I couldn't stand that portrayal of Clark's Earth father.  Cinematic Pa Kent went from:

  "Son, you are here for a reason... and it is not to score touchdowns..."

To Man of Steel's:

Clark:  Should I have let them die?

Jonathan Kent:  Yes.

I know he followed it with "maybe... I don't know."  I still think it's a terrible version of Pa Kent.  Not to mention the fact that he willingly commits suicide to save the family dog, which widows his wife and orphans his son.  This was portrayed as some gripping dramatic scene, but for me it came off as forced drama.  Costner's character goes to save the dog, because if Clark goes, it will reveal his super powers?  If Jonathan Kent believed he had any chance to get to the car and back in human speed, he could have just let Clark do it while asking Clark to make sure he didn't fly or run at super human speed.  The way they chose to play it out instead was just the Dad willfully committing suicide because he didn't trust his son to not look inhuman.  The original cinematic death of Pa Kent by heartattack after having a playful race to the house with Clark was far more moving and impactful to me than the forced drama of Costner's suicidal act.  The set-up was so forced they may as well have had the words "Oscar Clip" flashing at the bottom of the screen.

https://youtu.be/et0bdMeSvjE

Please don’t get me started on the awful death of Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel. Especially considering Clark had alread revealed his powers at a younger age. In any case, the point was these vastly different upbringings leave Superman in the exact same place: a superhero that protects humanity. Add to the fact that the Superman in Man of Steel is not the same man as in Batman v Superman and Justice League and it’s a tiny example of how poor planned out the DCEU (or the DEUCE as it prefers to be called) is

I have seen 3 of them, so I can say "eww".  One of them I saw for free, 2 of them I regret paying for.

I watched GotG 2 once back in May. It was enjoyable and is definitely a solid 7/10, which is actually pretty good for the MCU. I can see why other people don't like it since it tries to accomplish a lot plot-wise in a 2 hour time slot. All of the subplots are well executed, but putting them all into one movie makes it feel incredibly congested. It's the same problem I saw in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Age of Ultron, and BvS. It also suffers from sensory overload as the audience has to take in so much visual information in the final act that it starts to feel exhausting. Filmmakers should use their resources sparingly with scenes that have large amounts of spectacle as having too much of it dulls the impact. Man of Steel had this problem too... and it made many of the scenes very irritating to watch. Regardless of some of the issues, the camaraderie between the cast, the soundtrack, and the overall visual design of the movie was well executed. If I had to give it a rank, it's probably my 6th favorite in the MCU.

Ya I get where you're coming from. Personally I'm just not that into the sort of classic Superman character. I mean, I did enjoy the Lois and Clark TV show as a kid, which has more of that kind of classic charm that I suppose Superman is supposed to have in many people's eyes, but I enjoyed that show more due to the chemistry that the leads had with each other on screen (ironic, considering they supposedly couldn't stand each other irl), than I did for the character of Superman. There's a very weird dichotomy between Clark and Superman in that Clark is this very human character, with insecurities, struggles, etc, and Superman is just....well, perfect basically. It has it's moments, depending on the exact story, where it works well for me, but most of the time I'm just not buying it. I much prefer a Clark/Superman that is consistent within himself, preferably as a more 'real' person, who wants to do the right thing like you said, but does fail - or lose sight of it - sometimes, be it due to emotion, inexperience in a certain situation, making a bad call, not seeing the bigger picture, or whatever. 

I found the approach in Man of Steel quite interesting, with his parents - specifically his dad - raising him to basically think of himself first, rather than go out of his way to help anyone and everyone he could, at the risk of being found out. It's a very believable, human way of thinking. Likewise, I didn't mind at all seeing him smash up that one jerks truck. Obviously, it was mainly used for a quick laugh with the audience (which seemed to work for the most part), but I also liked seeing him actually be very visibly frustrated with the jackass who gets all up in him, and then act out, rather than just being Mr. Perfect above it all. I mean if you really wanna take him to that point somewhere in his character's journey through several movies or so.....ok, I personally would find him less interesting for it, but at least we could have a believable process of him becoming this faultless guy who saves everyone all the time, without ever losing his cool or anything. A Superman just coming into his own should struggle with why he isn't above all these assholes running around, and why he shouldn't just leave certain people to their own devices, and so on and so forth. He should be a good person, but good people can still do wrong from time to time, and with Superman, if you don't give him that.....what does he have going for his stories? His power level is beyond absurd, to the point that you can throw little more than cheap plot devices at him for tension in physical conflict, and the if his character is so unimpeachable as many Superman fans seem to want, then what suspense are you ever left with? Will he do the right thing always? Of course. Will he win the day in combat? Obviously. Does he get the girl? Duh, he's so charming. 

All that said, I can't say I'm well versed in Superman comics (or any comics really for that matter), so in the end, if those comic fans wanna tell me I'm wrong, and there's  all these amazing stories that Hollywood is just missing the boat on, etc, etc.....fine. I'll take your word for it I guess. All I know is that the Christopher Reeve Superman does nothing for me.

So are you in?

Nah most of the complaints I see are a lot more shallow than that. Like "it was too childish" or "too many jokes means you can't take it seriously" (I actually can't take seriously anyone who doesn't understand how GotG storytelling works) or even "too much drama". (edit: or actually in the case of Angelus here, which seems to be most people as well, simply "it wasn't as good as the original" or downright "it was bad" for no apparent reason.)

I disagree about the movie being congested, I think all of the subplots worked really well and all of the characters had a very well-developed arc that was fulfilling as hell by the end. I think the pacing is nearly perfect - there's at least one little scene I would personally remove from the movie, and one or another I'd trim down a bit or partially cut as well -, but those are so few it's basically nitpicking.

Funny enough, there's a certain other blockbuster this year that absolutely did suffer from a far too congested story with too many characters and too many subplots in a running time that, while not enough for everything, still felt much longer than it actually was (and also the subplots weren't well executed at all). But, I guess that's the sort of discussion we really don't need here.

I agree and disagree. I think the characterization of Jonathan Kent was interesting. He doesn't have to be a saint to be a good character. I think there's a lot of dramatic potential there, with a character who cares so deeply about his adopted son that he's willing to sacrifice countless innocent lives to safeguard his superhuman identity.

Where I agree is the execution. It was handled poorly, and then retconned in BvS. And the tornado sequence is just a disaster (no pun intended) of a scene.

That, in and of itself, seemed to be the problem. They wanted something different but had not idea how to use it. The dynamic in 1978 is so powerful in that Superman’s birth father mandates he cannot “interfere in human history” while his adoptive father advocates that Clark is “there for a reason”. Superman ultimately had to decide what to do on his own and it comes down to his perceived “failure” at saving his adoptive father. Man of Steel’s interpretation (while possibly having potential dramatic impact) just has no idea what to do with itself. Clark just does what his father says and he’s not an agent on his own change. And then BvS has him saying he only helps people because it’s what his adoptive father wanted! My brain hurts

Yeah, the whole DCEU is one big experiment on intent vs. execution, and how the first doesn't mean jack shit if you can't make the second work.

Well you know my theory. That Man of Steel was never intended to launch a shared universe. Their production slate is just “we’ll take anything that sounds serviceable!” We should pitch a film

Great, I feel that both Civil War and Winter Soldier are probably the best MCU movies. I might be surprised in the rewatch about some movies, but I can almost assure that those two movies will be first xD.