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. 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. 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.
Of course he is. Saddam needs things to hate on in order to live. It's his fuel.
I don't hate. I brood, in a very powerful, Wagnerian fashion.
Kent**
And what did she say that came off as bad parenting?
I said Kents, plural, to lump her in with Jonathan from the first movie. I was referring to her "You don't owe them anything!" line, which sounds all wrong coming out of her mouth. But that's really just a nitpick. For all I know, in context she'll just be trying to make a point or something.