How can the DCU upstage the Marvel Cinematic Universe? - Part 1

[Flint Marko]

Says the guy who wrote that "any given five minutes" in either Avengers film is better than anything in MoS —

— especially considering how many cringe-worthy moments are stacked up against each other in AoU, plus the wholesale recycling Whedon indulged shamelessly, all the way down to "Fury magically appears to deliver a pep talk." Then there was the hilarious impromptu Banner-Widow romance paired with "look, Hawkeye has a wife and family, in spite of how much they wanted us to think he and Natasha might've been bonin.'

Hating on one movie is not an excuse to prop up junk like AoU and TDW.

Which I absolutely stand by. MoS is a failure on almost every level in terms of basic storytelling; TDW is far from cinematic gold (I'm not even going to pretend for a second that AOU is on the same level, it's a fine movie no matter how hard some might try and paint it in a different light) but I'm not sure why you're even bringing it up, since, as far as I can tell, I haven't once mentioned it.

 

[Aejej]

Which I absolutely stand by. MoS is a failure on almost every level in terms of basic storytelling; TDW is far from cinematic gold (I'm not even going to pretend for a second that AOU is on the same level, it's a fine movie no matter how hard some might try and paint it in a different light) but I'm not sure why you're even bringing it up, since, as far as I can tell, I haven't once mentioned it.

I know you didn't mention TDW, and I also knew you'd zero in on it for the same reason. But we can gloss over that for now.

The thing is, nobody has to "try hard" to paint AoU in a different light. It's all there: it's a cookie cutter production that replicates every story beat from its predecessor; it's predictable; it indulges more bad humor (a staple of the MCU as it's come to be known); and it boasts some mystifyingly bad characterization. Basically, all the good stuff is in the trailers.

Like other posters have said, MoS is polarizing because it's not a traditional interpretation of a character most people want a very traditional interpretation of.

AoU is "just another big budget MCU film," as opposed to the excellence of CA:TWS. It's easy to see why Joss bailed and the Russos were passed the torch without so much as a beat scuttling past the door jamb.

 

[Mjölnir]

I know you didn't mention TDW, and I also knew you'd zero in on it for the same reason. But we can gloss over that for now.

The thing is, nobody has to "try hard" to paint AoU in a different light. It's all there: it's a cookie cutter production that replicates every story beat from its predecessor; it's predictable; it indulges more bad humor (a staple of the MCU as it's come to be known); and it boasts some mystifyingly bad characterization. Basically, all the good stuff is in the trailers.

Like other posters have said, MoS is polarizing because it's not a traditional interpretation of a character most people want a very traditional interpretation of.

AoU is "just another big budget MCU film," as opposed to the excellence of CA:TWS. It's easy to see why Joss bailed and the Russos were passed the torch without so much as a beat scuttling past the door jamb.

To say that MoS is just polarizing because of a preconceived notion of what Superman should be is something I'd call being dishonest. It's not hard to search up examples of criticism that only focuses on the writing and direction, neither on the web in general nor here on the forum, so I don't buy that anyone's missed that.

I disliked MoS and liked AoU but I'm not going to put words into the mouths of the people that disliked AoU. If they didn't like it they didn't and I'm not going to tell them why they didn't. People like different things, it's not more difficult than that.

 

[Aejej]

To say that MoS is just polarizing because of a preconceived notion of what Superman should be is something I'd call being dishonest.

It's not that simple. Think of it as a list header with bullet points, the same ones brought up over and over by those who dislike it. Just like I do with AoU, which is excused for every offense I point out above.

 

[Marvin]

To say that MoS is just polarizing because of a preconceived notion of what Superman should be is something I'd call being dishonest.

Just about every film can be criticized. And mos is as deserving as any other given it has it's flaws. However the explanation as to why it's "that much more" deserving, "that much more" polarizing than all these other ones...Why more than hulk for instance, why so much 'unpredictable' kick back about destruction on film(unlike san andreas for instance)...
to claim all this has nothing to do with the former and everything to do with the writing would be just as dishonest. Reasoning why it's valid to bring up the role preconception plays here is because the film is constantly compared in reception to films without that crutch.
An honest question would be do you think there would be all this fallout and debate over this movie had it been some original picture? Massively polarizing even with the 'suspect' writing? Only movie in which a hero kills..

