I agree with being sick of the Jesus parallels as well, it was more than a little in your face and on the nose with MoS; it bothered me at the time and still does now.
If I had to pick I would say I "grew up" on Superman and Batman, but I'm a comic book guy through and through and I want BOTH to succeed and be wildly popular. As much as some of the DCEU fans here like to hate on Marvel, the MCU to me does a better job with a potentially "corny, difficult to write for boyscout-type character", and that is Captain America. Others may find this boring but it really worked for me and made me shake me head that the handlers of the DCEU were afraid to write a more traditional Superman, instead of embracing it.
Captain America in the MCU and the Superman I've always envisioned are known as the moral centres of the universes. There may be difficult decisions, or even Kobayashi Maru type scenarios but these two gents know what to do and the other heroes look up to them if moral guidance is required. The MCU ran with this, and it culminates in Civil War.
Superman has been typically written as a Christian but this isn't even necessary, although it should put the Superman = Jesus stories to rest. Superman is a servant like all the true heroes. Whether he chooses to serve God or humanity, take your pick but this is what makes a Bruce Wayne shake his head in admiration at Clark Kent. To me, this was the deepest part of Justice League and one of the few things they did right: Bruce's little monologue musing that Clark was more human than he was. Unfortunately, neither character had earned that moment but it's neither here nor there.
I had always imagined one of the things that would drive Clark is the fact that even with his vast powers, he CANNOT SAVE EVERYONE. I would imagine if "traditional" Superman would have any reason to be a little depressed it would be for those he couldn't be there in time for. But I would also imagine that being the stand up fellow he is, he would use it as motivation to try harder next time.
I think people tend to exaggerate, overestimate, or incorrectly gauge what Fiege brought to the table (and I wholeheartedly agree, it was a lot, Kevin Fiege, the victory is YOURS!) He's not sitting there and writing the dialogue or the set pieces, although I'm sure he has little bits to share and shape. He's a businessman first, he had a strategic (i.e. long game) plan for the entire franchise. Pure speculation but I would guess that the reason MCU went with Thanos for the final confrontation would be because they would have predicted DC would eventually counter with Darkseid. He knew that comic fans are plugged and many don't need introductions for most, probably all of the characters. It was the general audience, the non-fans he wanted to win and earn brand loyalty from. This careful, slowcooker/marinate build up to Avengers ensured that to the "generals", MCU had the first team up movie, and had proper introductions for all involved. MCU showed Thanos first, it doesn't matter that Darkseid came first in the comics, to the generals, Darkseid is now forever in danger of being "Thanos-Lite".
As much as I dislike/have grown to hate Snyder's vision, the amalgam mess that was JL is worse. To the generals, JL is literally half "Marvel ultra-lite". I would call JL's Whedon bits RC Cola, while Marvel is Coke/Pepsi, but this is an insult to RC Cola. Its okay for the universes to be different, in the case of quality films this is welcomed and embraced. What we got was worse, my opinion but I don't think Snyder's vision would have been necessarily better, but it would have been coherent and somewhat mesh with what came before.
The ultimate thing a Fiege would have brought to DC is the foresight and wherewithal to simply say no to certain creative decisions. TBH, spitballing here, but if Fiege had run the DCEU it wouldn't have even been a case of saying "no, Superman will not kill at the end of his first movie; no, Batman will not spend the first half of the sequel killing dozens of people in a car chase". I don't think Snyder would have even been long, let alone short listed for the director's role. And if he had, during the "present me your vision for Superman" meetings he would have been asked (politely) to leave half way through.
WB has a tough decision. They can go back to being the "director's studio", in which case let the director finish his vision. But you can't go back and say later "I don't like where this is going", you should have vetted such concerns AT THE BEGINNING! With no disrespect to Geoff Johns, I don't believe he is the answer because Fiege has shown you need knowledge, but not granular knowledge of the comics to succeed. It's more important to have a long-range strategic plan of how to introduce the various bits, leading up to earning a team up movie that people will actually care about. All due (sincere) respect to those who loved the Snyderverse, your opinion is valid, no sarcasm intended. However, unless WB's desire is to minimize profits on passion projects for a small (but extremely vocal) segment of comic book/Zack Snyder fans, then it's time to find the right business guy who understands and loves the characters.
TLDR: don't be afraid of your characters, and their "platonic" representations... embrace them! Get your Fiege, but understand what he really does. The Snyderverse, all things told, made a bunch of money, but are we ignoring the built in audience that a Superman or a Batman + Superman movie would bring in? And that the Snyderverse might have actually turned off some of these built in fans?
