People were already trying to stop it, though.
Then what exactly did he do in the movie that made Wonder Woman show up? In which scene do we see Wonder Woman come out of retirement specifically because of him?
This one
where she sees the fight on the news and feels compelled to help out.
Did I say he didn't save people? I'm specifically asking how he brought out the best in people when most of Batman v Superman's plot happened because he had the opposite effect (however unintentionally).
I'm not denying that he did heroics, I'm denying that the films showed his deeds rubbing off on everyone else.
Batman was one of the antagonists throughout the film. By Superman on his deathbed pleading for his mother's life, a selfless act rather than for his own or to tell Superman to go choke on an egg or something it reminded batman of why he did what he did. It snapped Batman out of his murderous rage and reminded him of why he did what he did
I was actually sold by Cyborg in this trailer. I really liked the way he delivered the line to Alfred. His body still looks a bit weird at times, but I'm getting used to it. In terms of the actor and the approach they've taken, though, where he's like a full on robot almost, I think it's great.
I think part of the problem here is that Snyder really is not a typical Hollywood-method kind of guy. His style is very reminiscent of certain artist-driven comics and graphic novels. Where the art relays the story as much or even more than dialogue and exposition, and the reader has to fill in a few more gaps and interpret things more. A lot of the Superman stuff in BvS was like that - essentially panels with no captions and hardly any dialogue. Snyder really does think like an artist - not a writer. And I'm not saying he's always successful with what he does. But people are so used to dialogue explaining things in movies and it's not the only game in town. I happen to think Snyder's approach works really well with superheroes. See any of a thousand different comics that have used the same approach.
Still, in the trailer when Batman is referring to things that were never explicitly stated, and were sold with little more than a single shot with no dialogue at times, it can be jarring if you didn't interpret some of the images the same way. I also think the theatrical cut of BvS resulted in a lot people misinterpreting certain things.
I agree with this a lot. Look at the Martha scene if you take it at face value then you might see it as just the mother's have the same name, but if you were paying attention in the movie you'd see how logical saying his mother's name might trigger something in him. Also a lot of BVS's "plotholes" can be attributed to this too e.,g Lois and the spear, Lois knowing Doomsday is Kryptonian, Lois knowing the spear is harmful!
I'm with Bobby. The line about Superman being a hopeful figure who made people see the best in themselves made me go, "Really?"
His last two movies didn't sell me on that at all. Seems like Snyder wants to change up Superman into this 'realistic', weight-of-the-world-on-his-shoulders, moody godly figure that largely fails to capture the characteristics of the Superman you'd expect, yet all of a sudden pretend he was that guy all along?
If this is the kind of legacy you wanted his death to leave, why change him up so much in the first place? Could have just given us Superman in the first place and it would have worked out for the better.
I don't get why people don't want characters to have an arc in DC movies. I mean to give an example of Homecoming, Homecoming was basically him getting constant lessons in the impact of collateral damage. Tony Stark changes gradually from film to film. Thor becomes less of an arrogant blowhard and becomes worthy enough to lift the hammer etc etc.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that he saved billions twice, performed numerous rescues, performed numerous missions for the US government, was largely looked upon as a literal savior barring protesters in DC( if DCverse is anything like the real world, some of those protestors were probably paid by Luthor), Batman, and Luthor. Like you're ignoring almost everything about how Superman is portrayed outside of Luthor's machinations and Bruce's grudge.
Along with what, Supermans biggest conflict in these movies hasn't about whether to do the right thing or not. His conflict has been "what's the right thing when someone is as powerful as he is?"
But it's not consistent if you actually look at the scenes that showed how people reacted to Superman.
In Man of Steel, the government brings Superman to a secure facility in handcuffs because they don't trust him, and the movie ends with the government trying and failing to track Superman because they still don't trust him.
After the Bat-Jesus dream, Batman v. Superman shows how Superman's actions in the last movie earned him Batman's hatred. The movie later shows that Superman is being subjected to a government hearing (because they still don't trust him)
Only after Lex tipped the scale of public opinion regarding him.
a huge crowd protesting his presence (because they don't trust him either),
See above
Batman dreaming about Superman leading an alien invasion (because Batman doesn't trust Superman),
That was the flash giving him a warning.
and Lex Luthor aiming to kill Superman in part because he sees Superman as a legitimate threat to humanity (again, lack of trust there)
.
primarily due to Lex.
Superman even makes things worse for himself when he seemingly confirms Batman's fears by stopping Batman from fighting some criminals. Those are all scenes that drive the plot, but a montage that shows people being thankful for being rescued that ultimately never becomes relevant later on is supposed to have more of an impact? No way. You can say it is, but you'd be wrong.
The thing is despite all of Lex's machinations which by the sound of things you feel worked fantastically well in souring your opinon on him. There are people that still liked Superman. Alfred being the most notable. Senator Finch however just wanted to ask him what kind of man he'd be.
It wouldn't have been hard to show that Superman made a difference to most people, either by having the people he saved in the previous scenes come back to help him in some way or by showing a montage of how his behavior inspired people to help others or something like that.
in the movie I watched he tried to plead for the life of someone else and it lead to his archenemy turning into an ally. Jesus i am repeating myself.
It wouldn't have been hard for the movie to show that most people actually appreciated the hero, and that the people who didn't want him around were in the minority (something that Raimi's Spider-Man films were good at).
1) montage at beginning
2)
Most people were shocked and surprised he'd deface the person viewed as a god.
3)
He looks like he's getting rotten tomatoes thrown at him here doesn't it
4) Lex Luthor says throughout the film many times that he wants to change public opinion on Superman. Meaning Superman is viewed positively by most people
5) Batman talks about puff piece editorials.
If i missed any, I am sure i can find some more you may choose to ignore
Even changing the dialog in the montage where Superman saved people to be purely positive would have made a difference there, but as it is he's portrayed as highly polarizing at best. A halfway decent movie would have been able to convincingly sell Superman as a beloved hero, but MoS and BvS don't pull it off.
The fact he's polarising was the point. Look if Obama turned the US economy around, reduced the number of people who were uninsured greatly and killed the boogeyman that caused the biggest terrorist attack on US soil and he was still hated by large parts of the population then it's not out of the realm of possibility for Superman to have some people who aren't his BFF. Again I repeat, Lex Luthor said quite clearly he wanted to change public opinion and from the sounds of things he did quite well in tipping the scales of public opinion.