Batman used a gun to shoot the flamethrower tank which caused an explosion which he had to rush to protect Martha from. He's dead. There was even an interview where Snyder spoke specifically about that kill.
I haven't watched interviews, and so I was just going off what I saw onscreen. To me, it wasn't clear the guy was dead, but fair enough. He wasn't working alone, I assume, so there are likely others who could weigh in on what was happening.
Just because the end of the script states it was proven does not mean the content of the film supports the logic to substantiate such a conclusion. A court of law requires claims to be substantiated with unquestionable evidence. Nowhere in this film does Lois have such evidence. Nor does anything in her story arc dictate a line of logic that could justifiably lead you to such a conclusion.
It doesn't matter. The movie establishes that Lois was successful. In terms of the movie's own internal logic--messed up as you may think it is--she succeeded in clearing Superman's name. That matters in terms of how we judge her. We can't say a character didn't accomplish something when the script tells us that he or she did. You can argue that it wasn't believable to you, but you can't argue that it didn't happen. If it happened, then Lois' accomplishments are real in the context of the film. If you don't buy it, that's fine. It doesn't make it true that Lois' investigation was pointless and she herself was useless, though.
The General states he is off the record and the information is classified. That stands until the film states otherwise. Even that aside, until said information is officially declassified through proper channels, the evidence is illegal and inadmissible, and makes the General sharing it guilty of numerous crimes for which he would face a military tribunal.
I don't get you. On the one hand, you tell me what the film states doesn't matter with regard to Lois' investigation successfully proving Lex's conspiracy to frame Superman. On the other hand, you're telling me that the film states something about the General so it has to be true and unchanged even though the end of the movie tells us that Lois had proved her suspicions correct. You're assuming that the extraordinary circumstances wouldn't have allowed for the information to be revealed or that the General wouldn't have enough courage, especially after the tragedy at the capitol, to put his own neck on the line for truth and justice. The fact remains that the script tells us that it was all proven in the end, making your straw grasping to delegitimize that truth and the accomplishment that comes from that reality seem incredibly unfair to Lois.
Based on what was depicted, it was woefully inaccurate to accomplish her desired goals.
Yet, she accomplished them. Whether you buy it or not, it doesn't matter when it comes to what the movie establishes as her contribution.
Except you can't just say it without anything to substantiate it. That's the problem.
You can't substantiate what you're alleging either.
I'm not saying she was completely useless. But she was grossly underutilized and her "investigation" story arc was sorely lacking and completely inadequate.
I would have loved her to be utilized more and for more of the dots to have been connected on screen, but you don't have to go a step further to dismiss what the movie did establish in terms of her accomplishment. At the very least, you could frame your critique more accurately as there needed to be more to support the plot's conclusion rather than what it seems like you're doing, which is to deny even what the script states that she accomplished.
