Justice League Unlimited "Patriot Act" Talkback (Spoilers)

[Ultra Mike]

Originally posted by theRedDeath
Huh, y'know I actually had assumed the no-spoiler thing for unaired episodes to be the case, i just didn't realize generically saying whether or not I liked them counted. So saying I did or didn't like an unaired episode is a Spoiler?

Yeah I kind of am saying that. It's no offense to you or anything, but in this day and age even such general spoilers can ruin the mood of the show. Plus saying those kind of things makes others think it's okay to post more detailed spoilers. I'd rather this be a clean topic without any kind of mention at all of the "future" epiosdes airing, okay?

 

[Grimlock]

Compared to the Marvel Family? Or Speed Force-powered heroes? Or Superman or Batman hangers-on? It's DC Comics' blessing and curse, I suppose.

Alright, you got me on the speed-force one, but isn't the marvel family only 3 people big?

And as for superman and batman...i see all their "hangers-on" as being fairly unique.

I mean steel is certainly way different from superman, as huntress is way different than batman, but is arrowette all that differnet from ollie? They both shoot speciality arrows to stop bad guys.

 

[Sue]

Read the comics That should answer your question. Granted Arrowette is out of the picture as far as I know, but I think the Arrow family has distinctive enough characteristics that their shared weapon of choice shouldn't matter.

 

[Karkull]

Alright, you got me on the speed-force one, but isn't the marvel family only 3 people big?

For a while in the pre-Crisis there were eight of them.

 

[D.Shaffer]

For a while in the pre-Crisis there were eight of them.

10 if you count the future marvels.

Although I think the Speedy hero group still out populates them.

 

[Ian]

It's been awhile, but I feel I had to make some comments on this episode. Although, I suppose, not as bad as the end of "Dead Reckoning" with the whole "turning everyone into apes thing" and Grodd suddenly becoming a complete moron so that Lex Luthor can yet again take the lead as main villain, though I guess I'm grateful it's not Braniac again, I had some problems with it (and what's with turning all of the Flash characters into complete moron's, anyway? I mean, before that, poor Linda Park in "Flash and Substance" became this unproffesional, immature, ditzy, helpless bimbo idiot with slight stalker-vibes; she seemed like some high school, dare I say, fangirl of Flash's - no wonder Wally wasn't all that interested. I could go on, but I digress...) Anyway, brace yourselves, cause it's going to be long!

[...]

I still wonder why they did that to Amanda Waller - she used to represent a reasonable argument against the potential danger the unchecked Justice League are (and even Batman agreed) and just because they stop Brainiac, as they've done so many times before, she still doesn't see the possibility of a threat? Granted, the Justice League are all fine and good now, but who knows what might be in twenty, thirty years from now? Superman could be retired, or dead, and someone entirely new could take control of the Justice League and turn it into a whole Justice Lord regime. Superman, himself, could radically change his beliefs over the course of a couple decades. Or, as with the whole Darkseid thing, there are the possibilities of these heroes being brainwashed, as well. Or what happens if there's some threat that the Justice League is unable to face, or if they're busy fighting other things at the time something terrible strikes - shouldn't the rest of the world have some sort of defense system that's at least on the same level as Justice League so they actually have a chance to protect themselves?

Furthermore, wouldn't the Justice League want America, or the rest of the world, for that matter, to have some sort of defense system in the event that something does happen, whether it be the Justice League goes rogue or there's some extra-terrestrial attack, especially if they're all so good and noble? You'd think they'd want people to be able to take care of themselves so why do they seem so against it?

And, then, of course, that leads us into the whole political thing. People who say that it was all unintetional should have looked at the title - it might just be me, but something tells me that they didn't come up with "Patriot Act" out of the blue and didn't call the episode that for no real reason whatsoever. Once again, the heads of the military are portrayed as right-wing nutjobs - not only has this become very cliche, but it gets unnerving that they can't develop an interesting, reasonable, intelligent military guy who just happens to have a viewpointthat disagrees with the Justice League's. Why does he have to go all crazy and "hulk"-ish and be so angry? I mean, can't he represent himself with reasonable arguments than going out and trying to kill Superman or whatever? At least Amanda Waller last season did that, but she was still doing it through the underhanded and corrupt Cadmus organization. Can't the Justice League face some reasonable opposition out in the open that doesn't outright hate and fear the League but is just concerned about potential problems?

