They develop the plot primarily by laying the foundation for the future. However, they develop character inasmuch as they give us insight into the way Bruce thinks. He is haunted by his parents' death, especially his mother's, and he fears Superman will become a dictator. The timing of the "knightmare" suggests that his experiences in the real world have caused his paranoia to reach a tipping point, and it also sets up motivation for his choice to form a league of metahumans. Your original post implied that it was "lazy storytelling" to place character development in the dream sequences, which either means you feel dream sequences have some quality that make them inherently unsuited to insight into character psychology or motivation and/or you feel that there was a lack of character development elsewhere in the film. It was simply an odd criticism to make, in my view. Why can't character development happen in dream sequences? Why do you think it was ineffective?
The problems with having character development happen in dreams is because it turns an active character into a passive. We jump over the part where a character actually makes choices, fails and in that finds the urge and abillity to change. Instead we just see a character dream, and after the dream the character is a changed person.
These aren't criticisms based on an analysis of the text. They are questions that either reveal the weaknesses of the films or the weaknesses of your own observation, comprehension, and analysis. To prove that the flaw is in the films and not you, you have to illustrate how the film doesn't succeed in creating a character for Superman. So, let me throw your questions back at you. Who do you think Superman is: his true character and personality? Think about the experiences he's gone through, the decisions he's made, the relationships he's created and nurtured, and the changes he's experienced. Think about what he believes in and how those values express themselves in the choices he makes. You're the one who has made the claim that Superman has no character, so prove it.
But that's the point, I don't know. I have watched two movies with this character and I don't know who he is underneath the basic characterization. He doesn't feel like a true person with different dimensions to him. He feels one note and like he's doing what he's doing not because it's his character, but because it's just what the script wants him to do. He just feels like a chess piece by the writer.
Again, you can't analyze something by asking only questions. Try to answer your own questions. You may be surprised how much the movie actually gave you to answer them. Why do you think Lex wanted to kill Superman? Do you recall a line in the movie where he explained his reasons both to members of the government and to Superman himself? Bruce as Batman is pretty easy to figure out. He operates in Gotham and must have substantial funds to be able to fund the equipment he uses. Given the amount of surveillance Lex had on the other heroes, I'm not surprised that he might have been able to follow the Batmobile back to its home base, for example.
Lex wanted to show the people that Superman was a false God. But why? Because he realized, when he was a boy and his father beat him, that God can't be all powerful and all good at the same time? Lex says that the people needs to see what a fraud Superman is, but I don't know why Lex even cares or why he's willing to kill innocent people to get what he wants.
That't the point! Bruce is as mystified as we are. It's a mystery that can intrigue us as a tease for the future or something to mull over. From the scene itself, however, it's clear that an individual who can travel through time or dimensions has reached out to Bruce to warn him. The warning Bruce receives is relevant to this film in that it adds to his suspicion of Superman ("You were right about him!") and inspires his new direction following Superman's death ("Find us!").
But if it adds to his suspicion of Superman, then Bruce is a moron. So he sees a person he has never met, and he doesn't know if said character is good or a mass murderer intending to take over the world, and he hears this character warn him about someone that he doesn't even name, so Bruce doesn't even know who this mysterious character, who could be a psychopath, is talking about ... and that adds to Bruce's suspicion of Superman? How does that make the slightest sense? It was a pointless scene that only was there to tease another movie.
There was a similar scene in Smallville's Season 10 episode "Lazarus" and in both the idea is that you, as a viewer, are allowed to interpret as you will. Taken as is, I see it as Clark communing with the memory of his father (not a ghost) by thinking about what he would say to him.
Yeah, I was a little too hard on that scene. It just felt that it came out of nowhere.
There's a scene with Jenny at The Daily Planet that explains it. There's suspicion that Superman could have known there was a bomb and did nothing to stop it. There's also the concern that he simply didn't notice it. Either way, Superman appears careless and self-absorbed: a danger. The notes from Wally, which were really forgeries by Lex, only heighten Bruce's sense of obligation to the humans who he feels are his responsibility to protect especially after Wally dies.
How does Superman appear careless and self-absorbed just because he didn't notice a bomb? And considering Superman has saved plenty of people, it doesn't make sense that he wouldn't do anything if he knew that there was a bomb there. For being a detective, Batman sure sucked at figuring stuff out.
Batman used the symbol because it would get Superman's attention after their previous encounter when Superman told him not to shine his light in the sky by saying "Don't go to it" (it being the symbol) because the "Bat is dead." Batman was taunting Superman into a fight because he intended to kill him. He had no idea that Lex was riling up Superman with Martha at the same time. Lex was the master manipulator who played Clark and Bruce like a maestro. Finally, Batman stopped because of the name "Martha" and because of Lois. He realized that he had become his own nightmare: a man about to kill a woman who was trying to protect someone she loved. He realized that Superman wasn't just a god on a pedestal, but a man who loved and was loved by humans.
When was Batman about to kill a woman? He was about to kill Superman, not Lois. And that's one way to read the scene. Because of what a huge focus the name "Martha" had in the scene, I read it more like Batman saw himself in Superman because their mothers shared the same name. Which I find ridiculous.
They showed Martha was gagged, I believe, so she couldn't scream. He also believes his mother is safe while he knows that Lois is in danger in places like a terrorist's camp or near a battlefield in Gotham. Accordingly, he is more alert and aware of Lois' endangerment than his mother's who he believes no one knows he's connected to and who lives all the way in Smallville. Superman has to focus his wide-ranging senses, and this is how it manifests.
Martha wasn't gagged. And Superman didn't try and find her after he found out she was taken.
Sure, Superman probably should have been more proactive and mindful as he was confronting Lex at the ship. However, at that point Doomsday had already been created and the ship was already creating power surges. Doomsday's release was a foregone conclusion.
But Doomsday hadn't been activated. He became activated when the countdown was over and all that electricity, for lack of a better word, activated him. If Superman right away would've had destroyed the ship, would've Doomsday even have been activated?
She was in the movie to add another layer to the theme of regained hope. Both Bruce and Diana had lost hope. Bruce lost hope that people could be good, and Diana had lost hope that people could stand together against evil. She was also there to develop the "metahuman thesis" in a much more tangible way than just video clips. One might as well ask why Spider-Man was in Captain America: Civil War. They are there to enrich the plot or themes, to be fun, and to lay groundwork for future films. Those are all valid.
But she wasn't needed for this movie. That she had lost hope and regained it just felt hollow and unearned. And why did she have to be there to develop the "metahuman thesis"? Because of Justice League? Wonder Woman was unnecessary and took the focus away from developing the conflict between Superman and Batman, a conflict that really needed some more logic.
I'm confused. Your original critique focused on the movie's lack of depth and substance. Yet, the majority of your criticisms focus on what best could be described as alleged plot holes. I feel like you're still sort of working through your thoughts on the film, and so maybe you should give it another viewing or some more time before you rush to condemn it
Well, that's not true. In my original critique I both addressed that there was many things that didn't make any sense, and the lack of depth and substance. That I didn't find any depth and substance to a protagonist and his antagonist and to their conflict, is quite troublesome for me when I watch a movie.
