Christopher R Taylor

That's because to you (and me), these are superhero stories. To the studios, they're action movies that happen to star superheroes, and they're not going to "arbitrarily" define a fundamental action movie trope just because it happens to conflict with a bunch of comics books. I'm not saying I like or agree with it. But from their perspective it's far from arbitrary.

Why do they always have kill the villains in the movies? Something about that bothers me, not on some moral level, but just in terms of the sheer wastefulness of it. Part of the superhero tradition is that villains return to cause problems for the heroes over and over again. The MCU should not treat its villains as so disposable.

You know what I'd do if I woke up every morning with boundless strength, bulletproof skin, a ripped physique, stunning good looks, and the ability to fly?
 
Smile.  I'd smile all day long.  I'd smile constantly. I'd be upbeat and cheerful and happy all the time.
 
Not frowning and worried and cloudy skies.

Problem is that he didn't learn anything.  The first time he punches Kryptonian thug and he crashes into a building he should have gone "oh crap!  Look at the damage, those people were hurt!" and then he tries not to do that.   This is all just excuse making for the writing.  They wanted epic damage and huge, massive strength on display.  Look, he punched him so hard, the building collapsed!  ITS EPIC!!!!!!

I don't actually have to debate you, nor am I inclined to do so. You present as fact your opinion repeatedly, in obviously subjective areas. At best it's a straw man argument being set up, and I have better ways to spend my time.
 
Again, I merely pointed out your choice of terms and arguments appear intentionally insulting to those with opposing views. Similar to if one were to say: "Those who prefer iron age violence, like Frank Miller's depiction of Batman, are emotionally stunted adolescents and his body of work is massively overrated". One can even produce examples (All Star Batman which I consider hot garbage, discussion about the shock value fading over time, author's apparent disdain for the genre) and ramble on about it. This doesn't make for a civil approach to a discussion, or make the stated opinion correct. Those elements are your opinion and interpretation, I respectfully disagree.

That's what makes snapping someone's neck by twisting heroic. Anybody can just pull someone's head straight back. Only a hero would go the extra mile and do what it takes to get the job done right.

Forget it, he's rolling

Exactly.  Well stated overall.  The inability to comprehend or see this is a troubling reminder of how odd our culture has become.

Exactly.  Well stated overall.  The inability to comprehend or see this is a troubling reminder of how odd our culture has become.

I'm sure there are folks out there who want Superman to be kind and gentle and pacifistic or something, but that certainly isn't me. There's a difference between being honorable and virtuous and being completely non-violent.
 
Is Superman violent? Of course he is. He fights with the energy output of major nuclear weapons. Will there be collateral damage? Of course. These are superhero/supervillain fights he's getting into. There's going to be a lot of material damage, but comics tradition typically dictates that the cost in human lives is pretty minimal, even if that isn't terribly "realistic".
 
Can Superman get angry? Of course he can. But if that turns him into an angry man, that's different. Usually his anger gets channeled into a grim determination at worst. If he loses control and becomes reckless or hateful, then that's not Superman. Maybe it is Superman under the influence of red kryptonite or Braniac's mind control or something, but it isn't part of his core character.
 
Does Superman kill? Sure, when the writers have lost their way, IMO. Writers who understand and respect the core of his character will always find a way to avoid having him kill an adversary. Full stop. The fact that Supermam has killed before in the comics doesn't mean that killing is a core part (or even an acceptable part) of Superman's character, it only means that someone got it wrong (again, IMO). The same can be said of any film portrayal.
 
Was Superman born with a perfect moral architecture? Of course not. He learned that--or at least the human version of it--from Ma and Pa Kent. But the idea is that by the time he put on the blue supersuit he had integrated all the best features of "being human" and came to embody our ideal selves. Can he make errors in judgment and mistakes in action? Sure, but such moments should be rare, and they should be used merely to give Superman an opportunity to overcome those momentary lapses and return to the righteous path.
 
Should Superman be a light-hearted happy-go-lucky goof? Of course not. By the same token he shouldn't be a brooding, angst-filled figure of self-doubt. There is actually a middle ground that easily walks the line between the two, but I did not see that happening in MoS. I tend to see it in the animated versions of Superman (not all, but most). It's as if WB thinks that the only way to make Superman suitable for adults is to make him into an adult saddled with all the same neuroses as the writers tasked with making him fit the contemporary zeitgeist. Sorry, but I happen to think that is profoundly misguided.
 
The dramatic tension in a Superman story should never be one where the circumstances put him in a crisis situation and we wonder whether or not he will do the right thing, but whether or not he'll be able to do the right thing. His struggle should never be existential or ethical, but practical: Can he (find a way to) defeat Zod without hurting civilians and/or killing him, not will he choose to do so.

I don't understand this phrase "unwanted RPG stuff" you use.  I mean, the words by themselves make sense but in that combination...

I think the problem is that we only saw angry, brooding, fighting Supes, and we didn't see optimistic, outgoing, role model Supes.

Isn't it possible that peoples' definitions of grim, dark, gritty, angsty, etc. are just that different; and that no one is ever going to have the same opinion of character depictions.
 
Some will like them and others won't.
 
 
Just sayin'.

I have stuff going back to Mythic Greece at home, but here's my PDF collection.

And I think that's why it is difficult to take a "realistic" approach with these characters. They would quickly implode from the sheer implausibility of their circumstances. I just feel that humanizing a character like Superman (too much) undermines his ability to actually do the job assigned to him. 
 
