Except that Man of Steel dropped 65% in its second weekend. The general consensus among box-office experts is that the Snyder Superman films have largely underperformed, to the point that there was some doubt for a while as to whether BvS even turned a profit.
As for it being something new... no, not really. Man of Steel is mostly just a remix of Donner (the villain, Jor-El becoming God, Superman's journey being overlaid with an imposed moral imperative) and Byrne (the treatment of Krypton and resulting assimilation narrative, the heavy role of the Kent family, ending on a death), but lacking the nostalgia and innocence of the former and the genuine humanism of the latter. Even its most memorable quote - Jor-El's "they will join you in the sun" speech - is lifted directly from the comics (All-Star Superman #12, to be specific).
And talking of that speech, it actually worked in that context, because unlike Man of Steel, All-Star Superman doesn't just talk about how Superman has the capacity to forgive and find hope. It's a story where Superman manages to find the good in an entire planet of insane monsters, a pair of Kryptonian conquerors, an evil space computer that tried to kill the sun, and Lex Luthor, all because Superman refuses to give up on them. It's also a story where the people of Kandor cure cancer, a girl finds the will to live, and a scientist manages to continue Superman's legacy even when he's gone, all because of the ways Superman has helped them. Nothing even slightly like any of those things happens in Man of Steel or Batman v. Superman. The only character Superman manages to redeem or uplift is Batman, and that's only posthumously - and "the last time you really inspired anyone was when you were dead" was not a line meant to be proven right.
Or, to put it another way, in the comic the DCEU pulls from, Jimmy Olsen risks his life and turns himself into a monster to save his best friend. In the DCEU, Jimmy Olsen gets shot in the head.
That's not what I believe, I copy pasted that quote from the OP.
For me, I do think Man of Steel wasn't for me.
I know some like it, but I didn't really.
Did not hate it either.
It had good fight scenes, but the pacing was jarring for me.
And while I could see what they wanted to do with Kent, I felt it was poorly executed.
I also disliked the Kents. The Kents to me were always a factor to show what good people could be, adopting a stranger.
Here Superman becomes Superman in spite of the Kents, not because of them.
Jon "Pa" Kents death was also something I disliked.
Speaking of building-sized beings fighting in cities, we saw in Pacific Rim, the Jaegers very consciously moved around buildings and tried to drag things where damage was minimized (water, preferably), while the Kaiju plowed right through. A nice contrast for me.
Also I do think people definitely wanted a Superman action movie- Superman II was the best of the old batch, after all, and Returns was... kinda weird, and that Superman had his own issues too (sure, it wasn't killing, but what's up with the stalking? Or running out for years?). But, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have preferred a Superman action movie with a different moral compass. Because in all 5 Superman live action movies before MoS, a full 3/5 of them have no physical opponent at all, and one of the two that did sucked.
Personally, and this is a hypothesis that hasn't been tested since Superman 2, 37 years ago, I think people would really dig a morally iconic Superman movie where he fought villains who were physical threats and managed to come out on top. They don't want Superman vs real-estate scams (???) or hackers, they want him to go up against threats that push him and challenge him, and then show why he's the greatest hero and earn that status!
Speaking of building-sized beings fighting in cities, we saw in Pacific Rim, the Jaegers very consciously moved around buildings and tried to drag things where damage was minimized (water, preferably), while the Kaiju plowed right through. A nice contrast for me.
I think that the subtle tone of scenes in the films is very important.
In Man of Steel, the color, visuals, music, and ambient noises during the Metropolis fight are all depressing. Screams, crying, dark images, falling debris, heavy music. The scene doesn't feel good, despite the visually impressive fight Zod and Supes has across the skyline and into space.
In Pacific Rim the music is tense, but never depressing, and also gets heroic and up lifting at points to pump the audience up.
This never really happens in MOS, it keeps its depressing tone through big parts of it. Making the few jokes and quips feel jarring to me.
It also makes the supposed 'happy' moments feel force and tacked on to me.
"He saved us", says Perry White and Jenny.
As they lay still half crushed under rubble with bleak music still going on, as Superman stands 50 meters away kissing Lois and not helping.
Batman Vs Superman does this too, adding tacked on dialogue that felt to me like an after thought.
"They crashed on the abandoned island"
"Good thing there was nobody there"
I felt like I was watching a Power Rangers film, except even the Power Rangers film was more subtle then that.
These lines felt awkward to me, because they didn't flow. There was no lead up before, or follow up after.
It's like Snyder the director and the writers had a check box that said "Limit casualties", and checked it off as fast as possible.
Even though limiting casualties wasn't what, at least, not what I disliked about Man of Steel.
The element I disliked is that the director wants to have these grand heavy, depressing fight scenes. Those elements give the Zod vs Clark fight a lot of weight.
And then snap back to status quo right after them, without acknowledging those deaths.
Superman can fail to save people and make mistakes in my book.
What he cannot do is, after failing to save people, make a quip and then go fly off, doing nothing else.
