Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling. Superman's heritage (and nano-tech suit) doesn't make him any less relatable to the general audience whatsoever. Kal-El has always been a man of two worlds. Why would it be any different now?
What Snyder, Nolan and Goyer have done is humanize Superman but also showcased him as this ass-kicking titan.
At any rate, it won't be Kal-El's humanity that will bring forth the audience. For instance, Nolan's Batman wasn't marketed as Bruce Wayne's story at first. The crowd arrived for Batman potentially beating criminals into a bloody pulp but they were also treated to a grand story involving the man behind the symbol and legend.
Superman's Kryptonian heritage doesn't hinder a damn thing. It's all in the writing and execution.
This debate is going to devolve into an endless argument over wide abstractions and assumptions about Superman which I don't have time for. But what I will say... Is how is the marketing for Nolan's batman relevant at all? I'm confused, are you trying to argue that it's not the humanity and motivations of the characters that makes the audience care about a movie?
First of all it WAS marketed as a BW story first. Watch the trailers. The whole point of the freaking series was to feature Wayne's rise to becoming Batman. In Rises, batman is missing for the entire middle of the movie and the series even ends with him choosing to just live his life as Bruce Wayne. The crowds knew what the movies were about, and that's why they went. They arrived to see batman movies unlike anything they had seen prior; the elaborate backstory and the gritty real world setting being the hooks. Special effects and ass kicking mean little if you're not invested in the characters. If they were everything, then Batman & Robin would have won a f-ing Oscar.