Quantity isn't quality. Clark enjoying connections with people isn't negated by him not having a lot of friends. When he does interact with new people, he isn't cold or unfriendly. He seems to have a nice vibe with people like Lana, Pete, Chrissy the waitress, and is able to converse with people like Colonel Hardy and Father Leone in ways that demonstrate a humble and amiable personality. Lois was a stranger until he also formed a bond with her, and when he does get intimate with people he is incredibly committed and affectionate. Essentially, he exhibits traits of an introvert, and introverts aren't aloof or unfriendly.
I notice most of your examples are from Man of Steel. I wouldnt call most of those genuine connections or bonds, unless Im misunderstanding your use of the phrase. They are mostly interactions/acquaintances as they are presented to us (especially Lana, Pete, Chrissy and Father Leone). There is not enough there to say that Clark actually bonds with any of the Smallville group. I do agree that Clark does bond with Lois, Swanwick, Hardy and Hamilton. Regardless, in BvS, two years later, he has no such connections of any level that we see besides Lois and Martha (his relationship with Perry is so antagonistic it can hardly be called an actual genuine connection). And that omission is my point. You may disagree, but I think its a big part of why Superman is considered the greatest hero. Hes not just the most powerful, most self-sacrificing hero; he makes genuine connections beyond the sort of general friendliness of someone like Flash or Spider-Man. And in a story like this, I think they should have showed him trying to make those bonds at least.
Having experienced all of Superman media, I think it's pretty accurate. Other than JL friendships, which form later, Superman/Clark doesn't tend to have a huge group of friends, including at the Daily Planet. If he doesn't, it's not by choice. Being different means keeping some distance between himself and others, which sometimes means he gets bullied or left out even when he'd rather be accepted. Look at Donner's films. He's even less connected. Lana may wave to him at football practice, but she still is distant from him and more interested in the football players. Clark spends most of the film in a vainglorious attempt to finally get that kind of attention by becoming Superman just to be the hero and get hot women like Lois.
Im not talking about quantity. As far as I recall, his most genuine relationships outside of Lois and other heroes have been Jimmy Olsen and then at times other minor ordinary citizens like Bibbo or Emil Hamilton. Even at the Daily Planet, he at least talks to his other coworkers. In BvS, he only talks to Perry and Lois. Again, its more a critique of the story rather than the character, but if this is a Clark who has been at the Daily Planet for two years, then hes done quite a good job of keeping himself closed off. And I guess my point is that for a story that is supposed to take place two years after MOS, it certainly seems as though Clark hasnt grown as a character or person at all in the interim. He is still just as closed off as he was before he first put on the suit.
When it comes to regular members of the public, Superman's connections can be warm but not intimate. In that respect, Clark behaved that way with Lois when he first met her (even if that was out of costume) and he made the military feel he was a friend by saving them while they were attacking him and taking the time to talk to them, thank them, and work with them in MoS. In BvS, Clark tries to talk to Kahina in Gotham and agrees to speak to the public at the hearing. He smiles at the people of Juarez as he rescues a girl and returns her to her family. When he goes to bring an injured person to an EMT at the Capitol, he is solemn yet ready to engage, but he's told he's not really wanted there.
You keep saying he's not active, but I'm not buying it. When Clark hears the news, especially Kahina speaking, he seeks her out where she's living, but can't find her. When he sees that Batman is terrorizing people in Gotham, he actively and passionately pursues that story. When June Finch invites him to speak at the Capitol, he does in a way that communicates, according to her standards, that he is good; good is a conversation. When (As) people ponder whether he should save people, we see a montage of him choosing to do it.
We clearly disagree on what an active and passionate pursuit of a story looks like. I dont think a few questions in moments of relative convenience (a sports or library assignment), a survey of previous articles and one jaunt across the bay actually comprise a passionate pursuit of a story. Oh, Clark certainly expresses deep passion about the subject, but what he does or rather, what the film makers have him do doesnt quite rise to that level. Again, its a matter of omission, and its why I compared it to Loiss short screen time of investigation in MOS. That film conveyed the sense that Lois undertook a painstakingly thorough search for Clark. Even if mostly montage, we still get a good sense that she actually puts her heart into it. With Clark, what we are shown and the timing in which we are shown it dont convey the same.
When the story presents this idea -- that good is a conversation and not unilateral action -- the idea that one should just press forward without considering how it might impact others or without listening is antithetical. Sometimes that kind of self-serving action, like the kind you're lauding, is not good and the exact opposite of the kind of action required in sensitive situations such as this. Another main theme in the movie is about how people deal with powerlessness or the things they can't control or force to make sense. If you're not an all powerful or all good god-like figure, which no one is this story is, then you're not able to promise that you won't screw up and there won't always be a perfect answer to complex problems.
