Then you deviate too much from the source material, to the point where these are not the same characters. If you want to make a deconstruction movie about a super-powered person, make a MiracleMan movie, not a brooding Superman one. Every character has his or her own characteristics that make them unique. The moment you take them away to make them "different", is the moment you're not making a movie based on them, but rather using their name to make a flick based on an entirely different character.
Superman is caring, loving and fights for Truth, Justice and the Amrican Way. He's not brooding or dark. In the same vein, Spider-Man is a jokester with an optimistic outlook on life. Moon Knight is a ****ed up psycho that enjoys putting the hurt in folks. Nick Fury is a war-loving SOB that will sacrifice everything and everyone in his "crusade". Deviate too much from these characters by making, say, Spider-Man be a pessimist due to Gwen's death, and you lose the essence of the character.
The super-hero genre is based on good's triumph of evil. Even when things are bleak, or when a major crossover rolls around and someone dies, he or she still comes back a few months later in huge, mega-event that will sell like hotcakes. That's the heart of those books. Optimism, justice, the joy of life even in the bleakest of moments. For all of his darkness, even Batman is rather loving towards his extented family and yes, has some love in his life. That's why they're "capes".
Nobody is saying that CBMs can't be deep, or abstract or whatever. It's just that the capes can't be, because otherwise, they lose what makes them what they are. So yes, the major, mainstream books that everyone's been reading since a wee lad can't be translated in the big screen and make everyone wonder about the meaning of life or its futility. That's the job of other, more fringe and more niche books. As I've said already, there are exceptions. The X-Men, Swamp-Thing, The Punisher, Fury, all depending on the take, can be made into serious flicks that could challenge the viewr. But these work because such topics are built into their DNA.
Again, CBMs can be complex, abstract or whatever. It's just that ******* Superman and Batman can't be, because they're grown men in spandex fighting a guy who can shoot beams out of his eyes, while an ancient woman made of clay (or is the daughter of Zeus) aids them. If you want to do deconstruction, adapt Millar's Jupiter stuff, or MiracleMan, or even Sentry. Do not turn Superman into a brooding arsehole just too be "different".
And no, most didn't "hate" the movie due to it being "different" and "out of the norm". Most hated because it had problems, such as choppy writting, plot conveniences, crappy editting and most of all, it was pretentious as ****. There's a difference between realism and Snyder's nihilism. Realism is life, which, newsflash, contains everything. It's dark, but it's also full of joy and happiness. It's awful, but it's also great. For every Hitler there's a DaVinci. Portraying "realism" as mere destruction, pain and misery is like presenting just one side of events.
Just to be clear, this is just my opinion.
I never said it was realism. Those are your words. I just fail to see how this movie can't try to do something abstract while operating within the framework of a superhero movie. What was such a deconstruction of these characters? Snyder asked the questions and tackled the questions, and he did it while honoring the characters' 75+ year histories. That's what I can't understand. People say "one of the tenets of being Superman is that Superman never kills," but Superman did kill in the comics.
Whether you like it or not, whether you want to marginalize it and say it was a one-time occurrence that was out of character, or whatever, he did it, and that makes it valid. Batman has gone through phases where he's killed. Sure, you could say that the Golden Age Batman was merely a rough sketch of the character that we've come to know and love, but, if that version of the character can go through phases and transition into the Batman of today, why are we so averse to watching that character evolution on screen?
Everybody talks about how dark Superman is because of the tone of these films, but I don't understand that. He smiled in Man of Steel, he was overcome with joy when he flew for the first time, and, while he was careless, he clearly evolved between the two films. We see him making an effort to save people and to help people, and, honestly, just take a look at his influences, for instance. Jonathan and Martha Kent are not the saints they were in the comics. They're parents. The point is, they've done everything that they could to protect their son, even if it meant forsaking the world, and they made it crystal clear that, whatever path he took in life, it would be his own.
I think that's pretty powerful right there. That this Superman was raised to basically do what he wanted, and what he chooses to do is help people. He can't control how they respond to him, like in Mexico, for instance, but he still does it. The film deals with some heavy themes. When half of the world worships you and the other half hates you, how does that affect you? It's going to, and we see Clark reflect on that in the film.
You consider everything that Martha Kent said to him, and everything that's happened, and he's a man who's torn between two worlds. Should I be Clark Kent or Superman? He's tried the balancing act, and look what happened. Not only could you argue that his balancing the Clark Kent aspect of his life and prioritizing his own personal relationships in his duties as Superman directly led to his being called before congress, which put the men and women convening there in the crosshairs of a man with a vendetta, but the turmoil he was feeling left him careless, and it cost them all their lives. Then, you consider the fact that the man who did it was a victim of the battle of Metropolis and it's not difficult to see how he might be feeling contemplative.
Ultimately, though, it's these trials and tribulations that forge him into Superman. That's what his death is all about. This film is an evolution of the character we met in Man of Steel, but it's still not the complete picture, and we know that because of all the doubt and self-conflict. The ending of the film is his ascension. That's why they didn't hide the fact that he's coming back. It was the final test, and he was willing to sacrifice not only his own happiness, but himself for the good of the world, and isn't that what you're saying Superman should be about?
I don't see why it's such a cardinal sin for the heroes we watch to be vulnerable or have doubts or, in Batman's case, lapses in judgement. If anything, I feel like it could make them even stronger. You talk about realism and nihilism, but this film isn't completely nihilistic. It's a dark movie, to be sure, and it's heavy and dense, but, by the end of it, you're left in a somewhat more hopeful, optimistic place. At the beginning of the film, you see a Batman who is absolutely a nihilist. He's old, he's tired, and he's stopped caring, and he's stopped seeing the line that separates him from the criminals he's dedicated his life to combatting. Superman and his sacrifice help to redefine that line. In Batman's case, it is very much a deconstruction, but it's also a reconstruction for that character, framed against Superman becoming the hero he was meant to be.
I could see how someone might find the movie pretentious, but I don't see how that can act as an inherent criticism. I could argue that there are a lot of thoughtful, yet seemingly pretentious films that are, often, unanimously praised, and that the most pretentious notion of all is that this film is dismissed based on the fact that, as you said, it's a movie about "capes." I also feel like criticisms like crappy editing, plot conveniences, and choppy writing are all a bit unfounded. They were unconventional, surely, but I'd submit that they're no less crappy than any other unconventional choices.
Birdman was a great movie that was almost universally praised, and, yet, we had shots of dinosaurs and the beginning of creation, and a whole variety of those "unconventional" editing choices, yet I didn't see people refer to it as crappy. All of the visions in this movie were no different, and each tied in, thematically, with where we were, currently, in the story. As far as the writing goes, I can agree with that. I think everything in the movie served a purpose, and led somewhere, but I don't think such a dense film can make for a great viewing experience. I can't really say that it was "incoherent" because of that, but I also think that it takes a lot of reflection to tie everything together, and, potentially, even multiple viewings, and, on that note, I can't really say that's a good thing for a blockbuster of this caliber to do.
