Not really this is more the Post Post-Crisis Superman where it follows the Bryan Singer approach of not a dual identity but a triple identity. There's Clark from Smallville and then there's his two disguises, bumbling Clark Kent mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, and of course Superman champion of truth and justice.
Since when did that interpretation originate with Bryan Singer? Aside from Clark being bumbling, it's no different from John Byrne's take and every other post-Crisis take I'm aware of. There's always been a distinction drawn between the "real" Clark Kent that Jonathan and Martha raised and the "mild-mannered reporter" Clark Kent persona that he shows to the world. That persona may not be a bumbler in the Byrne or S:TAS or Lois and Clark
interpretations, but he's still a facade.
I don't really care about the technicalities of filmmaking.. you pour enough money into it and you are bound to get good visuals.
That's hardly true. If you give that money to the wrong people, you'll just get artless, overindulgent visuals. Or else you'll get crude visuals that cost far more than they should because the people who made them didn't know how to spend money efficiently, or blew most of it on personal indulgences instead of putting it on the screen. Money is just a tool, and like any tool, its effectiveness depends on the skill and judgment of the wielder. The fallacy that you can achieve anything just by throwing enough money at it is responsible for a lot of bad filmmaking.