Cavill's world is dark because he is presented to the world in such a negative light. While Hoechlin and Reeve are presented through acts of classical heroism and bravado to the world. Cavill is presented as liability. As a participant in the worst urban terror attack in Metropolis and thus the people mistrust him as any rational person would.
What does any of this have to do with Clark himself as someone who has a hopeful or idealistic attitude? You're talking about the world he inhabits and not the man himself, which was what your previous post was all about. I also don't think you know what the word bravado means. For reference, it means "a pretentious, swaggering display of courage." In other words, false courage. Is that really how you want to describe Reeve's and Hoechlin's Supermen? You also have no idea how Hoechlin's Superman's debut went. I also feel like your description of Zod's attack uses terms that are too close to our vernacular for the destructive and violent events in our real world. It wasn't just an attack on Metropolis. It was an attack on the whole world. The Indian Ocean was the location of one of the world engines and the effect of those engines and Zod's attack would have ruined the entire planet. It wasn't an act of urban terror so much as an act of intimidation, genocide, and world domination.
You're right, though, that it's natural that some would have mistrusted Cavill's Superman after what happened during the Black Zero event, but then people mistrusted him before that, too (the military put him in handcuffs, for example). It was
still only some people who mistrusted him. You can see he's already won a lot of people over in
BvS. By the end of
Man of Steel, Superman had won over some in the military including General Swanwick, Captain Farris, and the guys who actually named him Superman. By
BvS, he had a statue made in his honor in a place called Heroes' Park. He earned Daily Planet "puff pieces" (Bruce tells us at the library gala) and people on the news mostly just ponder him (one even describes him as a "guy trying to do the right thing") more than hate him. Senator June Finch wasn't so much against Superman as wanting to discuss him (she turned down Lex's request for Kryptonite), and in the Ultimate Cut you see a little African-American boy from Gotham and a group of fire fighters saddened at Superman being burned in effigy after the Capitol bombing.
People who mistrusted Superman -- people like Wallace Keefe, Lex Luthor, and Bruce Wayne -- were people who felt traumatized by what had happened in Metropolis or were previously traumatized. Anyone else was pushed to doubt not because of what Superman actually did, but because of Lex's manipulations. To see Cavill's Superman confront those forces of darkness and overcome them is how we can see him in an idealistic and optimistic light whereas Reeve's and Hoechlin's Supermen didn't have to be hopeful or idealistic about anything (Hoechlin's may have at one point, but we didn't see that given he's 12 years into being Superman when we meet him) during their debut.
Reeve also gives interviews to specifically outline his intentions, his motivations, where he comes from, what he intends to do, and his goals--which immediately puts citizens in peace. Cavill mopes around without even an attempt to connect with people as Superman. He speaks to ordinary people as Clark and not as Superman---that is the problem. He tries to convince Lois he didn't do it. But never the public. He never calls in the press to give an interview, to take time and talk to citizens as Superman, to try and alleviate their fears. And that's why they fear him. That's why they don't trust him. All they see is a man involved in two events that recklessly killed innocents. And he seems aloof and unapproachable. While Reeve and Hoechlin come off as kind and hopeful. In Metropolis, nobody feels they can trust Cavill.
Reeve's Superman talked to Lois Lane only and so did Cavill's. Lois wrote up her story in both movies, and in
Man of Steel what she told people about Superman, her "rescuer" as she called him, was that he was a guardian angel. He was someone she trusted so much she was willing to be taken into federal custody to protect him. We later see Superman saving soldiers and walking out of a building in Smallville with those soldiers having grown to respect him. The statue and other elements of
BvS I already mentioned further testify to the admiration and trust that Cavill's Superman had earned through his actions, which can and often do speak louder than words. Other times, like the Senate hearing, Superman does try to talk to the public, but forces of evil prevent that thus making the point that communication is important.
He tries to apologize to Batman but at the hint of first provocation, he immediately strikes as he pushes him back half a mile. He then rams him through a building and then shoves him down the bat signal. He could simply float above and explain the situation but he never does. Because Snyder promised a fight.
That's not a fair description of the scene. Superman tries repeatedly to talk to Bruce, but he can't. He can't fly above either because Batman uses kryptonite on Superman very early and repeatedly in the fight. In the end, we see that Superman didn't give up after the Capitol. He returns to his mission and apologizes to as well as saves his enemies from their own demons whether it's Bruce nearly becoming the murderer of his childhood trauma or Lex being murdered by his Doomsday creation. In his humility and compassion, Superman proves that "men are still good" -- a hopeful message, I would say, wouldn't you?
We're told by Bruce that he saves cats from trees but we are never SHOWN. And that's the problem. Reeve's Superman is SHOWN doing so and SHOWN being benevolent to a little girl despite being a god. That makes him instantly likable. That image sticks in the minds of people. Cavill is never shown rescuing the people from the flood. He simply floats above like a God in the clouds.