I mean, people were going on about how the whole thing is so complicated and stuff, but right now (and especially after the Cadmus arc completed deflated into that Brainiac-Luthor thing) it's all pretty one-sided. The American military/government is scared, irrational, and completely wrong in there notions that the Justice League is a potential threat while the Justice League is reasonable and all-good and will never present any danger to the world because, like I said, they're all-good. This doesn't seem very complex to me. And even though you can say that at least Eiling wasn't entirely evil (I mean, he didn't kill that soldier dude in the beginning and he didn't go crazy on the civillians at the end), all the stuff in the middle was pretty brutal and completely irrational.

Furthermore, while we're at it, if we're going to make the military be these radical right-wing nutjobs, why not have some crazy liberals to even it out? I mean, seriously, while we have conservative Eiling going all "hulk" and destroying Metropolis, we have liberal Green Arrow, dare I say, shaking hands with a cop? Good old Ollie, that crazy left-wing communist nut who traveled around America with conservative Hal Jordon way back when, bashing cops, the military, the government and exclaiming his radical liberal agenda every chance he got? I mean, if we're going to have American military leaders portrayed as right-wing radicals, the least they could do is have Green Arrow return to his nutty left-wing glory and dislike cops. He doesn't even have to loath and despise them in crazy Ollie fashion like he does in the comics - why can't he just dislike them? Why is it that this clear leftist character can't be portrayed in any negative light at all (I mean, he'd still be a superhero) while the right-wing military characters are turned into villains?

At least there's Captain Atom, I guess, although even he, in the Cadmus Arc, couldn't rationally talk about the issues and, instead, was a traitor (albeit, briefly) to the Justice League, attacking Superman and all. Although, it would have been interesting if Captain Atom was in this episode as both Eiling and Captain Atom are military men and patriotic zealots, but then, I suppose, that would mean the American military would have to be portrayed as more complex than "scared, irrational, and completely wrong," and that would surely cut into the screentime for the annoying little kids.

Some people will say that I'm acting as if this episode was "un-American." It's not; it's just very liberal, and very blatant, biased commentary about our current politcal situation (whether you want to admit it or not). While I don't mind that they have their viewpoints, it's a bit upsetting that any character who doesn't share their viewpoint is depicted as irrational and/or villainous. Furthermore, I always find it funny that while the show is trying to push this anti-war agenda so much, the only way for the Justice League to actually stop all the villains that threaten the world is through fighting them. Not to mention that all the times that they've appeased these supervillains and they get out of jail or Arkham or whatever, they, again, try to destroy the world, putting countless people's lives in danger once more. But, ironically, no one ever talks about that little fact.

Anyway, this was pretty long, and no one's going to probably read it, but I felt a need to vent and stand up for us conservatives as our voice seems to be lacking on this thread. I'm looking forward to next weeks episode, though, as, reading what it's about, I don't know how it can go wrong. Although, with this sudden need to bastardize all these Flash comic book characters (Grodd and, even worse, poor Linda), and the next episode being about Flash and all, maybe I should be worried...though, I would like to see some of them show up...I'm still surprised there was no mention of Aunt Iris in "Flash and Substance" - I mean, he did say his uncle (Uncle Barry, perhaps? There was that odd look-a-like in the beginning...), but he mentioned his mother before Aunt Iris, for crying out loud - there's something definitely wrong with that. But again, I digress...

You rock. Marry me?

Disclaimer: Marriage proposal meant as an expression of extreme flattery, and does not in any way reflect my actual intentions. Unless Gloria's hot.

 

[Grimlock]

You rock. Marry me?

Oh, for a second i thought you were referencing maebe(sp?) from arrested development.

For a while in the pre-Crisis there were eight of them.

Wow, alright then.

All these repetetive powers make me think DC is running out of creativity.

Not that marvel doesn't have their own share of repeated powers...(how many spider-based people and iron man armor-based people are out there now?)

