Superman has been called an "Optimists Fantasy", or maybe something like "Liberal Fantasy", though the second one may be really wrong in a lot of ways.
Superman remains constant: A beacon of hope and light always aiming to do the right thing.
Superman does NOT go through the Hero's Journey. He never questions himself, he never questions what is right (though I am a bit irked that his ideology is so poorly communicated for someone so deep in Journalism as he is supposed to be).
Instead, *the audience* goes through the hero's journey. We start with our stable base of preconcieved notions about who this character is. Our call to action is the fact we are introduced at Superman's first loss. We the audience are brought through the lowest points of seeing Superman's name slandered and smeared. We need the gritty determination to see through the bizarre last moment message of his parent's recorded message. And we come out the other side changed about our perceptions of media...hopefully.
It is a weird message layered on top of a world that supposes the masses will take any media broadcast to heart the moment they hear about it. Looking around our own media landscape, it's disheartening to see how real that may actually be. I suppose it does challenge us to critically think about the difference between some mystery messaging plainly presented versus the years of established selflessness that is the character of Superman.
For marks on the plus side, I did appreciate the film taking a chance on distancing itself from Yet Another Reboot Origin Story. At a runtime passing 2 hours, its smart to avoid retreading a lot of the known lore
In a world of rampant violence and near complete desensitization spiraling down a path of misanthropy and apathy, if not complete juvenile bloodlust, this movie wants to stand a beacon signaling "Be Better".
It's hard not to take that to heart. Superman probably spends more screen time bloodied, battered, and in the midst of struggle (whether physical or emotional) than he spends calm and collected. And yet when the moment comes, he does not engage in savory revenge. Even in Luthor's darkest moment taking in his whole world collapsing, Superman's smirk fades in recognition of human suffering.
I've been hearing endless comparisons calling him "The Boy Scout", but I think that diminishes his values and hints at a naivety that isn't really present, at least not in this incarnation.
Some critics point out at how jam packed to the point of bursting the film is with side characters. This reads as a well established cape shit trope with trade paperback roots. There's a ton of characters for people to latch onto, *especially* if audiences aren't familiar with this roster of heroes, and just say "Oh that one looks cool! I want to know more about them!" And if this film can spark an iota of people's curiosity, I'd tally that as a win toward critical thinking.
There's also something of a trend I have only heard spoken of without seeing it myself. "Kindness is punkrock". I don't have much of a leg to stand on, I have never been deep into the punk scene. But to hear Talisen Jaffe talk about it, punk has its roots deep in kindness with a veneer of agression and frustration acting as a shield against a broken world. Superman would be all the strength of kindness and community without signaling a threat since he already knows his own power in a situation.
If we had superheroes long established in our own reality's history, it's not unthinkable they would be funded for local protections. I imagine other IPs have dug way deeper into concepts of how super powers would eventually have regulations and bureaucracies surrounding them, let alone idealogical differences that would drive super heroes onto opposite sides of the battle field a la Civil War. In this rendition, I found myself confused if the "Justice Gang" was actually a group of good guys by their indifference and rapid distancing between themselves and
