What’s I’m getting at is you can and should ultimately give Lois something to do but make sure it’s something that no one else could have done. By the time Superman fights Batman he already knows they’ve been duped by Lex so it was pretty unnecessary in the grand scheme.
This is so reductive. Storytelling isn't just about plot. It's about themes, symbolism, foils, etc. Lois does a lot more than the bullet plot in BvS. She's a foil for Lex, Bruce, Superman, and Keefe. Lois, like those other character, was also powerless to do anything in Nairomi; she investigates the bullet to regain her power. Throughout the film, Lois represents how to cope with powerlessness, guilt, and doubt in positive ways. She uses truth to regain her power. In doing so, we see Lois is on Luthor's trail and as the means to expose how he masterminded a plot to use actors, victims, vigilantes, and criminals to poison humanity against Superman. Lois also is one of the few characters whose hope remains steadfast, and it's not just because she's a good person. Lois is hopeful because she believes in Superman.
With regards to the value of the bullet subplot if it only reveals Lex Luthor is the villain and doesn't provide Superman with any important actionable information, that's really not the point. Plenty of stories have characters discover information already known to the audience. It's dramatic irony, and it works two ways in BvS. Since dramatic irony is a device that occurs when the audience is aware of something that the characters in the story are not aware of, then both Lois and Lex are used for dramatic irony. As the audience, we know what Lex has done and know what Lois is uncovering in her investigation, but neither Lex nor Lois knows what the other knows. At the same time, as the audience, we don't know the full extent of how Luthor pulled off his plan, so Lois' investigation fills in the missing pieces. One of the big missing pieces is the role of the government, which Lois discovers via Swanwick. We learn why the government is putting Superman on trial rather than fessing up to its actions in Nairomi. It's about showing how the frame up was done, who it implicates, and how it can be proven.
Lex Luthor used the levers of power to create chaos, foment fear, and orchestrate multiple terrorist attacks. There is never going to be a way for super powers or fists to fix that problem. The "grand scheme" is not to stop the fight between Batman and Superman. The "grand scheme" is truth and justice. You don't get those things at the end of a fist. You get those things through the free press and due process. It's not just about filling the superheroes in on the villain's plans. It's about setting the groundwork for how the entire world will be able to see the truth about what happened. The recent season of
Daredevil illustrates this to some extent both in terms of the dramatic irony and in terms of how the law and the media are utilized.
However, The one thing that continues to drive me up a wall is this trend where some of us treat opinions we don’t like/disagree with as wrong. Think about that. Telling someone they are wrong for having certain ideas based on subjective work. They aren’t facts. They never were to begin with. Leading off with that kind of response does not promote conversation. The only thing it does is make others not want to engage, and actively avoid.
Films are a form of art, but that doesn't mean everything about them is up for subjective interpretation. Sometimes words and ideas have defined meanings (e.g. damsel in distress). It is possible, then, if one claims an element of a film conforms to an established definition to disprove that assertion. Lois Lane isn't just a damsel in distress in BvS is a factual statement.
Someone once summed up the entire bullet subplot as a long, meandering diversion meant to reveal the shocking, unexpected twist that Lex Luthor was the bad guy in a Superman movie.
Yeah, the bullet plot is not there to reveal Luthor is the bad guy in the film. It's there to show not only the example of a positive way to cope with one's powerlessness, but also how to prove to the world that Luthor was the bad guy.
I know why it was edited down but it still backs up my point that we didn’t need three scenes with Lois and Swanwick though. They could have edited those down to two or even one.
I disagree. The scenes with Swanwick have to be spaced out the way they are to realistically depict how difficult it is to get the evidence required to make a case against Luthor but also understand how his mind works. Swanwick isn't going to be convinced to give Lois everything just because she asked. We know he's not a firm ally of Superman due to his last conversation with him in MoS (i.e. the drone scene); he's also protecting himself and his job because what happened in Nairomi happened as a result of a botched CIA mission. Other events in the story have to play out before Swanwick is willing to help Lois and he has enough information to give her to make his help worthwhile. One of the overarching themes in the film is what do you do when it seems like no matter how hard you try to do good, it ends up feeling like you're just pulling up weeds. You save one farm from flooding only to discover your efforts damage a farm down the road. Lois can't get everything she wants from Swanwick right away. It has to be difficult, so you understand what it takes to keep going.
