What do the writers hold up as an example to be followed? Option 1, supporting the idea that harming an innocent is never OK under any circumstances, or Option 2, saying that sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the super? We'll never know, because they go with Option 3: FORGET WE EVER BROUGHT IT UP. LOOK AT THE BIG NEW BATMOBILE. PLEASE, LOOK AT IT.

Warner Bros.
"AND PLEASE BUY THE TOY ... This movie cost us, like, so much money, you guys."

Instead of using the theme to motivate a showdown between Batman and Superman, we get a series of misunderstandings and coincidences completely unmotivated by anything. Literally their entire fight could be avoided by Superman saying, "Hey, Lex is playing us against one another!" To be clear, I'm not saying that I want BVS to be Hamlet. I don't. (Hamlet's CGI blows, and there isn't even a chase sequence.) But when the raison d'etre of the whole movie comes untethered from the rest of the film, you have a problem.

There are plenty of great movies out there that don't take sides on deep issues like how we must handle the consolidation of power given its corrosive nature. One such movie is Rocky. Another is The Little Mermaid. While those movies have some differences, they do have one big thing in common: They don't spend their first 30 minutes underlining, bolding, and italicizing the question "Can you be moral and all-powerful?" only to end with, "Well, we sure killed that monster that came from out of nowhere. Please enjoy all eight of our spinoffs/sequels."

This movie is a shining example of how to say something about an interesting theme within a kick-ass, entertaining blockbuster. That's what makes it all the more disappointing when its sequels do nothing of the kind. At the end of The Matrix, we leave Neo as an all-powerful entity, bending the rules of reality to his will, even cheating death itself. The very last sequence of the first movie is a phone call from Neo to the machines. He tells them he's going to wake up the world to what's actually going on. Cue the Rage Against The Machine (pun very much intended) and Neo flying (great imagery in a movie that focuses so much on important leaps). Kickass!

Warner Bros.
"We forgive you for Dracula!"

... and then we get Reloaded. There are so many interesting questions left at the end of The Matrix that we couldn't wait to see the answers to: Does Neo bring the whole system down, plunging humanity into anarchy because it's what's true? Does he create a new Matrix, where he appoints himself architect, deciding what's best for everyone? Does that turn him into a Stalin-esque dictator? What happens when a regular person has to choose between comfort and true freedom? In fact, what is freedom? I don't know! But I would have loved to find out. Instead, Reloaded thought we'd be content watching two white guys with dreadlocks not get shot. I can see that every day at hacky-sack club, thank you very much.

If they're physically exactly like humans and they believe they're humans, in what way are they not humans? And by defining that, what have we said about what it means to be human? Imagine a series of very small steps leading from in-vitro fertilization, to full-on creation of a human in an artificial womb, to those human-seeming Cylons. We might not be able to draw a sharp line separating assisted human reproduction from robot reproduction. This is a new angle on a philosophical question that's been with us since Plato.

Before we get stories that grapple with this, it's dropped: We learn that Cylons are actually distinguishable from humans at the molecular level, just not the cellular level. Along with losing the opportunity for a great continuing theme, making them distinguishable sucks up most of the series' tension and just jettisons it into space. For the rest of the show, everyone is crystal clear on what it means to be a Cylon and what it means to be a human (even if there are practical problems in deciding who is in one camp or the other). It's understandable because there are a lot of laser battles to fight and space sex to have and yelling to do about all the lasers and sex. When you have to fit "Waging galactic war" in at 5 p.m. when you've already scheduled "Boning a space lady" at 4:45, you might have to push "Answering an infinite enigma" to next Tuesday.

Universal Television
"Uh ... how about next season instead?"

But to me, "Am I fucking/shooting/yelling at a robot?" is a less interesting question than "What is the core distinction between us and them?" I bet it would make all the laser sex that much more exciting.

Nick Fury loves it because his job is to protect people. If there is something that can make his job easier, he's going to at least give it a thought. Captain America hates it because he loves freedom. He's a throwback from World War II, and he'll be damned before he trusts somethin' that was created by a godless 'puter. Also, Captain America works for Nick Fury, in S.H.I.E.L.D., which is basically supposed to be the biggest force of good in the world. If S.H.I.E.L.D. isn't doing what's right, then where does Cap belong? Is he just not adjusting to the modern world correctly, or is he missing something integral about it that would allow him to assimilate more fully into it?

Marvel Studios
"I should have bought these in bulk."

Just when the conflict between these two stances starts to heat up, however, the movie completely skirts the issue by giving Project Insight to the bad guys: It turns out that Hydra was the group rooting for the project all along! As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve- Oh no! Super-Nazis!" By giving Project Insight to Hydra (an evil cabal bent on world domination) the movie answers the very pertinent question of "Should the government be allowed to have this kind of power?" with the bold stance "Nazis are bad." They may as well have had an ominous "Dun dun DUUUUNNNNNNN!" play whenever someone called Project Insight by name.

Marvel Studios
"Does that giant eagle look kind of Nazi-ish to you?"
"Nein really ..."

Through all of this, I don't mean to say that movies and shows should be drained of all their fun just to serve an abstract theme. (That's my signature writing style, dammit.) I do think that movies, even action movies, are more interesting when they take some kind of non-trivial stance. Fight Club is by no means a perfect movie or an incredibly deep philosophical critique, but it certainly isn't a worse action movie for trying its hand at some larger issues.

I'd rather see a movie that says something weird or crazy than one that's too scared or confused to say anything at all. At the very least, though, if you're going to go through the trouble of starting a conversation, don't just leave your listener hanging midsen-

Aaron Kheifets is an occasionally mustachioed comedian, writer, and director. You are allowed to follow him on Twitter, watch his videos, and look at his website.

Cracked is up for a Webby Award for Best Video Entertainment! And we're thiiiiiiis close to winning! Help us destroy our enemies by voting here.

Learn how the web teaches you its own philosophy in 3 Things The Internet Always Gets Wrong, and see how The Dark Knight answers questions about the social contract in 5 Mind-Blowing Academic Theories As Taught By Classic Movies.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see how rap answers all of our philosophy questions in Why Kanye West Is The Most Important Philosopher Of Our Time, and watch other videos you won't see on the site!

Also follow us on Facebook, and hear the sound of one hand clicking.