If they didn't like it they didn't and I'm not going to tell them why they didn't

Unfortunately, every time you explain why something is bad or doesn't work you are technically doing this.
"the movie fails, and here's why" vs "this is why I don't like it"
..it's not more difficult than that actually.

 

[Mjölnir]

It's not that simple. Think of it as a list header with bullet points, the same ones brought up over and over by those who dislike it. Just like I do with AoU, which is excused for every offense I point out above.

Your post was worded so it looked like you felt that was the only reason, and that was what was I was arguing against. Of course people will have negative or positive opinions on how they treat the character, I'm just saying that there's other views that don't care about that issue.

There will of course always be debate whether something is good or bad on a forum like this.

 

[Aejej]

"Like other posters have said," etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Like I also said, it's easy to zero in on one thing and go "But you said" and so on.

I'll just leave this here.

It's one thing to remark about the lengths some go to in their defense of said film.

It's another to disregard the fact that some go to equally great lengths to speak disparagingly of the same film — [simply because it doesn't follow a traditional structure] — while referencing other arguably inferior productions and simultaneously assigning them totem-like status within the CBM genre.

Take it for what it is with OR without the section in brackets.

 

[Mjölnir]

Just about every film can be criticized. And mos is as deserving as any other given it has it's flaws. However the explanation as to why it's "that much more" deserving, "that much more" polarizing than all these other ones...Why more than hulk for instance, why so much 'unpredictable' kick back about destruction on film(unlike san andreas for instance)...
to claim all this has nothing to do with the former and everything to do with the writing would be just as dishonest. Reasoning why it's valid to bring up the role preconception plays here is because the film is constantly compared in reception to films without that crutch.
An honest question would be do you think there would be all this fallout and debate over this movie had it been some original picture? Massively polarizing even with the 'suspect' writing? Only movie in which a hero kills..

Of course the property has relevance in how the movie is received, that was not my point. The property works both ways though when it comes to being polarizing and creating a lot of discussion, since a popular property is more likely to have big fans that are interested in discussing it.

Personally I feel that MoS has one of the more illogical scripts in any superhero movie, so for me it does stand out in that regard. Even characterization can be criticized just as roles in the story and doesn't need to be tied to the property. As for the property I do have some issues there as well that are a bit different. I don't mind Superman killing, but I think it was very wasteful to do it in the first movie (and apparently Snyder intends Superman to be purely good, so he missed opportunities to establish that as well). I think it's better to have Superman struggle because he doesn't want to kill and tries to help everyone, as that's a weakness for a hero with enormous power. It would pay off so much more emotionally when he finally has to kill to win some movies down the line. It's not something I think makes the movie bad though, it's just an example of what kind of things I think about when thinking of how the property ties in.

It's certainly not the only movie where a hero kills though. Iron Man and Thor has definitely deliberately killed, for example.

Unfortunately, every time you explain why something is bad or doesn't work you are technically doing this.
"the movie fails, and here's why" vs "this is why I don't like it"
..it's not more difficult than that actually.

How is stating why I think something is bad the same as me telling others why they don't like something that I like?

I said that I don't try to tell people why they dislike movies that I like. If someone says that they think Ultron was a bad villain I don't say "it's because you're a DC fanboy", "because you're stuck on what Ultron was in the comics", or something like that. I take his own explanation and maybe discuss it from my point of view.

 

[Marvin]

How is stating why I think something is bad the same as me telling others why they don't like something that I like?

Because you aren't just explaining why you don't like this film, you are explaining why others don't. I say others because all of these explanations of yours don't simply amount to: "and that's why I don't like it". In almost every instance they are why 'people' don't like it or why it's by all rights bad(your opinion or not).
Your personal reading, is why it's bad, ie why people don't like it.
It's a different kind than what you just explained. If however all your posts took on similar properties to this, you'd no doubt get less kick back:

It's not something I think makes the movie bad though, it's just an example of what kind of things I think about....

...that's great and all, and I can see your point. However that's simply not how the killing(for instance) outrage has looked for the past 2 years.

Anyways, interesting thing about the position of the producers, because they aren't necessarily working with an original property and have to tredge through alot and very focused preconceptions, they can also work in short hand. Perhaps some people intuit what you proposed here without having to work through several films to get there. Same way another batman origin can short hand a no kill rule and the audience should get it given all this that has come before. Good form or not it's art, which technically means there is no right way, just things falling on people differently(imo).