It would not be self-serving for Clark to pursue his investigation a bit more thoroughly (e.g., in a more hands on, people-focused manner). Nor would it necessarily be self-serving for him to try to clear his name or, more importantly, try to figure out what actually happened (especially since he thinks Lois might be putting herself in danger by doing so). But since you think Clark was sufficiently active, and since it seems that you think he shouldnt have been too active, tell me this: in the main plot (that is, the Congress plot), what is it that Clark wants, and how does he try to achieve it?
Because if you take out most of Clarks B-plot (the article-reading and his one Gotham interview) and leave only the chance encounters (his early apartment conversation, library encounter, and received photographs), then you are still left with the same sequence of events, with no actual change. Lex orchestrates certainly events to convince Clark that Batman is a murderous vigilante, then compels him to fight Batman to the death by kidnapping his mom. Whether he reads the articles or goes to Gotham again, the events still play out the same. Clarks active plot doesnt actually impact the story.
Also, I just want to make a note about your first point here. Isnt the idea that one should just press forward without considering how it might impact others or without listening exactly what Martha encourages Clark to do before he goes off to the Capitol?
Perry tells Clark to cover sports, but we first see him seeking out Kahina (the woman speaking at Finch's hearing about what happened in Nairomi); he never went to Gotham with the intention to cover sports. When he's told she's not where he thought she'd be, that same person tells him about Batman's new kind of "mean," which makes Clark reconsider whether him serving his own interests of trying to exonerate himself, when someone like Lois is already doing it, is him choosing himself over others. By choosing to cover the Batman story, he is, as he explained to Perry, demonstrating that those people who don't have a voice or the spotlight that comes from Superman -- a voice that Kahina and Wallace are given because of their association with Superman events -- deserve to be heard and protected too. That while he is being held accountable, other heroes should be held accountable. Your description of Clark's investigation further leaves out his trip to the Gotham Police Department to talk to the man Batman branded and the follow up conversation he had with that man's widow and child outside of the building. my insert: until Clark gets mailed info that leads him to go back to Gotham; its the mailed photos of the dead Santos that lead him to Gotham PD - he doesnt seek it out proactively.
Clark's actions in investigating Batman lead to him confronting Batman to tell him that the Bat is dead. They also influence how he engages with Batman when Lex engineers their confrontation. He has to weigh the knowledge that they were both manipulated with the knowledge he gained from the convict's widow that Batman only responds to fists rather than words. What he decides, then, is to approach Batman by apologizing to him and seeking his help in saving Martha. When that doesn't work, he tries to use some force by pushing Batman and pointing out the futility of his fighting efforts. Then, he just fights to survive. These actions, along with his other heroic and noble deeds, are enough to get through to Batman who, at the end of the film, makes a pledge to do better and we seem him choose not to brand Luthor -- something Clark highlighted as a problematic behavior in his pursuit of truth and justice.
Id argue its actually the photos of Santoss death that lead Clark to confront Batman (he receives those at the same time Bruce finally discovers the White Portuguese if I recall). Its hard to prove the negative, but its Lexs words on the roof that lead Clark to apologize to Bruce (he doesnt ask for help at this time), and its arguably Batmans use of force that leads him to use force in kind. Nothing about Clarks investigation a) tells him anything new about Batman, or b) changes his first impression of Batman.
I think you are also reading a lot into Clarks internal deliberations and dilemmas. BvS gives us no indication that Clark is weighing the manner in which he approaches Bruce before the fight (other than, I have to convince him or kill him), or that his last minute mention of Martha was part of a strategic approach to get through to Bruce. Just as nothing gives us any indication that Clark decides to pursue Batman instead of the controversy because he realizes that locating Kahina would be a self-serving and duplicative course of action, or that the way Clark shows up at the Capitol represents a specific way of responding to Finchs summons, according to her standards, that best communicates that he is good (what was the alternative way, and how does the film communicate that Clark chooses this particular way?).
And anyway, few of these represent real choices for this character. Given the reaction to MOS (and the core character), Superman choosing to kill Batman was always off the table. Clark not going to the Capitol is a classic case where a character is given a choice to make a decision or stay the same. The plot requires Clark to go to the Capitol to move the story forward, so its not a meaningful choice. And choosing between trying to clear his name and pursuing justice in Gotham might have been a compelling choice, but that is not a decision Clark actually mulls. He just quite simply forgets about Kahina the moment he learns about Batman. If anything, he dismisses its importance at first and then warns Lois not to put herself in danger by digging up snakes.
I think he was plenty forceful and active, and all I see is your downplaying and forgetting key parts of the story in order to mischaracterize Superman.
I dont think Ive forgotten any key parts, in fact Ive tried to go back and make sure Im recounting the Ultimate Editions order of events and not the Theatrical Cuts order (i.e., TC has Clark learn about Santos and Batman on TV, rather than learning about Batman first in Gotham).
t: