Exactly. I don't know why Hollywood so often assumes nice guys are passe and don't make for good superheroes. Think of the people who are admired most in real life; they are those who are kind, generous, and devote themselves to helping others, not grimdark psychoes. Why can't Hollywood make a movie about that kind of Superman?
It's not really all of Hollywood. Marvel doesn't minimize their earnest good-guy heroes.
There seems to be a a significant flaw in the basic creative methods at WB/DC when it comes to superman.
Logically speaking, which approach to re-introducing a classic character to a modern audience sounds like it would work best:
An approach that looks at what made the character popular and highlights that in a modern way?
OR
An approach that assumes the character is no longer loved for what he once was and that he needs altering to be loved again or to be retrofitted with traits that made other very different characters popular?
To me, it's clear that the former makes more sense, especially when superman's core characteristics are considered. If one looks at the times when superman has been most popular and which stories were his biggest hits, there's a trend. The stories embraced the character and highlighted his core traits. I'm not a fan of the Reeve movies overall, but at the center of STM, was a straightforward and conceptually powerful character. A charming good guy and man (alien?) of the people who helped in ways both small and global. In the best comics, Superman is an intergalactic refugee that grew to love humans (and be human, in some ways) by virtue of a wonderful upbringing by the best of humanity and interactions with every day people. It's a timeless tale of hope. A tale like that resonated with people when superman was first created, in 1978, and would still resonate now. I think Cavill himself said something like "every society needs hope" in an interview and it's true. Modern times are as troubled as any in the past when superman was a popular escapist story, so why wouldn't it still strike a cord today? I reckon it would.
It seems that whoever is possessing of this "superman is broken" mentality is missing the point or core of his character altogether and in so doing, failing to realize that the character is timeless. The thing to be taken from something like the Reeve films is superman himself. Sure, there's other things clouding the perception, like an over-the-top villain, outdated effects, some elements inspired by wackier comics that probably wouldn't go over well today (world spinning), but the core is still valid. Instead of working with this core and surrounding it with modern dressings, movies like BvS are either eliminating or severely minimizing key components of the mythos (Daily planet interactions, Clark Kent persona, charming and warm superman that loves what he does) in an attempt to alter the core to what they think modern audiences want. It's a blatant example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, IMO. If the dressings surrounding the character are outdated, change them, but there's no need to throw out the character altogether and give the audience a watered-down/ashamed version that never lives up to his iconic name. That's certainly not going to please long-time fans and likely won't win any new ones.
Even people unfamiliar with details of superman comics probably know his basic story and some personality traits. The response to BvS and ensuing superman complaints shows us this. People are going to notice that the character labelled superman is lacking because if he weren't lacking, he'd be inspiring strong feelings in the audience, like hope, joy, pride in the human race during stressful times, etc...people will miss this stuff because a superman done right can do this.
Take a look at my signature:
"Somewhere in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down…" - Grant Morrison.
That is a powerful message and if we saw a character to match this on screen, the audience would not be left cold...and they know it. The GA may not know what comic a certain scene in from, but they definitely know when a character touted as a symbol of hope is not being used as such.
Imagine if other things were manufactured like superman is being manufactured now with BvS. What if other things were designed and sold by people who think the thing in question is inferior and needs to be masked? Would people looking for an unabashed version of that thing or a reason to start liking it in the first place be won over? Not likely.
It should be no surprise to anyone that a product manufactured by people who believe the product itself is deeply flawed has not been as successful as products by the competition who believe their products are sound at the core. Snyder is essentially trying to tell a compelling story about a character that he doesn't believe is compelling. A recipe for disaster.