Allow me to agree and disagree with you on this point.
Where I agree: Dude in video says that critics hated Richard. In my experience (and yours, apparently) that’s simply not the case. Even strident critics of SR
seemed to like Richard. The complaint was that he was a nicer, nobler guy than Superman. Dude was arguing the wrong thing.
Where I disagree: Richard being a “good man” was an essential aspect to the overall theme of Supes’ alienation. Without the global and mythic responsibilities of a superman, Richard can afford to be a “normal hero” and have the normal life unavailable to Supes. When Lois was in peril, he could devote himself to the single task of rescuing her. On the other hand, Supes had to interrupt his attempt, turn around and attend to earthquake ravaged Metropolis first. His duties are far bigger than Richard’s – even to the point of sacrificing himself to save the world. That’s something that Richard – for all his nobility – could never do.
Allow for a bit of poetry.
It's a description of the passing of generations. The "father" recedes into a more passive role (the "son") when his own son assumes the "father" role. In any case, the line is lifted directly from STM
. If you hated it in SR
, you should reserve equal ridicule for its use in STM
A fair criticism. But SR had exactly as many "fights" as STM. So, again, as long as you dislike both
films for that reason... you're being consistent.
I’d say the SR
scheme was more “realistic.” In STM
, we’re supposed to believe that after a nuclear blast, and the devastation of California, Lex could satisfy authorities by merely producing the deeds to his legally bought land. In SR
, there’s no pretext like that. Lex’s control over nations would be derived by power and the fact that half of them are destroyed – not through implausible legal technicalities.