 

[Mjölnir]

Because you aren't just explaining why you don't like this film, you are explaining why others don't. I say others because all of these explanations of yours don't simply amount to: "and that's why I don't like it". In almost every instance they are why 'people' don't like it or why it's by all rights bad(your opinion or not).
Your personal reading, is why it's bad, ie why people don't like it.
It's a different kind than what you just explained. If however all your posts took on similar properties to this, you'd no doubt get less kick back:

My statement was about projecting opinions upon those that dislike something that you like, which is a standard thing to try to undermine those that think differently.

As for writing things as clear opinion, I've done that more than most I've discussed with on this site as I used to take it very seriously (and I still remember writing "in my view", "personally", etc many times the last couple of days). The main reason to if I'm lazy about it is that people often got annoyed if I mentioned it and weren't susceptible to my point, and instead just wave it off as it's obvious that they are talking about their opinions. After a while I just stop caring as much and can stray from it especially when the person I'm discussing with isn't expressing himself like that. I haven't noticed any difference in what kind of kickback there is.

...that's great and all, and I can see your point. However that's simply not how the killing(for instance) outrage has looked for the past 2 years.

Anyways, interesting thing about the position of the producers, because they aren't necessarily working with an original property and have to tredge through alot and very focused preconceptions, they can also work in short hand. Perhaps some people intuit what you proposed here without having to work through several films to get there. Same way another batman origin can short hand a no kill rule and the audience should get it given all this that has come before. Good form or not it's art, which technically means there is no right way, just things falling on people differently(imo).

No, because I'm intentionally describing are examples of arguments (common and personal) that don't fall into the property based arguments that was mentioned earlier, and caused me to respond.

While I do carry some things over to MoS about the character I'm pretty wary about it as the movie changes many details of his origin quite a bit, especially with how his earthly parents behave.

 

[Deadshot]

Man of Steel is a movie that goes strongly against many preconceived ideas people have about one of the most popular characters of all time. On top of that, it's not exactly a masterpiece of a movie. And yet, according to online information, close to 80% of the viewers enjoyed the movie. Those who enjoyed, actually enjoyed it a lot, that's why, despite the hate, the movie still has 3.9/5 on RT. Overall, the movie doesn't seem that divisive to me.

 

[Aejej]

Personally I feel that MoS has one of the more illogical scripts in any superhero movie, so for me it does stand out in that regard. Even characterization can be criticized just as roles in the story and doesn't need to be tied to the property. As for the property I do have some issues there as well that are a bit different. I don't mind Superman killing, but I think it was very wasteful to do it in the first movie (and apparently Snyder intends Superman to be purely good, so he missed opportunities to establish that as well). I think it's better to have Superman struggle because he doesn't want to kill and tries to help everyone, as that's a weakness for a hero with enormous power. It would pay off so much more emotionally when he finally has to kill to win some movies down the line. It's not something I think makes the movie bad though, it's just an example of what kind of things I think about when thinking of how the property ties in.

Indulge me: how did Snyder "miss opportunities" to depict Kal-el as an intrinsically "good" person (remember, he's as much as an Earthling/Terran as a normal human, since he arrived here as an infant)? How was it wasteful to have him kill in the very first film, since he did it to stop another superpowered entity from killing a group of humans? You wished it to be a "shock and awe" moment better saved for a greater threat like Mongul or Darkseid, i.e. an alien threat that was less human in appearance? Honestly, the "punch Zod to Pluto" strategy posited by a celebrated comics writer is laughable at best.

This is why the topic of tradition where MoS is concerned has merit. Most people think the film didn't have enough of Clark's Smallville days, nor did they like the method by which those select moments were depicted, that being flashback exposition. Superman's origin and backstory are so well-known, he doesn't require a ninety-minute origin like Iron Man and Thor did. Instead, Snyder opted to stage an entire prelude chapter on Krypton, which for the most part went over quite well with audiences.

Batman doesn't require another standalone origin film, and neither BvS nor the forthcoming The Batman will be that, though both will likely include select passages from Batman's career up to that point via flashback exposition.

When I hear a remark like "it fails on every level when it comes to "basic storytelling," all that tells me is somebody felt the Superman of MoS wasn't "their Superman."

Well, they got "their Superman" in Superman Returns, and that film wielded limited impact as a reboot. It's akin to a pebble that skipped across a placid lake surface, and moments later the ripples died out. That's more On Golden Pond than Superman in my book.

