I'm having a hard time putting a positive spin on unironic apologetics for a movie that so clearly misrepresents a classic character. MoS even fails to make a compelling case for its own violent, brooding alternative to the colorful champion in the comics and Reeve films.
The iconic hero of pop culture doesn't typically lay waste to cities without regard for collateral damage, just saying.
Especially given the tone deaf decision to include what essentially amounts to 9/11 imagery in the film.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say most people, especially Americans, don't really want a Superman that arrives late to 9/11 and then fistfights a terrorist in the street before breaking his neck.
They want a Superman that can fucking stop 9/11.
And yeah, yeah, I realize he saved the world. But that's not what audiences are feeling. That's an intellectual truism and not the evidence of eyes and ears.
The mixed message of Jenny looking on in awe at Superman saying, "He saved us." when her face is smeared grey with the dust of the utter carnage surrounding her while standing in the middle of a place so decimated it looks like an urban corner of hell is striking. And not in a good way. The day has been saved, but it does not feel saved. And because this is a story and not an event that really happened in real life, how it feels matters. It matters a lot.
Realism is not all it's cracked up to be in fiction. When people say they want realism, mostly what they are saying is they're looking for verisimilitude and unbroken immersion. A story should feel consistent. It should first feel right and then secondly it should make a good deal of sense. If you can only pick one, pick heart over head every time. What you can get away with in storytelling is all about what your audience will allow you. Charm and levity are important in that. As Oscar Wilde once said, "If you have to tell people the truth, make sure you make them laugh. Otherwise, they'll kill you."