I see you've conveniently left out his saving the girl from the fire in Juarez where he, smiling, carries her to the family and community members gathered. Sure, we're not shown him saving cats from trees, but we do see him saving people like that little girl. The tone of that montage switches in order to continue the theme and develop the plot of how his benevolent acts are misrepresented or how perception is different from the reality. Why are you believing the lie? Ultimately, the image that sticks is the scores of people at his funeral in DC and at his memorial honoring him as a fellow soldier and citizen as well as an example to follow.
The man was loved. The man inspired.
He works with WW and Batman but as a team they never actually discuss tactics other than "did you get the spear?". They work individually doing their own thing without consulting each other and everything just happens to fall into place in the end. For example, the Avengers continually discuss during on how to bring someone down or fight.
They can see what the other is doing, and they aren't fighting each other. They are just starting out as a team and dealing with an imminent threat. They're collaborating, and there's nothing cynical or pessimistic about that. Furthermore, the point is that after the fight, and Superman's death, Batman's faith in his mission and in men is restored. Wonder Woman's belief that people can still work together and "share," to use her words, following her discouragement from the evils of the twentieth century, is reborn. They both then translate that renewed faith into seeking out others like them and forming the Justice League. Superman inspired that through his example.
Reeve handles a bully who was threatening the diner's owners and bossing the people around. It also works as a cinematic crowd pleasing moment--something Cavill never has. Cavill destroys a truck driver's livelihood by smashing up his truck in MOS if you recall. But it's not a big deal.
Nope. That's not what happens. In the Donner Cut, the bully isn't threatening anyone. He just says the food is "garbage" and then Clark comes in insults the guy, instigates a fight, and proceeds to spin him around and push him around. It is a crowd pleasing moment, and so is Cavill's Clark doing the trick with the trucks (something Welling's Clark did in Smallville's "Pilot" by the way). The truck damage wouldn't destroy the man's livelihood. He likely doesn't own it, and it's probably insured for damage done by accidents or crimes done by others and not the driver himself. He probably had to fill out some paperwork but got another truck to drive eventually. Nonetheless, don't forget Cavill's Clark's other moments related to bullies. He saved Pete Ross as a child and earns his loyalty and friendship. He doesn't retaliate against the bullies who attack him outside the Sullivan mechanic shop as a teen. He's bullied by Lex, Batman, and the whole world and he saves them, forgives them, and dies for them.
Reeve giving up his powers was an extremely interesting way to take the character forward. Superman is so selfless all the time, what if once he decided to be selfish and decided he wanted to be happy, to be human, to be loved like the rest of us? That's an interesting analysis of the character. Something Sam Raimi borrowed later for Spider Man 2. Both those films are critically acclaimed and heavily appreciated by audiences for tackling this subject.
It still makes him selfish and shows, contrary to your claims, that somehow Cavill's Superman is inferior because he doesn't care about people. If you're going to justify a storytelling beat that helps to develop a character by exposing a flaw and having it overcome, then that justification applies to Cavill's Superman's struggles, too. At least when he was considering not doing the Superman job anymore, it was because he was seeing that it may have been causing more harm than good; he thought not doing it would actually serve the greater good. Reeve's Superman gives it all up for something much lesser. I think all of these arcs are interesting and worthwhile whereas you seem to only be able to accept one thing.
Reeve is down and sad, but in those moments notice how he's always alone. He never mopes in front of people. He always smiles no matter how sad he is because the people rely on him for comfort and relief that everything is going to be fine. That's Superman. And in the sequence you posted Superman is beaten and heavily ill after his confrontation with nuclear man. Cavill is never physically ill or beaten.
First of all, how can you say he doesn't mope in front of people when the example I provided literally has him moping with Lois sitting right next to him? Yes, he was ill from his fight, but the fact that he was ill made him insecure, isolated, and emotionally troubled. Second, what kind of message are you sending by suggesting that expressing emotions is somehow wrong and shameful, that it has to only be done in absolute privacy? That's not the message of
Inside Out, which has the protagonist (Joy) and the tween girl, Riley, she is in charge of emotionally (Joy is one emotion inside Riley's consciousness).
If it's right and good for regular people, then it's right and good for Superman. It's okay for public figures, like Michelle Obama in her glorious speech this past week, to respond to evil and inspire people by showing one's distress but also fighting back. Slapping on a superficial smile doesn't always provide relief and comfort either. But if smiles are needed, then Superman did smile with the girl and people of Juarez outside the fire on the Day of the Dead.
Can't really disagree with this! I'm really glad you're able to love all of them. I truly am. I hope I can as well, after more discussions. But presently it is not so. Perhaps after JL
Cool. If you want to keep discussing this, you can do it via private message. That way we can clear the way for more Hoechlin-based discussion rather than the Reeve vs. Cavill conversation we're presently having.