs to be about is what problems humans deal with on a human level. With something like the Justice League, there’s a wide range of subjects that could be covered, that’s why it worked so well as a show. Narrowing down each member’s own personal struggles in the span of one film is a difficult and almost impossible task

But my concern is that none of them will be followed through in a satisfying way.

Many super movies (and other movies and also modern literature) end with what I call a question. Ending with a question means the narrative of the film (usually the unspoken one) does not completely side with any perspective presented in it. It may lean one way, but it refuses to admit it. Leaving you, the audience, to try to figure it out by debate.

Sometimes that is okay. But I have never liked it.

I know many people are totally fine with movies ending with a question. They think it’s more respectful and more thought provoking that it does so. They think they will discuss it more and understand better because of it.

There may be times that happens, but I have yet to see that actually be the fruit of Question Films.

What I typically see is that people will take whichever side of the argument they were already on walking into the film (or reading the book) and continue to use the piece in question to defend their point of view. They claim to be getting a better understanding of it, but all they really are doing is getting deeper into their own beliefs. The film did not challenge them by presenting any belief as wrong based on evidence or results, it just fed into the desire they had to remain perfectly secure in what they already thought.

Take Zootopia, I liked that film okay, not because I agree with its supposed portrayal of society, but because I thought the characters still exhibited real world flaws that could apply to a lot more than racism or class bigotry. Judy being guilty of the crime she hated is a thing that happens to all of us at some point, and she handled it the right way.

However, I do not think it is pushing us forward if you take it only as a class and racialĀ  (or a have and have nots) commentary because all the people that already believe that just nodded along with the film, it presented no new information or ideas to them. The people who didn’t agree either disliked the film or got a different message from it, like me.

The fact is, Zootopia was too vague to really be an effective eye opener to anyone. There are no cold hard facts in it.

The shift in super hero movies since the Avengers and Captain America franchise started is that they go from being about personal struggles to being about world wide threats. Which is not bad exactly, but in a way it renders the drama both too real for people to want to dwell on, and not real enough. Because we know similar organizations exist or have existed, and that this is just a more dramatized version of it, making it less serious and not more.

People always complain about characters not being relatable. But I think the real reason is not the struggles of the character are less terrible, but that the characters themselves are less moral.

I could relate to any character who is struggling with the right and wrong thing to do, especially if the choice is not really obvious (and I don’t mean that it’s morally ambiguous, but that it is a difficult choice to make for them because of the circumstances,) the reason is that the moral struggle is one we all go through. We are all equal under that struggle and no one is exempt from it.

Films that confuse that struggle are not being honest with us. In real life, we almost always have at least a dim idea of what the right choice is. What would be best for us to do, what we should do, and often what we know we won’t do but wish we would. In real life, we can repent of our mistakes and actually turn away from making them before we destroy our lives.

Like the Black Panther did, frankly, that was probably my favorite moment of Age of Ultron.

In real life, villains are often afraid of heroes because heroes are stronger than them in that one dangerous way: in their heart.

It’s the Dark Side in Star Wars that must be threatened by the Light. Why does the Emperor decide to kill Luke after he refuses to be corrupted? He fears and hates him for being stronger than himself.

So, to wrap all this up, the more dark these films become the more impossible to please the fans will be. Once people start to hunger for drama and gore and unbelievable violence, it will only grow. It’s happened many times. By pandering to this wish, Hollywood is dooming itself.

And it is only by being a little less picky about our special effects, our complex characters, and our high stakes; and a little more concerned with what affect our entertainment is actually having on us, that we will learn to really enjoy it.

That’s my thought anyway. I’d forgive the new Justice League for a lot if Batman would just take a knee at some point and deeply regret his actions in the previous film(s.) (I’d forgive even more if Wonder Woman straight up tells him what he did was reprehensible and doesn’t want to join the league till she’s convinced he’s really changed.)

As unlikely as I find both those things, I hope that there’s someone on the writing team who still knows how to use the genre.

Anyway, there’s still Infinity Wars coming.

Until next time–Natasha.

How to have a super relationship-4

I hope I am not wearying anyone of this topic, I could probably go on about it for hours.

But I promise this is the last installment.

This last thing I want to look at about the two couples in question is what gives each of them the foundation they have/

I’ll start with Batman and Wonder Woman this time because they have the more common kind of relationship.

What attracted these two to each other?

Despite the flaws I’ve covered in the previous three posts, we can all agree both these superheroes are good people. we don’t hear much on Wonder Woman’ side, but we do hear Batman once explain some of his reasons for liking her. She’d a remarkable woman, he says; she’s a devoted friend, she’s…standing right behind him, isn’t she?

Awkward.

But there we have it, she’s loyal and devoted to her relationships. Just the opposite of him in some ways, and opposites attract.

But like also attracts like. They are both selfless when it comes to saving other people. they both care about the good of mankind, and they both enjoy being in the League.