 

[James]

Some people will say that I'm acting as if this episode was "un-American." It's not; it's just very liberal, and very blatant, biased commentary about our current politcal situation (whether you want to admit it or not).

The writer has already said it isn't political per se. And while I agree, one can read politics into it, it's not meant to be a contemporary comment. You could say Eiling represents the age old question which is present in international politics; how much like your enemy do you become to defeat your enemy? How far before you sacrifice what you stand for to defeat that obstacle. With tightening of democratic rights across the west and aggressive foreign policy being active in the east, you can read "issues" in there, but this is an age old set up; total hatred turning you into precisely what you actually against. It's not new, just one can see it being reflective.

While I don't mind that they have their viewpoints, it's a bit upsetting that any character who doesn't share their viewpoint is depicted as irrational and/or villainous.

Because he was villainous. I don't think anyone of a right wing persuasion would argue that what Eiling was doing was right and thereby his intentions were victimised. He's an extremist, extremist on ANY side upset the balance. If you want to look at a dipiction of a non liberal character, look towards Wallace rather than Eilling. Sure, she's also a slight "bad guy", but she's a far more realistic and genuine depiction - in fact, by this point she's actually rather likable - regardless of whether you agree with her political persuasion. So I wouldn't say this is overtly liberal.

In the end, superheroes TEND (not always) to be more liberal in nature, or at least, more socialistic. They look after the poor, defend the weak, don't get paid. Even the rich like Wayne, pay a lot of money into non profit events which again, with no payback, is a more social ideal. There is little of capitialistic nature to the characters. As I said, this isn't in all cases (and it doesn't mean that all heroes vote democrat - I'm talking about ideology than specific political trends), but generally, if your good guys are socialistic, then any political enemy will a counter point. I don't think it's bias, it's just a natural reaction to the event.

Furthermore, I always find it funny that while the show is trying to push this anti-war agenda so much, the only way for the Justice League to actually stop all the villains that threaten the world is through fighting them.

I think what one would argue they push is for necessary show of force. The idea of the superhero is he only fights because there are no alternative (that's the idea to sell to the kiddies). The are a reactive group. They don't take out the villain until villain makes a move. What Cadmus and Eiling represent is a proactive group with an intent to remove a situation without direct dialogue or specific cause.

I see your point, but I don't think JLU is anti fighting, it's anti war. I don't think the JLU team would have see themselves as soldiers in a war. Eiling does.

Not to mention that all the times that they've appeased these supervillains and they get out of jail or Arkham or whatever, they, again, try to destroy the world, putting countless people's lives in danger once more. But, ironically, no one ever talks about that little fact.

Because that enables the status quo to allow the shows and comics to keep going. In the end, the social balance and justification for such vigilante acts is that once caught, the villains go through due process - an expectation of left and right. So any error made which enables them back on the street is the mistake of the justice system, not the superhero.

 

[adoptedBatpuppy]

somebody!

HERE!

 

[Merlin Missy]

*fangirls James*

Yes. Exactly.

Also, I've spent all week remembering the discussions that broke out over "Revenge of the Sith" (no, not the "this movie sucked" discussions). Many people saw the movie and thought Lucas was drawing parallels and making a political statement about the current administration. However, he was actually (and very obviously, if you're familiar with the SW backstory) trying to draw a parallel between Palpatine and Hitler, complete with calling the former "Chancellor." Any parallels seen between those two figures and the current U.S. President are not the fault of the filmmaker. *passes out Godwin cookies*

A similar case could be made here. The choice of title aside (and since the lead villain was someone acting like patriot, while the heroes performed honest to goodness patriotic acts, I think we can make a strong case that it's a good title) this is a story that could have been told at any point in the last fifteen years, and the last forty if the Soviet line was dropped or modified. Absolute power -> corruption? Once great hero blinded by his own righteousness? That's a story as old as the tragedy, so go yell at Sophocles. It's the same basic story they told in "Clash," with the added bonus that the children who showed up in this one didn't have the out of growing into superpowered bodies to defend themselves, thus making it even more obvious.

