The difference is, it's an origin movie. Origin movies are about HOW the hero became the hero.
That something should adhere to conventions, such as the 'cbm rules of an origin story' is entirely subjective. Case in point: people tell unconventional stories all the times and they tell them in unconventional ways. People make unconventional films as well. That's my immediate respond to your statement.
If the hero became the man he is because he was raised in a warm and loving environment, then you should SHOW that warm and loving environment as part of the heroes origin tale. If it's a HUGE part of how he became the hero (which I believe it is), you give it a fair amount of screen time. You don't just mention it in passing or allude to it slightly.
It failed you because it didn't do something which you believe it should have. That's my understanding. That being said, I personally think they showed plenty of his loving environment. I think the simple fact that he witnessed his own father die for him is indicative of that which you claim isn't present(on screen). I'm having a hard time naming other super heroes having their parent(s) sacrificed their lives literally for hero in question(save for naruto and potter to an extent). You brushing off what was shown is your prerogative but I have the grounds to assert that it was there. Now it's a matter of debating if there is enough...which is always fun btw. Either way, that should put to rest this idea that "it wasn't there".
That they lifted the father son hugging/crying in the cornfields scene from secret origins...
You've basically got a kid who is desperate to connect with a Dad that's kind of distant and so bogged down in fear and pessimism about humanity that he ends up stunting his sons capacity to be heroic. He still can't help himself, but his early heroism isn't a product of his family's support and encouragement... it's DESPITE his family's dissaproval and discouragement.
Let's pursue this idea of discouragement(though I personally only see disapproval of early exposure). What exactly is the qualm with this? For example if we look at the Steven Rogers paradigm, you find inspiration in a man/hero that persisted in the face of constant discouragement and harshness of environment to become a 'really good person/hero'. I have to assume this is the part where one downplays this direction when applied to superman, in favor of the tried and true approach that has been applied to him in the past? Which is why I always advocate for inherent value.
Looking further into Steve Rogers, you have someone that simply cannot find a way to contribute until the joseph campbell character shows up and gives him a way, enlightenment (and an extra push in the right direction, maybe even a costume). Both Steve and Clark doing good deeds leading up to and before this opportuinty(Clark doing more of course).
Again, I ask, just what is so wrong with this approach other then that it's different? Is it because you feel that if clark doens't get the encouragement during his young 'human' life than the turn to hero is a product of Jor? Because I would argue, that like Rogers, he's the hero long before that. Jor only proves an avenue(just like Eskire).
I think Batman Begins did a very good job of showing the loving relationship between Bruce and his father, and how good a man his father was.
FYI the stethoscope scene is still one of my favorite parts of the film. It's just such a sweet moment.
Yes, they showed the love between the two. However, they never showed two seconds of Thomas encouraging his son to go out and fight crime(or equivalent stakes JK was referring to). They focused on the love between a father and son. I argue when it comes to that aspect alone, MOS delivers. Jon loved his son and his son loved him back surely you argree. This isn't just some inferred insight, it's right there in all their scenes together.
You opened this discussion talking about how that was key to superman being both superman and having humanity in your opinion, and here we are.
