Re-thinking the desert scene in Batman V Superman over and over, Josh has come up with a theory that explains this scene being much more than a way to introduce Darkseid. Check out Josh’s theory!
A quick warning before I get started–Spoilers for Batman v Superman will be discussed below! I am very excited for people to read this, but make sure you have seen the movie before you do!
- Don’t miss our Batman v Superman Giveaway!
- Read our spoiler-free review of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice here
So remember that desert scene in Batman v Superman, where Superman takes down Batman amidst the para-demons? I have been thinking about this scene quite a bit, and while I have not done a lot of research myself on this, I have come up with a theory to explain this scene, and how it fits in the movie. Bear in mind I have only seen the movie one time so far, so I may get exact quotes incorrect, and I appreciate any corrections made to my theory in the comments below!
What Lex Thinks About the Women in Superman’s Life
So, let’s start in the “real world” of Batman v Superman for context, specifically when the fight is set up between these two heroes. When Superman heads to save Lois from Lex Luthor, he easily does so, and heads back to the top of Lex’s tower to confront Lex. In this scene, Lex references that a woman in Superman’s life is in peril. It takes place just after this scene with Lois on Lex’s helipad:
Cocky Superman says Lois is already safe on the ground, but Lex is not referring to Lois, he says he has captured the most special woman in Superman’s life–his mother. Lex is basically calling Superman a “mama’s boy”.
What Superman Asks of Batman As He Lay Dying
So, as we know, having seen the movie, the fight begins with Superman trying to talk Batman down from a fight, and rather help him save his mother, but Batman is too hardheaded to listen, and forces Superman into a fight. Eventually Superman is overcome in the fight, and in his potential last breath, he pleads for Batman to save Martha–to save his mother. For some reason, Batman wigs out when he hears this. One reason definitely is because the name is shared between his mother and Superman’s mother, as the coincidence is highly unlikely. I do not think that is enough though–this is not enough for Batman to pause. So what else could it be that causes him to hold back?
What the Desert Also Means
I contend it is this desert scene. Sure this scene is setting up Darkseid, but I also think this is showing us what a potential future could have been. This might seem obvious, but I think this was the timeline that would have happened if Martha had died, and Batman attempted to kill Superman.
After we see grumpy Superman confront Batman, Superman is clearly unhappy about something. Then we hear him say something about referring to a woman dying that is important to him. This has to be Lois right? If you remember, it’s when frowny-face Superman unmasks Batman here:
I think this is wrong. I think this woman that has died is Martha Kent, which has enraged Superman. Of course, if Superman specifically mentioned Lois by name in the desert scene, then my theory is shot, and you can stop reading/troll me now.
But if she is not mentioned by name, and you think about it, it really makes sense in the movie. Let’s return to the point where Batman has Superman under the heel of his boot. At this point, Batman has this weird vision bouncing around in his head (the desert scene, among others). He knows Superman is upset about a woman being killed in that desert vision. Then Superman name drops a woman, who is danger, that Batman can save. This makes the coincidence of not only the fact that both mothers (of Batman and Superman) being named Martha, but coincidentally, Batman just had a vision about Superman being upset with him because he let a woman die, and now that very scene could play out in mere moments. I think this, combined with the “shared-names-of-their-mothers” factor is what wigs Batman out, giving him pause in his attempt to destroy Superman. Then when you combine all of this with Lex’s theory that Martha means more to Superman than Lois does, I think it all fits into place.
Man of Steel Provides Further Evidence
Another piece of evidence to this actually comes from Man of Steel. When Superman has just saved Lois from Zod’s henchmen, he hears his mother being threatened by Zod. This causes him to drop everything, and leave Lois without saying a word, tackling Zod, and warning him to never threaten his mother again, as he pounds his face in, and barreling through several buildings as he does so.
But What if Batman Did Just Kill Superman?
The one last thing I want to discuss is how this would play out if Batman did kill Superman. Let’s say that Batman shanks Superman with the Kryptonite spear. Then, perhaps Batman decides to ignore Superman’s request for help to save Martha, or maybe he doesn’t get there in time and Martha dies. Is that the end of this story? I would contend that if we look at the original timeline, Superman is seen coming back to life at the end of the movie after having defeated Doomsday. He had been impaled, and been exposed to severe doses of Kryptonite, but still, not dead yet. This would be a similar situation for how he would have died at Batman’s hand–again impaled, and exposed to severe doses of Kryptonite. I could see that Superman might come back to life in this alternate timeline, and then enact the revenge we see in the desert scene of Batman’s vision, thus leading to the events of that vision, as he was too late to save Martha, who has been executed at the hands of Lex Luthor.