That's part of the answer and part of it is that its mythical, not gritty, as has been noted too.  And yeah, not everyone gets moody and depressed under stress, some benefit from it and are even more cheerful.  I get that this kind of Superman doesn't appeal to everyone, but its true to his character and concept, rather than dark skies and grim demeanor.  But there are some who'll never be reached with this simple truth, because it just isn't what they want to see.

You know what I'd do if I woke up every morning with boundless strength, bulletproof skin, a ripped physique, stunning good looks, and the ability to fly?
 
Smile.  I'd smile all day long.  I'd smile constantly. I'd be upbeat and cheerful and happy all the time.
 
Not frowning and worried and cloudy skies.

You know what I'd do if I woke up every morning with boundless strength, bulletproof skin, a ripped physique, stunning good looks, and the ability to fly?
 
Smile.  I'd smile all day long.  I'd smile constantly. I'd be upbeat and cheerful and happy all the time.
 
Not frowning and worried and cloudy skies.

You know what I'd do if I woke up every morning with boundless strength, bulletproof skin, a ripped physique, stunning good looks, and the ability to fly?
 
Smile.  I'd smile all day long.  I'd smile constantly. I'd be upbeat and cheerful and happy all the time.
 
Not frowning and worried and cloudy skies.

I agree. Of course, that is not what I was saying. I'm not sure if you just oversimplified my point to draw up a straw man, or if I was being too subtle. In either case, let me clarify. 
The range of human emotions is quite broad. Not all heroes need display every single human emotion. The more noble and virtuous will, by definition, avoid all of the uglier emotions and behaviors. It will simply not be in their nature to succumb to those tendencies (if they have them at all, which is arguable if the subject isn't even human to begin with).
 
I don't subscribe to the notion that if a character does not display the full range of human emotion that they are "shallow". They are just more crisply defined. And when we're talking about a myth-level archetype, it isn't necessary for him/her to be the Everyman that stands in for us all. He (or she) may stand in for all our hopes and dreams (i.e., the wish fulfillment angle), and could be far more valuable as an aspirational paragon than as a metaphor for the human condition.

Dragging superheroes like Superman down to our level is fraught with all kinds of deconstructionist pitfalls. I don't want my Superman to be brooding or pensive or full of self doubt or any of the other neurotic ills that afflict normals humans. I need my Superman to be a steady rock of confidence and a moral compass that always points to true north. That is only ever boring when the story surrounding him is boring.
 
If a publisher wants a Superman character who gets consumed by rage, guilt, jealousy, indecision, or any number of other petty traits we normally associate with "real people", then they should go for it, but they should give him a new name, a new costume, a new origin story, and his own title. Calling him Superman is disingenuous, no matter how strong your legal hold on the IP is.

I wasn't strictly speaking of his characterization in MoS, but the various temperments he (or some variant of him) has shown in recent years in the comics. The thing is, this tendency to keep messing with the Superman recipe in the comics leads to a distinct lack of consistent vision for him in the movies as well.

I don't think it is the hitting of the wall that is expected to kill a normal when Superman punches them. I think the 25d6 damage roll will do that sufficiently on its own. Obviously the reason normals don't die is because Superman doesn't hit them with all of his STR. Presumably he applies a very small amount of STR, just enough to take them down without killing or maiming them. If that also sends them through a wall, it is probably due to artistic license (beyond the norm for the genre), not due to fidelity to comic book physics.

Superman doesn't have to turn evil to be out of character; all it takes is straying noticeably from the path of high virtue. There's a reason he's called the Big Blue Boyscout...

I heard someone once explain the popularity in America of Superman and Spider-Man as follows: 
Superman is who we wish we were - omnipotent and with the highest ethical standards Spider-Man is who we think we are - great power with great responsibility, muddling through while fighting the good fight

TheDarkness, you make some very good points regarding several of the characters you mention. However, I do dispute a few of your conclusions, which I will cherry-pick from your earlier post:
 
 
If you are referring to the version of Captain America appearing in the movies, I agree that during WW II, and when he first "thaws out" in the present day, he would follow the orders of his government almost without question. He even has a line to Tony Stark to that effect in the first Avengers movie. But that's the beauty of his story arc from his first film to the recent Civil War. This version of Steve Rogers has seen his world change dramatically. Even before the revelation of HYDRA, he conflicted with the ethics of SHIELD. He has come to recognize that his ideals don't always match the priorities of modern governments, and has chosen to stand by his ideals.Within the context of what's happened in his movies, this change of perspective makes perfect sense. And it has much precedent from the comics, going back to the Vietnam War era and Steve's adoption of the identity of Nomad, when he felt he could no longer in good conscience act as a symbol of his country.
 
The reason Superman would have to act evil is that, for all his power, he thinks and feels like a human being. Can you imagine what the vast majority of humans would do if they had the power to take anything they want, kill anyone who bothers them, without fear of punishment? That's what Superman would have to gain -- literally whatever he might desire. What's compelling about Superman is that the only thing keeping him from doing that is his profound belief that it would be wrong; that all his power doesn't make him fundamentally better than anyone else. There have been a number of Superman story lines where he's been sorely tempted to cross the line he sets for himself (see Superman vs The Elite for one example), and various alternate-world stories where he has (such as the recent Injustice: Gods Among Us video game).
 
Superman not only has to hold himself back emotionally, but physically as well. He's acutely aware that his punches could kill people, and he's trained himself to use only the minimal force necessary. (Check out his, "I live in a world made of cardboard" speech from the last episode of the Justice League Unlimited animated series.)