Are there messages that could be taken away from this episode for the young'uns to ponder later in life? Sure. There are often are. Back in 2004, when the rumor went around that the government was considering postponing elections in the States, my best friend and I were on the phone wondering to each other if we'd found ourselves inside the plot of "A Better World." Fiction often serves as a mirror to the real world, either intentional or not. Shakespeare was either a brilliant and brave political writer who drew parallels to every facet of Elizabethan life, or he was a guy writing as fast as he could to pay the bills whose work is now grossly overanalyzed; both are valid viewpoints. Contemporary mirrors are even more tempting to see and try to interpret. In some cases, that's perfectly reasonable and intentional, and in others, it's like trying to catch your reflection in a puddle. Either way the question that usually gets unanswered is: do you like or dislike the reflection, not because it's distorted, but because it's too accurate?

Dramatically speaking, this episode fails because there is no good answer. Luthor can't show up with a power disruptor. Superman can't come beat up the General. And realistically, the Seven Soldiers don't have a chance of beating him. The only way to end it without bodies littering the stage is to have him walk/fly off, and that's unsatisfying. Had there been a good, satisfying resolution possible to the story, more people would have enjoyed it and while the (unintended) political parallels would have been mentioned, I don't think they would have been the primary focus of the discussion. Happens.

MM

 

[James]

*fangirls James*

Another for the cult...

I felt the old ladies face should have been enough to stop the beast in it's tracks. I mean, I seriously wasn't sure if it was an alien of some sort.

I agree with MM, the ending is problematic simply because the set up almost gets on it's knees demanding cliche. You can't have one of the heroes beat him a la David and Goliath, you can't have him realise how wrong he is and apologise, you can't have a more powerful hero come in and kick the crap out of him without taking away the focus of the episode (non superpowered heroes fighting an impossible foe to the very end, thus turning the crowds opinion on which heroes are cool - if Superman had popped up there would be no reversal for the final moments).

The problem is it is meant to be a no win scenerio for the heroes. That's the drama. How do you resolve a no win scenerio when it demands a win? The heroes can't die, which is the ultimate scenerio being played out - a battle to the death. How do you remedy?

The only alternative that springs off the top of my head is another cliche, instability in Eilings new body. Ramifications means he has to run. But then you lose the confrontation with the crowd somewhat who are there less to stop Eiling, but to show the audience their distinct standpoint and how they see the heroes.

In the end, maybe it could have been refined better in the script, but I think the resolution was the only one which helped tie up the plot points and themes of this story. Eiling may have backed off, but his opinion and standpoint hadn't really changed and I think that's the episodes saving grace from the traps of cliche.

 

[Karkull]

Good material has resonance, and can mean different things (or even multiple things) to different people. I chalk that up as a win for this episode.

 

[Alex Weitzman]

I agree with MM, the ending is problematic simply because the set up almost gets on it's knees demanding cliche. You can't have one of the heroes beat him a la David and Goliath, you can't have him realise how wrong he is and apologise, you can't have a more powerful hero come in and kick the crap out of him without taking away the focus of the episode (non superpowered heroes fighting an impossible foe to the very end, thus turning the crowds opinion on which heroes are cool - if Superman had popped up there would be no reversal for the final moments).

I still think Waller showing up could've made it work.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Wow, alright then.

All these repetetive powers make me think DC is running out of creativity.

Not really. When you think about it, most superheroes are variations on the same set of powers. With some powers, it's easier to have a bit of variation, but others...well there's only so many ways to have a speedster and have it different from other speedsters. In those cases, most of the differents come from personality.

Also, remember that we've had comics running for something like 60+ years. You're going to have a lot of repetition as people dredge up characters they used to like, or create their own versions as they dont like the ones that currently exist. These build up until bam, we suddenly have something like 15 speedsters spread out over the various comics and time periods.

 

[James]

I still think Waller showing up could've made it work.

Again though, we fall into the issue my suggestion of power degeneration offers: cliche. The "reasoning with the beast" by the fellow colleague is just as done as all the other suggestions. The only merit I will offer to that idea over the others is that it dovetails their opening scene quite nicely. The conversation there could have been reopened at the end.

