Originally Posted by Masone
I don't like this idea. I don't like when something is portrayed one way when the audience knows it's the other way. Like a person being framed and every other character thinking that person did it, but the audience knows that person didn't do it because they already showed us the real killer. The story becomes frustrating and the characters come off as stupid.
In that scenario, Superman is portrayed as the antagonist and the other heroes and the world are against him, but we the audience know Superman ain't a damn antagonist. The story becomes predictable and frustrating and the other characters come off a stupid for not knowing something the audience knows.
I think you can only pull that off when there is a degree of ignorance shared between both the audience and the characters. Is he the real killer? Is he really the villain? Is he really behind everything? Both the audience and the characters need to be having those types of questions swirl in their minds to pull that off.
That's a poor analogy. I'm not saying that Superman being an antagonist means that he has to be a ****** plot twist "I'm a bad guy/oh, I'm a good guy now!"character. That's not what I'm saying at all. Setting up Superman as an antagonist means that Superman is met with resistance from other heroes, the public, and the world. Which you've already mentioned, but you somehow assume that it means the characters have to be stupid in order for that plot to work, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.
You mention the audience, let's not forget we're coming off of Man of Steel where the audience has mixed perceptions of Superman. This creates an interesting dynamic in that the audience automatically associates with the other heroes (Batman and Wonder Woman) and the rest of the world, while at the same time, questioning Superman after the events of Man of Steel. Then you have characters like Lex Luthor, who feels threatened by his presence, so much so that you can have him be in investigation mode, to find out that Superman killed Zod (aka his fellow citizen), which leads to the whole "if Superman can kill his people, what stops him from killing us" campaign against Superman. It doesn't have to be like my idea, but the whole is to show how antagonism isn't as narrow as you view it.
In other words: antagonism does not mean that Superman has to be forced to fit a rather narrow villain trope, as you've outlined. You can create a villain that has justifiable motives...or even better, you can create an antagonist who has the ability change people's perception of him, which is what this movie should try to aim for now that he's dealing with Metropolis, Smallville's destruction...and the world's reaction to him. No superhero movie to my knowledge has done any of that, so it'd be a fresh story too.