So just because you can't create better art you're not allowed to criticize art you find to be poor? So I should just keep watching shitty tv shows and shut my mouth because I couldn't produce a better one? Or I shouldn't care that a movie sucked because I'm not a director myself?

You keep Batman V Superman out of your filthy mouth, wease.

this sounds like a bunch of horse shit

Gladly.

Of course not. But to say a lyric is bad would imply that the writer failed to get his meaning across or convey the idea. While you may not care for the words that were chosen if you get the meaning and emotion, the lyric has succeeded and can't be bad.

Batman V Superman is a shit-turd for a movie. The writer and/or director did a piss-poor job of conveying any kind of story where any kind of motivation is seen by any characters. Indeed, the characters were written and directed in such a way as to be unrecognizable to anyone that is familiar with them. It is a bad movie. Ed's lyrics, while some may not be everybody's cup of tea, aren't really bad if the thought or emotion they are meant to convey is carried across to the listener. Even Hitchhiker.

So you're saying that Batman v. Superman is objectively bad? Is it possible for art to be objectively good or bad? We should have a discussion about this.

Then, obviously, you don't know the characters. Batman doesn't murder people. Superman doesn't just stand there while people around him are killed. They're better than that. They're called HEROES for a reason.

i die inside a little bit every time i need to pass on this discussion. stupid movie

But if they aimed for Batman to kill and Superman to stand around then they succeeded and the movie is therefor objectively good.

Batman has murdered people. Also, whether the movie's characterization is consistent with the comics has no bearing on the quality of the movie.