Originally Posted by
dittobeetle
Fair enough. My hyperbole does rather easily get away from me, and it's helpful to be called on it. Additionally, you're right about Hulk/Banner being manipulated to do horrible things.
Still, the Superman of MoS does inflict a great deal of damage on an urban population, simply by choosing not to try to shift the ground of battle. Reeve's Superman makes the same mistake at first, but is allowed to correct it - I guess I just wish that Cavill's Clark had the same opportunity. I agree, in light of your comments, that the Superman of the Snyder-verse does actually reflect on and care about these matters. I suppose my wish is that we could see more of him in the hero's role - as he is, as you point out, at the beginning of his first film and at the end of his latest.
As to the Nuclear Man's demise in Superman IV, you're right again - Superman would never kill Bizarro, and the Nuclear Man is little more than an 80s MTV Bizarro with terrible hair. Nevertheless, at the end of Superman IV, I feel I've watched a (yes, terrible) movie about a superhero. I don't feel that way with Man of Steel. The big problem with Man of Steel is that, whether he cares or not, Clark isn't shown dramatically, effectively, to choose to be Superman, of his own volition, without inspiration by his father. I guess I feel that the whole idea of Superman should be Clark's invention, with maybe some help from John and Martha Kent, as it has been in other versions. In MoS, he's bequeathed a suit, and with it an assumed heroic persona. It just doesn't ever feel like he stands for something. But I do admit that, yes, he helps people, and at times, we can see that he cares. Superman needs to be about more than that, don't you think?