Talk about a one sided argument. He's taken one quote and ran with it. What about the interviews where they've said what worked for Batman won't necessarily work for Superman, and that he is an unabashed hero? Ofcourse everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I can't stand the way he presents his opinion as fact, backing it up with one measly source (the Empire article.)
I disagree with the article's author's opinion, not because I think he is extrapolating the wrong conclusion (beside the "brooding" melancholy he thinks Superman will be exhibiting in the end), but rather because I think that what he extrapolates IS what they are doing, and that approach is EXACTLY what Superman needs in a movie. We WOULD be skeptical, and likely terrified, of a god like alien showing up on Earth.
There would also be those who fully embraced him.
Superman needs to EARN our trust, not because of who HE is, but because of who WE are. In the end, he will be embraced by the good in us, and those few who resent him will remain cynical.
The approach will also showcase the difference between being skeptical vs cynical, which is, imo, a good thing to showcase.
This is, assuming, HOPING, thy go that approach with Luthor; having him resent Superman, distrusting him, thinking it should be MAN we look up to; failing to see how Superman can bring out the good in us, he is blinded by his own hubris in wanting to be man's "saviour" himself, and it poisons him, and fuels his own greed and cements his megalomania.
At least that's how I want to see Luthor and Superman.
Don't know what whether or not she has her own movie has to do with anything.
