We're not talking about physics as evidence of lack of realism, we're just having some fun kicking ideas around to explain how powers in the movie work, "realistically"

.
Agreed! And I agree with a lot of your analysis of the below issues and will attempt to add some POVs.
Movie realism, especially in CBM's, to me is all about character portrayal, having people within the movie behave realistically, understandably, no matter how unbelievable the situation.
I can actually explain away many of the cited issues in this film, if I add a few bridging scenes in my head.
For example, Lois deciding to recover the spear.
This is often cited as an example of poor storytelling. What made her decide to retrieve it after throwing it away?
If they cut a few seconds showing her checking her phone, that would explain it for me.
There were news articles covering Doomsday's emergence from the Kryptonian ship. If Lois saw those on her phone, it wouldn't take much thought for her to conclude he's likely a Kryptonian threat and the spear might be useful.
But they didn't show that.
Lois knows something is happening at the ship because S&B discuss it and B tells S that he needs to go to the ship to stop L from whatever he is doing. Lois then hears the loud growls and bellows of DD and sees the fireballs of heat vision and breath from DD. She must not be too far from the action because 1. B was coming for the spear and crashed not too far away. 2. When S stops his attack on DD and hears Lois drowning, he flys down to the building which appears not very far off. There is a shot of Lois looking at the explosions and she is a reporter after all and has seen Kryptonian sh** going down. I agree it is light and they "should have" shown her actually seeing and reacting to DD. I agree, Perry "could have" called her phone as she watched the fight start and say- "Lois, are you still in Gotham? Get the hell out of there...There's a Kyrptonian monster on the loose - Lois says "I see it..I have no way back" or something like that, adds some feeling of peril.
The audience should not have to invent scenes in their head to justify the subsequent actions.
It's not the same as a movie being deliberately vague about character motivations in order to get the audience to challenge their own sense of morality to interpret the themes.
She's simply fetching a pointy stick she just threw away.
It's just bad storytelling. The extended cut may address it though and remove this narrative issue.
I hope there is more reaction and transition shots as well.
The maturity in BvS for me is lacking due to the lack of balance in the narrative.
It's heavily skewed to the negative.
It is unrealistic to me in the way it portrays Superman's reaction to the world and the world's reaction to him because of that.
The Miller-esque talking heads moments touch on numerous themes, mostly challenging, interesting, but still negative.
There is a comment in there about him not being a Christ figure or a demon, but maybe just a man trying to do the right thing. The reporter outside the Capitol also says to Scoot that many people would call Superman their hero.
The movie does expose many interesting ideas and themes, but fails to expound adequately, or at all, on most of them.
There isn't enough time spent on the positive side of the dynamic to impart the balance requisite for me to regard it as mature storytelling.
It's realistic to portray that many people, especially those in power, would be terrified of Superman and seek ways to limit or control his actions.
Johns's relatively light "Secret Origin" arc had Lois's General father actively trying to murder Superman in the name of national security, regardless of his massive popularity and overt heroism.
He also showed the relative adulation of the general public and Superman's discomfort and attempt to address that.
By giving public speeches.
There are decades of Superman stories, far more realistically handled than BvS, that address all of these mature and interesting themes.
Snyder's Superman doesn't seem to have spent any time trying to address anything since the end of MoS.
Which does not fit the Superman shown at the end of that movie. It also, to me, is an unrealistic portrayal of a normal person's reaction under the circumstances presented in the movie. Every time his actions are publicly questioned, he hides?
I think he reacted understandably due to the circumstances and is not hiding as much as reflecting. The narrative is clear to me although it could be better or cleaner. There are bags of mature metaphors and morals as well as fantastic imagery and visuals in BvS although I admit it does sometimes suffer from being rushed.
Sure, he finally shows up to address the Senate inquiry, but if it is based on the events in Africa, they've flown in a survivor from the Government massacred village to testify, where is Lois's testimony?
An American citizen and the only eye-witness to the events and she's neither called first thing before the committee or written an article explaining the event?
Unrealistic to me. Extremely.
Lois for sure should be testifying and the only valid reason for her not being in the hearing is that she wasn't called. Since Lex was behind the whole thing, the only valid reason for her not being there is because his lackey (Finche's co-chair) didn't allow it at Lex's instruction (maybe to save her for later trapping Superman)...and IF she was there she would have been killed.
I think THIS hearing was to hear from Superman which he frustratingly never gets to do. I think Snyder does this purposely to frustrate the audience so they do feel like... "if only he got to tell them"... could use some extra reaction shots but I think Snyder's style is to put the audience in the same position as the films players to experience the feeling of the moments...sometimes it works better than others.
It's 2 years since the end of MoS.
People are mentioned to have accepted Superman as a hero, but they only show him being dragged down by the subsequent negativity surrounding the "Superman Incident" in Africa.
The handling of that story is also poor IMO.
They never really give a coherent explanation for what he's being held "accountable" for.
Again, I can create a plausible justification for it in my own mind (have outlined a few in previous posts) but I shouldn't be creating explanations in my head for pivotal plot points that should be competently explained.
Contextually, it makes no sense to me that the US Senate is holding hearings about un-clarified accusations relating to actions in a foreign country, 18 months after the end of MoS and the deaths of thousands of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
The story would make far more sense if the U.S. Senate were holding hearings about trying to create some specific rules for Superman in regard to his actions on U.S. soil, or the U.N. leading it if it was to apply globally. The "Metropolis Accords" if you will.
I could keep going, but that's the general idea.
If there's a 4 hour film that we haven't seen, I would find it easy to believe that many of these issues would be addressed, but expecting to be able to take 4 hrs to justify narrative choices on screen is in itself unrealistic.
I think the hearing is brought on by the African event not MOS. They do indicate this in the first hearing with the African woman when Finch says Superman needs to be held accountable. This is the spark the creates the rift between Superman supporters and ant-Superman protesters. International pressure and embarrassment would be enough to "invite" Superman to explain himself. The reports were all asking IF he would show up or not. The African woman states that she fears he answers to no one, not even God. Superman is not ordered to appear. He voluntarily shows up. They didn't even know for sure if he would. And again, we need to remember that Lex set all this up. He manipulated everything leading up to the hearing to light the fuse of hate and distrust of Superman/Aliens for his reasons. He also makes sure Superman never gets a chance to tell his side of the story by blowing up poor Scoot who was as shocked as Superman when he exploded.
So, I can absolutely let issues of physics slide. I'm happily prepared to create my own internal justifications for those (as long as the film doesn't contradict it's own attempts to explain powers as MoS did) and think it's a basic requirement for CBM's in general
But contextually realistic scenarios and character reactions are required for my suspension of disbelief, not just in CBM's