 

[The Joker]

Man of Steel is a movie that goes strongly against many preconceived ideas people have about one of the most popular characters of all time. On top of that, it's not exactly a masterpiece of a movie. And yet, according to online information, close to 80% of the viewers enjoyed the movie. Those who enjoyed, actually enjoyed it a lot, that's why, despite the hate, the movie still has 3.9/5 on RT. Overall, the movie doesn't seem that divisive to me.

In fairness the likes of Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 have 3.3/5 and 3.7/5 on RT so that's not saying much.

 

[Deadshot]

In fairness the likes of Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 have 3.3/5 and 3.7/5 on RT so that's not saying much.

Well, maybe in the real world TASM 2 is not as hated and Spider-Man 2 is not as loved as some people around here would like to believe. And if we're gonna draw conclusions about people's perceptions of a movie, we gotta draw them from somewhere. That being said, if i surf the web searching for ratings and reviews, i would say most people enjoyed MOS.

 

[The Joker]

Well, maybe in the real world TASM 2 is not as hated and Spider-Man 2 is not as loved as some people around here would like to believe.

If you start using silly logic like that, then you can question the popularity of every movie that is deemed great or bad by the consensus.

And if we're gonna draw conclusions about people's perceptions of a movie, we gotta draw them from somewhere.

That's why I pointed out your RT usage. If you're going to use that as your basis for your conclusions, then you're also acknowledging movies like Spider-Man 3 as not being divisive, or disliked, when they blatantly are despite what the RT score says.

Rotten Tomatoes is best for critic scores. Most of the opinions from critics seem to accurately reflect the popularity from the masses. It isn't perfect and they are clear exceptions like most Michael Bay movies, but it is the best there is. Better than Metacritic I think. There are more reviews on RT. For example, take Jurassic World which was the biggest film of the year. Metacritic has 49 critic reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has 264. A single outlier on Metacritic sways the result more than it does on Rotten Tomatoes. A good example of this is Jaws. One reviewer gave Jaws a 40 out of a 100 on Metacritic, and because of that ONE review the film is dragged down to a 79. Jaws on Rotten Tomatoes has a far more accurate 97%. Plus, Metacritic doesn't give a straight up percentage of critics that liked the film score the way Rotten Tomatoes does. It does tally them, but you have to do the math yourself.

Metacritic is good and I like how they rank all the reviews in order of rating (out of 100) so it is easier to see where most of the reviews lie, but that's why I think the Tomatometer is more reliable than simply using the Metacritic aggregate.

But as far as average user scores go, you might as well use IMDb as RT. Anyone can make numerous accounts and vote movies up or down on those websites.

That being said, if i surf the web searching for ratings and reviews, i would say most people enjoyed MOS.

You can say that about most movies that are divisive or seen as weak. I mean Green Lantern for example has a 3.1/5 score on RT suggesting most people liked it. Can you find majority reviews that say people enjoyed it?

 

[Deadshot]

If you start using silly logic like that, then you can question the popularity of every movie that is deemed great or bad by the consensus.



That's why I pointed out your RT usage. If you're going to use that as your basis for your conclusions, then you're also acknowledging movies like Spider-Man 3 as not being divisive, or disliked, when they blatantly are despite what the RT score says.



You can say that about most movies that are divisive or seen as weak. I mean Green Lantern for example has a 3.1/5 score on RT suggesting most people liked it. Can you find majority reviews that say people enjoyed it?

What do you use as YOUR basis for conclusions?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

In fairness the likes of Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 have 3.3/5 and 3.7/5 on RT so that's not saying much.

Spider-Man 1 has a similar average audience rating (3.3/5) to films like Spider-Man 3, Fantastic Four 2005, Green Lantern, and Ghost Rider.

Does that sound remotely accurate?

 

[Marvin]

If you start using silly logic like that, then you can question the popularity of every movie that is deemed great or bad by the consensus.

probably not a bad idea.

 

[Marvin]

As for writing things as clear opinion, I've done that more than most I've discussed with on this site as I used to take it very seriously (and I still remember writing "in my view", "personally", etc many times the last couple of days). The main reason to if I'm lazy about it is that people often got annoyed if I mentioned it and weren't susceptible to my point, and instead just wave it off as it's obvious that they are talking about their opinions. After a while I just stop caring as much and can stray from it especially when the person I'm discussing with isn't expressing himself like that. I haven't noticed any difference in what kind of kickback there is.