However, I think it would have got the same fan reaction: too obvious. As I said, I don't think there is any really good way to deal with this. It's a no win scenerio, every idea will feel lame as you are going against that situation. It all comes down to how you pull that final scene off and how you want to resolve the storythreads.

IMO, I think Matt Wayne felt the relationship between the common person and the combatants was a more important issue to underscore in the resolution that Eilings ethics. Eilings ideology was cut and dry throughout, I think this was the best resolution out of the bunch. Was it a little overplayed? Maybe. But then one has to remember the audience it has to reach to isn't as mature as the older fans here...

... I hope!

 

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Some days, I think people will see what they want to see, whether it makes sense or not. Seeing people blasting "Patriot Act" as more liberal political screed makes today one of them. If I were inclined to spend enough time and energy on it, I could probably come up with a pro-conservative slant on the episode with the Seven Soldiers representing a coalition of the willing standing up against a monster powered by a bioweapon (a NAZI bioweapon, no less), and how the ending is deliberately unsatisfying because the coalition is attempting to play by rules and avoid collateral damage, and the Big Guns aren't allowed in to decisively kick the monster's ass.

OK, maybe I just spent the time and energy. If it gives those of a conservative slant a different way to view the episode more favorably, I can go home happy tonight.

I have some issues with Matt Wayne's statement on Dwayne McDuffie's board only because I find it hard to believe he thought the title wouldn't invite people to look at the episode as political commentary. However, I'm inclined to believe him because I was too busy enjoying the property destruction to notice any politics beyond the usual, "Ordinary People are Heroes" sentiment. Like many here, I think it was a killer episode marred by a thoroughly unsatisfying ending that's not quite enough to derail the whole thing.

As I've said before, I think "Directed by Joaquim Dos Santos" is a guarantee that you're going to see some real slam-bang action sequences, and this one is further proof of that thesis. I find that he has a way of depicting the chaos of battle chaotically, but not incoherently. You get the sense that there's a lot of stuff happening at once, but you are never lost or confused about what's happening at any given time. His episodes also have some of the biggest "Owie!" moments of the series. GA and Speedy landing on cars hard enough to shatter windshields, the Star Spangled Kid getting face-planted into the pavement, shredding STRIPE like a sardine can, the entire last bit with the Shining Knight -- it's a good thing these guys are animated, because there isn't a stuntman in the world (except maybe Jackie Chan 10 years ago) who would work with Dos Santos on live-action!

And that last scene with the Shining Knight is another stellar example of using an action sequence to communicate character. He's beaten. He knows it. Eiling has turned him into a chew toy. But he still won't quit, even when the only thing keeping him standing is conviction. Man, that's super-tough stuff.

As for the ending, I find it disappointing, but only because it felt too much like moments in the Spider-Man movies. The first time, as New Yorkers throw everything not nailed down at the Green Goblin, made a truly great scene, as far as I'm concerned. The second time was repetitive, but mitigated because it ended up partially playing for comedic value. This time around, it was the right solution, but one I've seen one too many times already. The civilian gathering just didn't have the same emotional impact as the moments with the Shining Knight that happened right before it.

However, I don't have a problem with Grandma being the one who stands up to Eiling. I'm reminded of that guy in Tiananmen Square who stopped a column of tanks armed with nothing more than that same conviction that kept the Knight going. Maybe echoing that moment to set up the final scene would have made the ending work better. I can see a scene where she steps in front of Eiling alone and refuses to let him pass without saying anything at all, except maybe, "No." And then, rather than having someone drag her off, she's joined by a growing crowd. Barring that, I think Alex Weitzman's Waller ending would have worked, too.

Other than that, I just have my usual gushing for Green Arrow and Vigilante (still the biggest breakout heroes of JLU, IMO), but now add Shining Knight to that list. I also still totally dig CCH Pounder's Amanda Waller. It'll never happen on CN, but I'd hock my grandma if they could do a Suicide Squad animated show that had the same kind of punch as the Ostrander/Yale comics of the 80's and 90's.