This is where most relationships start from. Two people meet and find thy like the same things and so they spend time togetherĀ  and eventually it may turn romantic. OR it may not. But I always found there to be plenty of chemistry between Bruce and Diana.

They both esteem each other. Just like most healthy couples at least start off as seeing only good in the other person.

So why is Batman afraid to move forward? Because of trust.

This is where we see that trust cannot really be built just on another person’s merits. You could be mother Teresa levels of kind and unselfish, and someone might refuse to really trust you because you are still human and they don’t trust people.

I have seen this in my own life and the people around me. Trust is earned but it is also a choice.

And the choice must be made even when we allow for the other person sometimes letting us down. Trusting human beings is in essence saying “I know you aren’t perfect, but I know you well enough to know you’ll be as good as you can be, so I will trust you because I trust you overall character, and not just by your individual actions.”

Clearly people sometimes trust the wrong person because of this, that’s where they mistake the overall character to be better than it is.

However, I submit to you that the obstacle in Batman’s case is different.

He doesn’t trust anyone (as superman fondly admits in episode one.) This is not their fault. It is because he has unresolved issues in his life.

Ladies and gents, you will not have a healthy relationship for long if you do not resolve your issues either before entering it, or at some point early on. (I do not mean you cannot fix it later, but it is better to do it sooner.)

The problem here is that Wonder Woman wants to move forward before either of them have really faced their deep issues with themselves and the world. She has made some steps forward in t he course of being in the League, but he has made baby steps, or none at all in some areas.

Ladies especially may want to do this. But plenty of men will do it to. Only they fear commitment because they know they aren’t ready and so the relationship often ends after appearing to be getting serious.

But is Batman right to use issues as an excuse not to be together?

Let’s return to Scott and Barda:

The important thing about both of them, and the path I admire Kirby for taking, is that both their journey’s start apart from each other.

In the Fourth world, people who still have a shred of conscience and self awareness are referred to as having the Divine Spark. We know Scott has it from the get go, but what is less obvious is that Barda had it too.

Barda’s journey to escaping Apokalips actually began with Auralie, the weakest of the girls in her force, but one she had a particular fondness for that she never showed to any of the others. Barda disobeyed the laws of Apokalips while trying to protect Auralie and was ready to disobey them again when she found out she had been tortured to death. That marked the first moment when she and Scott actually had one mind, and thought hey were not a team yet, they stopped being suspicious of each other.

Scott’s journey began with Himon, the e one free mind on Apokalips.

more importantly still, Scott went to Earth without Barda and continued learning about freedom and goodness until she arrived. Barda in tur mad her choice to complete her training, which came in handy later, and then broke free herself of its grip.

Barda began to hate the system because of her friend, not because of Scott. Though he was the reason she continued to move forward.

These two are not independent of each other, but the y are not codependent on each other either. Barda did not need Scott to leave Apokalips, and he did not need her. They only come together after both making several independent decisions.

My point here is to show that Barda and Scott both work to become the person that is right for each other, before they even know they’ll be together. Barda makes sure to please Scott even before she thinks of them as a couple, because she esteems him. Scott tries to keep Barda healthy and happy even just as his friend because he is grateful to her.

If they had not been committed to doing what they thought right before hand, they could not have suited each other so well.

To be honest, the principle of “Become the person who the person you want is looking for” is one I have yet to hear talked about outside of Church, but it applies just as much to people who are not religious as to people who are.

Like attracts like. Sluts attract whores, criminals attract criminals, nutjobs attract other nutjobs. And good people attract each other.

Very rarely will any of us be Scott and Barda in every way when we meet out spouse, but we can at least be them in this way. It’s not really about getting someone to fall in love with you. It’s about the kind of person you are.

Resolve your issues now, and when you meet the one for you, you’ll have a super good relationship on your side, and not a super dysfunctional one.

But one more thing:

I still ship Wonder Woman and Batman for this reason; broken, messed up people are the only people you’re ever going to meet. Though they may be very healthy, they will always have some weak points.

And we cannot let that stop us from loving deeply and trusting other people, because we share this earth with them, and we need each other.

I would tell Batman he needs to try, and I would tell Wonder Woman she needs to be humble about letting him work his way forward, and always be striving to be a better person herself.

But what I would tell all of you is that it is better still if you have a perfect God in you life who can never fail you. Because then, as the saying goes, you can let man be man, if you let God be God.

(And by the way, Barda and Scott have an equivalent of that known as the Source.)

All right, I’m finally done with this, until next time–Natasha.

img_1549-4

 

How to have a super relationship-3

Part three here we come:

So, I covered the foundation, the way they handle each other’s values, and disagreements. I didn’t exhaust any one of these subjects by any means, but I touched on them.

Now we come to the worst part: Fighting.

Fights are not the same as disagreements. Disagreements can be unemotional, but fights, for the purpose of this post, will be classified as the times we actually hurt each other deeply.