Zeroing in on this specifically.
Simply adding the 'disclaimer' that it's in your view or it's in your opinion or simply working under that as a given doesn't qualify as speaking for yourself. For example: In my opinion, everyone hates avengers...and because it's too funny.
In my experience this is when someone then comes in and says, 'speak for yourself' to which one responds; "but I did, I added imo did I not."
Your opinion or not in this instance is still one speaking for 'everyone', everyone they highlighted when they said 'everyone', 'marvin' included which is why I would enter into debate at that point. Some people take it even further and say things like "(imo) when that ending happened, you feel unfulfilled". Again opinion or not now one is specifically talking about me now, and I let that stand.
All avoided if dude just said "I hate avengers and because I find too funny"
If someone want's to debate such a thing fine, but people are less likely to given I'm not stepping over into that other territory of speaking to some greater truth or observation, but really just expressing who I myself and thos like me are as a member of the audience.
Difference between stating how a film lands on you vs how a film lands. If a film is bad or just bad for you. Again there is no problem with either, it's just the former in either instance tends to lead to 'kickback', disagreement, arguments..etc.
My point is, it goes beyond 'opinion' and actually is contingent on whom that opinion is said to apply. Ergo the whole speak for yourself and not just in your opinion. And when you call a film bad or poor vs it simply being poor for you(but maybe not actually), you are falling into this.

And again, I get that your statement about projecting referring to something different. My statement was about how this ultimately amounts to similar.

It happens on both sides(before I really do pull a you know who) in my experience though posters like that 'black narcissis' tend to be aware imo.

 

[The Joker]

What do you use as YOUR basis for conclusions?

I don't use any of them. None of them are very accurate to show a proper consensus because they often fly in the face of what we know is not true. If I had to use one source that will come close to reflecting the consensus on movies it is the critical scores on RT.

Like I said above most of the opinions from critics seem to accurately reflect the popularity from the masses. It isn't perfect and there are some clear exceptions like most Michael Bay movies, but it is the best there is. Better than Metacritic I think. There are more reviews on RT than on MC.

The only time I would wave RT around in defense is to show how critically successful a movie is. I would never use RT or IMDb user ratings to prop up a movie because there's too many examples that go against them, not to mention you can make a zillion accounts and bump movie scores up or down.

Spider-Man 1 has a similar average audience rating (3.3/5) to films like Spider-Man 3, Fantastic Four 2005, Green Lantern, and Ghost Rider.

Does that sound remotely accurate?

Great example there

One of many you can find that flies in the face of reality with these movies popularity, or lack thereof.

 

[Deadshot]

I don't use any of them. None of them are very accurate to show a proper consensus because they often fly in the face of what we know is not true. If I had to use one source that will come close to reflecting the consensus on movies it is the critical scores on RT.

Like I said above most of the opinions from critics seem to accurately reflect the popularity from the masses. It isn't perfect and there are some clear exceptions like most Michael Bay movies, but it is the best there is. Better than Metacritic I think. There are more reviews on RT than on MC.

The only time I would wave RT around in defense is to show how critically successful a movie is. I would never use RT or IMDb user ratings to prop up a movie because there's too many examples that go against them, not to mention you can make a zillion accounts and bump movie scores up or down.

So, if you think a movie sucks, and if it's not well received by the critics, but then the general audience gives it a 4/10 and 80%, what conclusion can you draw from this? The stats are telling us that the majority of the people who voted enjoyed the movie, but you say it's silly to draw a conclusion from that. So, what's the "non silly" thing to do? To assume those hundreds of thousands of votes are fake or something like that and keep pretending people didn't really enjoy what they watched?

 

[The Joker]

So, if you think a movie sucks, and if it's not well received by the critics, but then the general audience gives it a 4/10 and 80%, what conclusion can you draw from this? The stats are telling us that the majority of the people who voted enjoyed the movie, but you say it's silly to draw a conclusion from that. So, what's the "non silly" thing to do? To assume those hundreds of thousands of votes are fake or something like that and keep pretending people didn't really enjoy what they watched?

I'm not sure I understand this question. How can the general audience vote 4/10 and 80% at the same time? That's two different numbers. 80% is high, and 4/10 is low.

