I explained why. In my view, Superman works best when you really focus on the contrast between alien god and humanity. That involves more than super powers and heroic feats, it involves a contrast in mindsets. Loeb got that. With that godlike ability, it's important to see a clear reason WHY Clark is the boy scout. If he had a modem human worldview, he would either be a Batman/Punisher type character that can fly or he would be closer to his Red Son iteration. Neither is a Superman that I wish to see on screen.
We need a strong contrast between Superman and humanity, to make the ways he inspires us more thematically impacting. Furthermore, we need a strong contrast between the hero and the arch nemesis. Nobody screams modern human more than Lex Luthor, and his hubris is best shown against Superman's purity.
Just my opinion anyhow. I found Birthright boring and shallow in comparison to For All Seasons.
I see what you are going for in your approach. My "why" was actually to the more specific question of "why would he be naive? from a logical standpoint?" What would make him that way? I think you're goal can be achieved without him coming across as "naive" or a simpleton. He's an interesting/complex character, there isn't anything simple aobut him. Having a strong moral code and growing up in the mid-west doesn't equate with being a simpleton or naive person.
I know plenty of people from small communities and and if anything they are more "down to earth" and easily relatable. But imagine someone with that background then traveling the world seeing things that no other human has seen. What kind of mindset would they develop? It certainly wouldn't be a "naive" or simple one. I'd think they would see the world as one big community and appreciate life that much more. Personally i think All-Star Superman handled it best. Sure he's from the country, and likes it there, he even plans on staying until his father died. You get to see the difference bw his early years, then how his time as Superman, the things he's seen, he's various adventures, matured him into the ultimate hero. He's certainly not "naive".
I know it's just your opinion and you have every right to it. I hope i'm not coming across in a negative way, if so i apologize. I just think if the filmakers want to create a Superman franchise that will be successful, then the last thing they need is for him to feel irrelevent. It's like how many people had no interest in Batman Begins, b/c they weren't crazy about the old films. To them (i know one of my friends felt this way) Batman was pretty boring, just this guy in costume with gadgets. Then they saw the film and were blown away. They really liked how it gave Bruce Wayne actual layers as a full formed character, etc.
That's the treatment superman needs. People need to see that he can be just as interesting as any other character, but more so, that he has a personality, is fun, etc. It's the mind set that "superman is boring" stops many people from giving him a chance. The character is as interesting/relevent as he's written to be. If they craft a fully formed 3d character in clark kent and Superman then i'm sure audiences will enjoy and maybe leave with a new perspective on the character. LIke "superman's not dull or naive, he's pretty interesting" Personally i thought Birthright, specifically the first few issues handeld this really well, clark seemed like an actual person, not a cliche or "symbol" but a person, same treatment with Superman. That's the sort of thing a modern audience will respond to. If you make him boring or naive in the film, then the negative view of the character is simply getting reinforced and his relevance diminishes even more. Make him interesting and the public's persecption will change.