-- Ed/Ace

 

[Alex Weitzman]

Again though, we fall into the issue my suggestion of power degeneration offers: cliche. The "reasoning with the beast" by the fellow colleague is just as done as all the other suggestions. The only merit I will offer to that idea over the others is that it dovetails their opening scene quite nicely. The conversation there could have been reopened at the end.

However, I think it would have got the same fan reaction: too obvious. As I said, I don't think there is any really good way to deal with this. It's a no win scenerio, every idea will feel lame as you are going against that situation.

The "cliche" issue is not one of using them, because anything will seem like it's been done before if you loosely relate it enough to what has come before. The "cliche" issue is in delivery. I think people's problems with the ending of Patriot Act, as it exists, is not the choice in and of itself, but rather that it just seemed so blunt. There's more graceful ways to do scenes like that. It wasn't completely without merit; like I mentioned in my review, J.K. Simmons gives Eiling's lines on his "realization" a nice cynical just-you-wait tone. But still, these bystanders are a square peg in that moment's round hole. Most of the episode operates on Eiling-focus. The bystander-ending, as you mentioned, suddenly shifts the episode into being about how everybody loves the Seven Soldiers. That's a pretty clumsy transition. Waller's presence might have been cliche if done wrong, but there's much more potential there and it'd be harder to screw up.

 

[James]

The "cliche" issue is not one of using them, because anything will seem like it's been done before if you loosely relate it enough to what has come before. The "cliche" issue is in delivery. I think people's problems with the ending of Patriot Act, as it exists, is not the choice in and of itself, but rather that it just seemed so blunt. There's more graceful ways to do scenes like that. It wasn't completely without merit; like I mentioned in my review, J.K. Simmons gives Eiling's lines on his "realization" a nice cynical just-you-wait tone. But still, these bystanders are a square peg in that moment's round hole. Most of the episode operates on Eiling-focus. The bystander-ending, as you mentioned, suddenly shifts the episode into being about how everybody loves the Seven Soldiers. That's a pretty clumsy transition. Waller's presence might have been cliche if done wrong, but there's much more potential there and it'd be harder to screw up.

Interesting points, although I must admit I didn't feel the bystander shift as you put was clunky at all. The bystander's attitude were present in the first act, the interaction and risk for the bystanders were evident throughout the battle, so I think quite rationally, the ending should have some resolution that offers the bystanders as they are the driven theme throughout. Eilings issues set up the piece but by no means at any point to they look for resolution (the fact they don't is the finale's saving grace). He's simply the antagnoistic force which creates the scenerio. The story rides not on his issues or standpoint, but on how the bystanders and heroes react to his aggressive actions.

The more we talk about it, the more I sort of see the decision process Wayne made. As for the cliche, I disagree and agree. Yes, there is a risk on how the scene moves is as much at risk of being the cliche as the premise of the scene. The ending is a cliche. The bystanders against the monster, but however you painted that - with Waller's presence, with Eiling suddenly losing his powers, with the bystanders throwing smurfs at him, the cliche still falls on the actual format than how the scene plays out. The cliche is already there. How it's formed - and this is where I sort of agree with you - will lessen or strengthen that overall feeling we've seen this sort of wrap done countless times (or not).

Personally, I'm not sure how Waller really could be used in the final scenes which would play anything more true or different without becoming filler material. She wouldn't be able to stop him, she wouldn't be able to confine him, she wouldn't be able to reason with him (he'd just see her as being weak). She wouldn't offer any wrap to the drive of the story as despite how the premise is set, it's not about Eiling's ideology. It's the affects of that ideology and there is no one better than the victims to create that wrap.

 

[SilverKnight]

The best part about the episode was Shining Knight's one-on-one sequence with Eiling. He knew the situation was fairly hopeless, but he was going to fight to the end because innocent lives were at stake. Despite the long-winded speeches and heavy-handedness of it, the musical score really pulled it through and made the statements feel somewhat worthwhile. I have to admit, after watching that sequence, I gained a lot of respect for that particular 'no name hero'.

The eppy itself had potential, but was flawed. It was interesting how they put the heroes in the same position as the helpless masses usually are, and how, essentially, they were the helpess masses. We saw last season how those nameless soldiers kept shooting away and dogpiling onto Superman. Now, in the perspective we were shown, we get a feel for how those nameless soldiers might have felt staring down an unstoppable giant. They probably knew nothing they could do would stop them, but what other choice did they have?