Final Thoughts
Maybe this was something that most people had already figured out and I am behind, or perhaps my theory is crazy, and I am completely way off base. I really am curious to see what others think, so go ahead and post your thoughts on this desert scene, and what you think it fully means in the comments below!
Good analysis. You raise some interesting ideas.
Anyways, I think if you’re right about this scene, the implication is kind of frightening! The idea of an all-powerful being so fragile that his feelings for one individual might make him save the world or perhaps even destroy it, and there’s nothing we can do to stop him is downright maddening!
I completely agree. I am still undecided as to if I think this was a wise move, story-wise, but it certainly seems to add some considerable weight to Batman’s decision to let Superman.
If you think about it though–Batman should still be apprehensive about Superman, which is what I think you are getting at with your post. If/when Diane does die, is Superman going to go off the rails? Is he a time bomb waiting to go off?
hmm…
I should say let Superman live.
I agree, if that is the direction they’ve decided to take the character in, I don’t think it should be long lived. He needs a more stable reason for doing what he’s doing. Like simply because he’s compelled to help people. Going back to MoS, this should have been a value instilled in him from his parents since childhood (yeah, I know, 3 hour car rides. Ugh!), so it can inform his actions and motivation now.
That way if something does happen to either Lois or Martha, he’ll be sad about it, but still be able to continue on saving the world.
And yes, how can Batman ever truly not have to keep one eye on him to make sure he’s on an even keel? They seem to have already began establishing this sort of unstable standard, so I hope they don’t have to backtrack to give him a more stable, “trusting” compulsion moving forward.
Hey this was a great interpretation. I certainly did not make that connection while watching the movie. I think you’re spot on as to what they were trying to imply. They could have added some quick flash back to batman’s “dream” as he was holding the spear over superman so some of us less perceptive folks could have put two and two together.
I have decided one of two things with Zack Snyder, the director based on this movie and Man of Steel–One, he is either an incompetent story-teller, and did not convey most ideas properly. Or Two, he expects (unfairly I think) for us the audience to make interpretations about his movies, and doesn’t want to spell it out.
Either way, it has made Batman v Superman feel disjointed, and leaves us, the movie-goers, unsatisfied when we leave the film. It certainly has had a lasting effect on me though, as I find myself pondering about the movie quite a bit.
Wow! You really thought it all out. And, it makes a lot of sense. I’ve seen the movie 3 times and none of that even remotely crossed my mind.
FWIW, Superman says “She was my world. And you took her from me.”
Hmm…That does sound like something that would be said about Lois. But it could be about his mom as well. It is hard to say. It is just so strange that Lex seems to have deduced that Superman’s mom is more important than Lois. You would think that would be a larger part of the plot, and not something that comes out of no where.
If he does mean Martha, it doesn’t help that, either purposefully or inadvertently, the next spoken line is by Flash and he says “it’s Lois. Lois lane.” So putting those two lines back-to-back, it’s understandable for people to make that connection.
Now, if he is referring to Martha, it could be done purposefully in that way to make people think it’s Lois to throw them off from the eventual Martha reveal. But that wouldn’t make sense, because we see her get kidnapped, so we’re already privy to that before Superman is.
And it wouldn’t make a while lot of sense for him to be talking about that anyways, because Batman didn’t “take her from him”, Lex did.
So do you think that Batman kills Lois? I can’t imagine that ever happening. If Superman says “You took her from me”, then I have to imagine this came from Batman neglecting to act, rather than willfully killing Lois–or Martha. That just makes no sense at all when looking at Batman’s character.
That is why I thought it could be Martha, because Batman would had accidentally let Martha die, for whatever reason after he had “killed” Superman. Superman then comes back, and we get this future whether Superman is all pissed off.
Maybe at this point it should just be chalked up to bad writing? This movie hardly gives any indications that Lois is what is tying Clark to humanity other than a couple kisses we see. If it truly is Lois, I just really do not see it in the writing.
No, I’m not suggesting he willingly killed one of them, but that sounds like the implication in the way Superman worded it, “you took her from me.” It doesn’t sound like it was through inaction. Like Lex LITERALLY took her from him. Maybe if he had said something like “you let her die.” It would have been different.
I agree we can chalk it up to poor writing, or there’s just information we’re not privy too yet, either because in the deleted scenes or something we’ll find out in a future movie.