Barda and Scott have only one real fight on record, as I mentioned in the previous post. From what I understand, they split after Barda complains that Scott is ignoring her needs because he is so caught up in what he does, even when it’s a good thing, that her feelings are put on the back burner.

At first I discredited this. How could someone so unselfish as Barda complain about this?

But then I realized, with a little help from my sister, that it is actually a pretty rational fight to expect of them.

Barda and Scott both have traumatic backgrounds in which they were never taught that they deserve any love. (Note the word deserve.) Both of them believed that for a long time.

For the first few years of their marriage, I’d venture to say, they didn’t have a problem because both of them believe the other to be worthy of love and preference more than themselves, they would pour into each other so much that they would never stop to ask if they deserved more.

But… I could easily see Scott, who is always the absent minded professor type at the best of times, getting caught up in helping other people. (I think maybe it was even with the Justice League) and thinking that his wife would be fine. She’d never made demands on him before. (How many men get caught in this trap?)

Meanwhile, Barda suddenly finds he’s not home, or not paying her much attention when he is, and since she has few other interests to occupy her time, she starts to resent that.

You can imagine the rest as easily as I can.

So they separate for awhile though I don’t think they ever think of divorce. There’s no two people more suited for each other. They could never find anyone else just like the other person.

I imagine they reunited after both realizing that they are better off with each other if only for a few minutes a day, than apart forever.

AS far as I know, they have no further problems beyond small disagreements that are bound to happen and are forgotten the next day.

The important thing about this story is to ask what changed? You probably got my hint. They started thinking about what they deserved. In other words, Pride.

Normally you would not find more humble people that Scott and Barda. They are willing to give everyone a fair chance, to take in people they know have emoitonal issues and try to help them, and to bear with each other’s own weaknesses.

Barda is convinced Scott is the better person, but I think he considers her to be the most loyal of the two.

So what could have caused them to change? Simple, they came to expect one thing, and when they didn’t have it, they felt threatened and started to demand it.

I have a feeling Scott was probably surprised when his beloved bride started resenting wheat she’d always supported in the past.

There’s another issue too, Barda started trying to be a regular housewife before that time. She’s not so unsuited to it, but to someone like her, staying at home keeping house has to sting when her husband is out doing what she used to do all the time.

No one’s making her stay at home, she put limits on herself.

That’s where we find trouble so often. We decided how far we can go and no further, then we blame our spouse or our other family for our unhappiness.

Bard and Scott work it out in the end because they have true love and common sense on their side. But our other couple suffers from almost the same problem.

Wonder Woman is a Princess, as Batman points out to her, and he is a rich kid with many issues. Though his excuse is lame, his point is not necessarily without merit.

These two are not ready for emoitonal intimacy.

I think the ladies will all agree with me when I say Wonder Woman would be in for some shocks if she were to get close to any man, let alone Batman.

She’s from an all female island, and she has guy friends, but she doesn’t really get why men are they way they are sometimes she complains about it.

I relate becuase I am typically surrounded by women myself and I don’t claim to really get men. I know that’s an obstacle I have to overcome, but she is in blissfu lignorance of that fact.

Batman onthe other hand is the DArk Knight for a reason. He has his allegiance (Gotham) and he prowls around on his metal steed looking for anyone in distress.

I want you to try to picture these two sharing their turf.

If you can’t laugh at that, you’ve probably never watched either of t hem in action.

Oh my gosh, what a nightmare. Batman’s worst nightmare in fact.

I think men often overlook this when they get married or get into a serious dating relationship. Women want to be a part of your whole life. They want to feel like you value their company in whatever you do.

Men tend to want to separate their lives into categories. Work. Batmanning it. Home.

I will not say either is entirely wrong. Standing alone is necessary, so is getting help.

Batman would probably feel like his criminals and his city are his personal property, and the guys in the League, or the other girls, would never dream of swinging around Gotham without his consent (like Batgirl.) But Wonder Woman would naturally expect to be able to help him out.

I know that was speculation, but there was plenty of evidence for it on the show. Often Batman will hold her back from interfering in a situation where he feels like it’s someone’s personal call. He also did it with Robin on the Animated Batman Show. Batman believe you’ve got to stand on your own sometimes, and that makes perfect sense.

Diana probably never fought a single battle without a whole crowd watching, ready to step in if something went totally wrong. She might understand giving someone breathing room, but utterly leaving them to themselves, she’d probably find that a bit hard. Though she’s been known to take on problems single handedly, she tends to do that from a belief that she is totally over-capable of beating them.

Scott and Barda had perfect teamwork because they never made any bones about dong things together, unless there was a good reason to split, then they allowed it without making a fuss. The one exception being what I mentioned above.

Pride. It gets us every time. If there’s one thing Batman and Wonder Woman both have in abundance, it’s pride.

This may have made it sound like I don’t ship these two at all, or like I expect people to e perfect. But I don’t. I’ll get to that in part for.

Au revoir–Natasha.