Eiling: "Why don't you just give up?"
Shining Knight: "Why don't you?"

I think the entire episode could be summed in in those lines right there. If only the cop-out of an ending hadn't ruined the whole thing.

3.5 stars from me. A lot of potential, but it sorta got lost in the mire.

By the way, how knightly is it of SK (how weird to be seeing those letters >shudders<) to antagonize his foe?

 

[Alex Weitzman]

Interesting points, although I must admit I didn't feel the bystander shift as you put was clunky at all. The bystander's attitude were present in the first act, the interaction and risk for the bystanders were evident throughout the battle, so I think quite rationally, the ending should have some resolution that offers the bystanders as they are the driven theme throughout. Eilings issues set up the piece but by no means at any point to they look for resolution (the fact they don't is the finale's saving grace). He's simply the antagnoistic force which creates the scenerio. The story rides not on his issues or standpoint, but on how the bystanders and heroes react to his aggressive actions.

I see what you're saying, but I don't see the episode as being better from this perspective - in fact, I think it's weaker from this focal point. First of all, the issue of the heroes and the people struggling with the question that Eiling (and thusly, Cadmus) brings up was really resolved last season. Eiling's not spreading any doubt amongst any other characters; the further he goes on in Patriot Act, the more he just proves himself a jerk. The heroes obviously don't see things his way. And while the crowd may not be fond of the Seven from a popularity perspective ("I wanna see Superman!"), they clearly don't have any doubt that they're the goodguys - as we can see by the instant support they have for the Seven once Eiling shows up and starts smashing. That's why I see the focus on the people at the end as being shallow and silly. They were never in doubt of the Seven's commitment to the good fight; there's just more kids pretending to be Shining Knight and Vigilante when they play instead of Superman and Batman. Cute, yes, but not especially satisfying.

Secondly, I still say this perspective goes against the structure of the episode. The bystanders pop in at just a few moments in the episode, and that's it. Hardly enough to be that thematically important. Most of the episode is, as noted by both of us and many others, a big smackdown between Eiling on the giving end and the Seven on the receiving. And Eiling makes sure that he talks a fair game while doing so. So I don't see how it's possible to not see Eiling as the main focal point of the whole endeavor, which I think we agree is being downplayed by the ending as it exists. What we're disagreeing on is that it's possible to appropriately focus on him and satisfactorally conclude it (or, at least, enough for a "DCAU ending" - he's gone for now but you'll see him again, much like this ending ended up being like). But the bystanders, they're just popping up out of seemingly nowhere for this one. I just don't think it fits especially well, because it seems to dodge the core thrust of the episode to instead rest upon a tangential issue.

Personally, I'm not sure how Waller really could be used in the final scenes which would play anything more true or different without becoming filler material. She wouldn't be able to stop him, she wouldn't be able to confine him, she wouldn't be able to reason with him (he'd just see her as being weak). She wouldn't offer any wrap to the drive of the story as despite how the premise is set, it's not about Eiling's ideology. It's the affects of that ideology and there is no one better than the victims to create that wrap.

Well, obviously I don't quite see it that way. Like I said in my review, that first scene really seems to set up this idea that Eiling respects Waller more than anyone else, and that his actions in the rest of the episode feel like practically an offshoot of his desire to make this world one where Cadmus "won" (by his estimation). I've watched that opening scene again, and Waller definitely doesn't seem like she's arguing very strongly against Eiling's comments; she's got a defeatist tone to most of her lines. It would be very easy for Eiling to see himself as acting on her behalf. The episode makes it clear that only a psychological attack will stop Eiling, which is essentially what the bystander scene is supposed to represent. But there's no reason they'd be able to stop him; I don't think he'd care all that much about them throwing their lot in with the League. But if Waller showed up again to seriously show that she was against him and with the League, that'd be perfect thematic closure.

Arguments like these are moot, of course. The episode's created and all I'm doing is pipe-dreaming about what I wish happened. At least I can explain all the more fully why I feel so.