I don't think those that didn't enjoy the movie have done a particularly good job articulating their grievances but I think much of it centres around the bolded.
In Man of Steel the only thing that separated him from any other guy with an angsty troubled childhood, were the powers and for many people that just isn't Superman.
We buy into the idea of Superman as an unassailable force for good because we are shown people believing in him and time and again having their faith rewarded (religious metaphors are always unavoidable here) and there isn't a single Superman origin story that hasn't tried to set that tone initially. This dynamic gives him what you could cynically argue are two of his most powerful weapons; image and propaganda. In fact him having an alter-ego that works at a global newspaper is hugely convenient because how people feel about what Superman is doing is often more important just as important as what Superman is actually doing and it allows us to keep tabs on his public perception.
If he doesn't have that public trust then he's a short stop away from being an alien, something to be feared, an undesirable lightning rod for devastation and destruction. Time and again we've seen his enemies make him vulnerable by tarnishing his character but Man of Steel subverted the lofty hopes expectations people are supposed have of Superman without having set them up in the first place. For almost everyone in the world him being exposed as an alien interloper by Zod and their fight in Metropolis was the first they knew about him and try as I might I don't see how they can legitimately build him up as a public heroic figure that people would put their faith in. At this point the only thing that makes sense is humanity demanding that he leave Earth.
The reason why people harp on about why it is so hard to write good Superman stories is because he is supposed to embody something approaching perfection. Snyder and co did away with that element of his character in an effort to create something more relatable but that's the interesting thing. It turns out a lot of people don't want to relate to Superman, they want to be inspired by him. The internal juxtaposition of Superman/Clark Kent is useful because it starkly signposts the difference between the mundane and the awe inspiring (honestly I'm in no way mad that they did away with that or the daily planet gig but they didn't really add anything to take its place. As a result he's 33 in the movie yet his life feels void and empty.)
Now you could suggest that that on a human level its impossible to make an inspirational Superman movie without being corny or sacrificing realism but that ignores the conceit that allows us to accept him as a proposition in the first place. The idea of anything as perfect as we purport superman to be is hugely unrealistic, not because of his abilities alone but in how they interact with his character and what we already understand about the nature of power. Nothing that strong should be that humble and incorruptible Nothing that fast should be so patient. Nobody that isolated should have that much empathy. We allow ourselves to be drawn in because he represents the best of everything we want to believe about humanity.
I feel you could do anything you wanted in a Superman movie and as long as you captured the essence of that and for many Man of Steel didn't.
If you can do anything why you shoot down him being a juvenile delinquent







like I say Superman can be as perfect as you want him to be but young Clark could've had some REAL growing pains,the growing pains would actually explain superman and make you root for him for a reason other than we supposed to.....I don't give a damn if comic fans don't want him explained just because they grew up on em and didn't question it as a kid....but I guess that's just the way it is,the story of supermans life

Last edited: