UPD2. Oh, wait! That scene was also in Smallivlle. And in Man of Steel Clark didn't have any friends. Apparently noone have thought that Clark could just reveal himself to a few people instead the whole world at once.

I think this is the key issue in these films. Superman is a character who has been shaped and developed over the past 80 years to have a specific set of behaviors and morals. Zack Snyder has said that he didn't like these kind of comic book characters. So he rejected their classic characterizations and created new morals and behaviors. But in doing so he is ignoring what made these characters popular in the first place, he is ignoring the source material. The backlash against the current DCEU comes from the same place as the backlash against Michael B Jordan as Johnny Storm.

Backlash? I never heared about backlash - only about Fantastic Four and DCEU being mediocre movies (which I mostly agree).

The "source material" is incredibly varried, and having different approaches to comic book characters is their second nature by now. Snyder didn't "ignore" the source material any more than Tim Burton or Christopher Nolan in their Batman movies.

And I don't see why choosing to be the hero is somehow "worse" for Superman than just being one by destiny's mandate. I'd think it's much more admirable to have a choice and choose to be the hero, than to be one out of some obligation.

Having different approaches to the same character is one thing, but completely rewriting a character is another. Both Burton and Nolan presented variations of the material, but they kept the essence of the character the same. You can hold each version up to other iterations of the character and see that it's all pretty much the same. The differences are largely due to the kind of world built around them. Neither Burton nor Nolan went the route to make Batman a villainous serial killer. The Batman v Superman version of the Dark Knight doesn't feel connected to any version that came before. This is because he was never meant to represent the source material, Snyder changed the character to fit with a story rather than craft his story with the characters that already existed.

As to Superman choosing to be a hero, every version has him making that same choice and there is nothing wrong with that. The difference is that every version has him basing that choice on a similar moral character instilled on him by the Kents. Johnathan Kent sees that his son has powers and knows that he will never be able to physically stop a determined Clark with anything other than his words. He must teach his son values and life lessons in a way that mere words from his father will have meaning. At no point was there ever a lesson in "let others die to keep your privacy" for any other version of the character. Until now the real struggle of Superman was not choosing whether or not to be a hero, it was dealing with his limitations as a hero. Saving people from a burning building, catching a falling plane or simply bending a child's bike back into shape are things he can do, but for all his powers he can't stop a heart attack or cure cancer.

This is why the Red Son storyline was so interesting, it's a Nature vs Nurture thought experiment with the character. He still chooses to become the hero, but his goals and motivations are shaped by a different world view. Also the twist ending was pretty cool.

Yeah, except for the part where Burton's batman kills, which is just about the most un-Batman behaviour you can have.

Come on. It's like you're trying to sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

Except for the increasingly violent post-Jason Todd's death Batman from A Lonely Place of Dying for example. You know, how we are also clearly shown in the movie that Robin is dead, killedb y the Joker and dialogue explicitly references dead and/or corrupted former allies.

But no, no, we shouldn't let the fact that Batman was already killing in the Burton movies or was shown having his self-control slipping in the comics stop us from hating Snyder :P

And this is a different story, with a different dilema. Oh, the horror. There's nothing interesting about watchign SUperman not being able to cure cancer. It is interesting to see him struggle with the responsibilty and consequences of his powers and his alien origin.

Finally, as I said before- you don't like it. Fine. You're so fixated on having only one "right" approach to Superman - fine. But don't mistake a different approach for a bad movie. Nothing new or interesting can be made if all we do is reguritate the same thing over and over again.

Maybe if you think that not helping people when he clearly has the means to do so is not immoral by default. For most people, it's just lots of faffing about while having him ponder between the obviously correct thing to do and the selfish, dickish choice, while the movie acts like that's not the case.

That's all fine and good in the simplistic, Silver Age-ish approach where that's all there is to it. But in any more realistic approach both the revelation that inteligent alien life exists, and even more so a super powered demi-god living among men have tremendous consequences that have to be weighed. It's not like Clark in Man of Steel doesn't want to help people. We see very clearly that he has that instinct to do so. Jonathan isn't trying to teach Clark to be selfish. He's trying to make him realise the full extent of those consequences, and to have him only step up and reveal himself once he's sure it's the right thing and he is willing to go through with it, not to act on impulse. Being "a hero" is not as simple as puting on a cape. That's the whole point of both Man of Steel and BvS. The story Clark remembers Jonathan telling him in BvS illustrates that perfectly.

Again, if you can't stand such an approach to those heroes, if you can only accept them flawless, perfect, living in a simplistic world for fun and escapism - fine. That's your prerogative. That does not mean that a movie or a comic that explores a different approach is bad.

Oh yeah. Becoming the governments super soldier is not going to have tremendous consequences at all.

He's still learning his powers. He does not even fly until way later in the movie when he already wears the suit. It's not the boring silver-age Superman who can do everything and everything is easy. You can just as well complain he could use his super ventriloquism and amnesia- inducing kisses to remain secret. The point is to have him still have limitations and therefore have to face the consequences rather than circoumvent them. A character who can avoid all adversity is not interesting.

Again, you're only and ever complaining not about the movie itself, but about how it's not the super-duper-hurr-durr-fluffy Superman you want. Yes, it is not. We've established as much. I don't expect you to like it. Move on.

Man of Steel is no less a simplistic world of escapism than those Silver Age heroes, except aimed at the edgy teenagers crowd instead of children.

Ok.

Of course it is. But not the ones that would be in "reveal to whole world at once" scenario.
Yes, and instead of advising to develop his abilities to become better (and stealthier) J. Kent just tells him "let people die".
WOW! Just, wow! Not only I never told you anything that would suggest that I want Superman to be perfect and invincible, I also specifically said that my qualm is with one-dimentional characters like J. Kent, Zod and Lex Luthor (in BvS), not with abilities of Superman that actually the same as Clark in Smallville. But of course YOU know better what I want to say!

When you're rich, bored, and lack morals, you can do anything. Snuff parties, pedo rings, human trafficking, a sex slave cult... you name it you can probably buy it.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/04/20/smallville-actress-allison-mack-arrested-for-alleged-sex-cult-involvement-reports-say.html

Allison Mack was arrested today.

Interestingly, her sex-slave recruitment bit on her website is still up: http://www.allisonmack.com/my_passions/jness/