 

[Deadshot]

I'm not sure I understand this question. How can the general audience vote 4/10 and 80% at the same time? That's two different numbers. 80% is high, and 4/10 is low.

Sorry

4/5*

 

[The Joker]

Sorry

4/5*

Ok, well here's 25 examples of such a thing happening;

http://www.hollywood.com/movies/mov...cs-hated-rotten-tomatoes-57160822/#/ms-249/25

Now I have to confess I have not seen one single movie on that list. And looking at some of the titles and covers (I'm not trying to judge the book by it's cover, just giving an impression) Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer, Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Out Cold, Grandma's Boy, Madea's Family Reunion, A Night at the Roxbury, National Lampoon's Van Wilder, Super Tropers, Bad Boys 2 etc. Most of these movies look like silly movies that are leave your brain at the door comedies, brainless comedy action, juvenile entertainment, or so bad they're good type movies. Those sort of movies appeal to people. They entertain.

So to answer your question, if I think a movie sucks, and the critics hated it, too, but most people gave it a good rating, I'd probably be watching a movie like one of those above.

Because I've never felt a movie was terrible, and said movie was either not divisive or panned by the consensus. I've seen movies I've not liked but everyone else has not because I thought it was terrible, but because it just wasn't my cup of tea.

 

[Mjölnir]

Indulge me: how did Snyder "miss opportunities" to depict Kal-el as an intrinsically "good" person (remember, he's as much as an Earthling/Terran as a normal human, since he arrived here as an infant)? How was it wasteful to have him kill in the very first film, since he did it to stop another superpowered entity from killing a group of humans? You wished it to be a "shock and awe" moment better saved for a greater threat like Mongul or Darkseid, i.e. an alien threat that was less human in appearance? Honestly, the "punch Zod to Pluto" strategy posited by a celebrated comics writer is laughable at best.

This is why the topic of tradition where MoS is concerned has merit. Most people think the film didn't have enough of Clark's Smallville days, nor did they like the method by which those select moments were depicted, that being flashback exposition. Superman's origin and backstory are so well-known, he doesn't require a ninety-minute origin like Iron Man and Thor did. Instead, Snyder opted to stage an entire prelude chapter on Krypton, which for the most part went over quite well with audiences.

Batman doesn't require another standalone origin film, and neither BvS nor the forthcoming The Batman will be that, though both will likely include select passages from Batman's career up to that point via flashback exposition.

When I hear a remark like "it fails on every level when it comes to "basic storytelling," all that tells me is somebody felt the Superman of MoS wasn't "their Superman."

Well, they got "their Superman" in Superman Returns, and that film wielded limited impact as a reboot. It's akin to a pebble that skipped across a placid lake surface, and moments later the ripples died out. That's more On Golden Pond than Superman in my book.

The feeling I'm getting from your post is that you either haven't read my posts properly, or you didn't get my point. The reason I'm bringing up something related to tradition of the property is because someone was talking to me about it. I think I made myself pretty clear before that my point was that there's lots of opinions relating to issues that have nothing to do with the tradition (and I've also been clear on that there are people that are complaining about being true to the old Superman).

But to answer your question, I think there would have been much more payoff to play on this for a movie or two before he has to break his "code" and kill. Christopher Reeve's Superman killed Zod as well so the precedent of Superman not killing is in fact not very strongly portrayed in the movie medium overall, so to say that it's well known is false in my view. The people that read comics and know such details are insignificant in numbers compared to how many viewers it takes to make the kinds of revenue these movies make. When it comes to showing him as good he could have made the fight more dynamic with Superman trying to save things around them, which is a disadvantage and would give more of a feeling that he could lose in addition to showing to what lengths he's willing to sacrifice himself. They could also do with not having him actively bring a super powered fight from the fields into a populated town, or not have him stand and wait for no reason until it's too late to save his father, to make him more sympathetic (more consistently in line with the guy that saved the children on the school bus (and got flack for it) and saved the people on the oil rig).

It has nothing to do with the appearance of the villain. In fact I specifically wrote that I didn't mind Superman killing so again, not sure you're reading my posts.

The comment about failing in all aspects of storytelling wasn't mine, but I still disagree with your take on it. The movie has plenty of cases of things you can point to and think the movie is saying one thing then showing another, or downright plot holes. That's not inherent to the property, that's just how the writing is. I've stated many of them in the past but I can list things again if you want.