I shall now respond to this tomfoolery:
Not just the courtroom scene, but the fact that a large source of the film's conflict seems to be Superman's role in the chaos of the last one.
but you think it is a logical consequence of the action of MoS. why won't your grant that ZS came to the same conclusion? Christopher Nolan is lurking nearby and he is also fairly smart. I feel like you are getting wound up in your own bias against this franchise.
Because if Snyder had always intended the climax of MoS to be so controversial and objectionable, I don't believe that he would have left the subject entirely unaddressed before the movie was over.
It's fine if you don't believe it but that does not make it true.
You don't deliberately send the audience home on a bad note with a promise that you'll clear everything up with a sequel in a few years.
The movie generally received positive reviews so this "bad note" business is your own baggage.
I think it's much more likely that Snyder just wanted a cool, action-packed climax that showed off all sorts of awesome effects of dudes punching each other through buildings and leveling a major city, and Superman doing less cool things like trying to limit the damage or protect innocent people simply didn't figure into his vision. It wouldn't be the first time that he got carried away with effects at the expense of the story.
I think it is much more likely that Snyder did not write the film and did not have final cut approval which would mean that the ending was not ultimately his choice. Considering that film's often leave plot and thematic points unresolved for pending sequel, it actually seems likely that that would be saved for a future movie. Especially if there was enough material to fill an entire act more or less of a film.
P.S. I watched MoS again this week. It is still good.
After reconsidering, I'm actually going to concede this point. When you break it down, my argument was essentially, "I think this was a bad idea, therefore they wouldn't do it," which is obviously silly. And you're quite right that Snyder wasn't the only person responsible for this movie - Nolan and Goyer were also heavily involved, and something that the two of them made very clear during the Dark Knight trilogy and (to a slightly lesser extent) MoS is that they like to use dialogue to highlight the issues they're covering. They're not into subtle social commentary. Now, I obviously have a lot of issues with the pacing and writing of MoS, so I don't necessarily agree with the way they're going about this, but I'm willing to believe that they always intended to dramatically explore the consequences of the film's climax.
However, the quote from Snyder that started all this, where he mischaracterizes the Marvel movies as people making jokes about how nobody gets hurt, still annoys me a little. I'm not going to knock these guys for criticizing the Marvel movies, or thinking that they're making better movies than them, as that would of course be pretty dumb of me. But comments like this, along with Greg Silverman's distinction between superhero movies and "movies about superheroes," make me worry that WB doesn't fully understand why their competition has been so successful, and that in their haste to differentiate themselves from Marvel, they've set the bar much too low for themselves. Simply giving these movies a dark, somber tone and dwelling on lots of people getting killed won't automatically make them smarter, deeper, more complex, or more deconstructive than Marvel's films.