Bruce doesn't do anything he wasn't already going to after the "dreams." Thus, no change. The dreams themselves however are monstrous, vivid, and post-apolcalyptic. That visualizes Bruce's incredibly fractured psyche. He literally goes from being lifted by bats to being attacked by one. That's possibly the biggest visual cue as to how Bruce sees his quest as Batman. He goes from conquering fear to being actually consumed by it. These are things we already know. We see them in his words/actions, in Alfred's speechifying, in the testimonies of various Gothamites. The dreams were simply a reoccurring motif to hammer that concept home.
If there's no change and it's only showing things that we already know, then the scene is pointless and shouldn't be in the movie.
So, Clark should just ignore the fact that a lot of the citizens in his neighboring city are living in fear of a vigilante? He should just ignore that people are, seemingly, dying after encountering Batman because he's branding them? Seriously? There's a guy with military grade weaponry serving as judge, jury, and executioner in an already impoverished and crime ridden city. And you're telling me that Clark shouldn't bother because there are worse people? There will always be worse people. That doesn't mean you turn a blind eye to obvious violators of basic human rights. It isn't about the size of the criminal. It's about who is getting hurt. And from what Clark saw, innocent families are getting hurt.
Should he prioritize? Of course he should. He should be where he's needed the most, and he should stop the most dangerous people. Or should he spend his time stopping bullies instead of trying to stop genocide, because, hey, bullied people get hurt too?
She literally just explained so much about Clark's character that it's becoming apparent to me that you're more concerned with maintaining your position that with having an actual conversation. A woman very clearly lies about Superman's involvement and Superman does what? He tries to talk to her as Clark, the human. When the government seemingly wants to crucify him in a Senate hearing, he does what? He shows up to listen as Superman, the alien. This is so important because it draws a clear parallel between his humanity and his alien nature, where characters such as Batman saw such a clear distinction. Whether he is Clark the journalist or Kal-El the Superman, he is still a person willing to discuss. He is willing to stand down. Something that our other titular character was failing to do on all sides.
She literally didn't explain much about Clark's character, as she only laid out some story beats from the movie. "Whether he is Clark the journalist or Kal-El the Superman, he is still a person willing to discuss.". Yes, because there is no big distinction between those two personas. That doesn't show me a complex character.
Clark goes on a walk and remembers a story his father told him. That's quite possibly one of the most human reactions to a personal strife there is. It shows just how much of an average joe Superman really is. He doesn't go and project all of his hate and fear onto someone else. He doesn't go trying to conquer humanity. He takes a walk and thinks about his dad. It didn't need to be any deeper than that. It's simplicity is what makes it so powerful.
You say simple and powerful, I say simple and weak storytelling.
And please do keep in mind that film explicitly states that Batman can't be reasoned with. He has to be forced too. Superman heard this from a victim's family and then saw it firsthand on two occasions. He tells Batman to retire and Batman doesn't. He tried to tell Batman that they're being played and Batman just keeps trying to lure him into traps. Even when he tells Batman he doesn't understand, Batman just yells that he does. Words weren't working. Maybe a fist would. Superman's error wasn't in trying to beat Batman into submission. We learn in the film that's the only way to possibly get through to him. His error was in underestimating just how tactical this man really was. Superman never thought he might die in this encounter. That was his one real mistake. The other stuff was more of a "I don't have time to try to reason with someone that can't be reasoned with. Better to just end this quick and talk him down after." sorta thinking that was explicitly deemed necessary in the film.
Superman could have tried talking to him, not telling him what to do. There's a difference between "Next time they shine your light in the sky, don't go to it. The Bat is dead. Bury it. Consider this mercy." and actually talking to him like an adult. Actually, the movie shows that the only way to get through to Batman is through words, coughMarthacough.
No. He showed him that even a man that had gone so far over the edge could be pulled back. That there was indeed still so much good left in the world. The same name thing was merely a catalyst. The trail of thought goes like this: The guy I hate with everything in my being said my mother's name. Why? Because that's Superman's mother's name too. Because Superman has a mother. A mother that's in danger. I nearly killed a son. I nearly killed a man in front of his love. I nearly became Joe Chill. I am my own enemy. To quote the wise Nick Miller, "The enemy is the inner me." Batman had effectively played himself for nearly two years and that moment was the realization finally hitting him.
That trail of thought doesn't make any sense considering Bruce already knew that Superman had a mother. He already knew that he was about to kill someone's son, but he didn't care.
It's made quite explicit in either version of the film. How you failed to see that is beyond me. Lex literally says these things himself on multiple occasions.
Just saying that stuff happened isn't enough, we should see the impact. Show, don't tell.
It didn't impact Bruce. Bruce already had made up his mind. It was merely highlighting what he already knew. At any rate, the scene plays as a warning about Superman for Bruce, when it's most likely a warning about Darkseid for the audience. Ultimately, it's a dream for Bruce and a deus ex machina for the film itself, as Flash does what Flash does and goes back in the past to change things.
So it plays two roles in both furthering the story, but also peppering in references of what's to come. But to claim that, because it hints at other movies that it shouldn't be in BvS is ridiculous. These are interconnected films. They all need to have world-building elements.
If it didn't impact Bruce, then the scene shouldn't have been in the movie. Because then it didn't move the story forward, and every scene should move the story forward. And, no, not the story in Justice League, the story they are telling right now.
Bruce felt he failed to protect Wally and various others by failing to prevent the threat of Superman. So, his goal was to finally take down Superman. Who's to say he wouldn't have killed himself after though? He talks about killing Superman as if it will be the only thing he does in life with any meaning, so it's very possible he would have. Who knows though?
You don't think that's a problem, that we don't know if the character is going to committ suicide after he's accomplished his goal? I would say that is quite important.
No. He knew Superman had parents, but that's where it ended. We have no reason to assume he thought Superman came from a loving household. Batman is more likely to have simply believed Superman's parents offered the same sort of threat as Superman himself. Once he learns that Superman has a mom that's in danger and that Superman was really just a son trying to save his mom, well that changes things.
Well, he assumed that Superman's parents taught him that he means something, that he's here for a reason. Batman sure assumed some things. So Batman knows that Superman is a son and that he has saved plenty of people who needed saving, and he's still ready to kill him. But when Batman finds out that it's Superman's own mother that needs saving this time, then he realizes that he has crossed the line? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Wonder Woman serves a few different purposes. She helps to further explain Lex's Metahuman Thesis, which was basically the driving force of his actions during the film. She's there to help take down Doomsday. And she's there for world-building, which is insanely important when you have a bunch of interconnected films. It's just richer storytelling in grand scheme of it all. I mean, Bucky was wholly unmemorable in TFA, but his inclusion is paid off down the line.
So, she's there to spread exposition, kick some ass and tease Justice League. Yeah, I still don't see how she was really needed.
The difference here is that Batman isn't capable of enslaving humanity should things go south. And again, perhaps Batman would kill himself later. But that's sort of irrelevant. The larger issue is that Superman can in fact wipe out the entire human race and the world has seemingly become more violent since his arrival. That needs to be stopped.
Considering Batman is capable of killing the "God" who is capable of enslaving humanity, what's to say that Batman can't do the same thing? He almost destroyed the "God" after all.
