Well the title of the article is more than a tad disingenuous. This move is part of a larger organizational restructuring caused by an overall lack of financial and critical success, instead of a move that that is a reaction to Batman vs Superman not making as much money as they would have liked.
Because it doesn't support the "Snyder's movies are epic failures" narrative so many are desperate to push.
How limiting and boring. Yes, he is often portrayed that way but that is in no way the ONLY way to do so. Moreover, we've had that version so often that both Singer and Snyder have offered a version, neither without flaws of course, that are automatically interesting just for the fact he's not "just a small-town boy trying to be a good neighbor and balance two jobs". One can certainly create an interesting story with that foundation but it hardly constitutes the only legitimate way to approach the character. And given the overwhelming preponderance of "small-town boy" versions across all media, it's refreshing to see a version that is deliberately NOT like that. Doesn't always work (some comics versions that step out of the box haven't "done it" for me the way the Snyder version doesn't please everyone) but I applaud even the ones I consider failures for at least trying something different. And haven't I seen it argued in these fora that the beauty of adapting characters and stories from one medium to another lies in the freedom to explore new approaches? I'm sure I've read that around here somewhere.
Exactly. Exactly what Superman is supposed to be.
I'll settle for "likable".
Possibly because, like the other executives, he deferred to Snyder and Goyer's vision, and that the top brass now thinks that that vision, rather than Berg's producing abilities, is the problem... ?
Because the audience isn't entitled to "happy" from a creative endeavour and creative artists in any field (music, film, sculpture, literature, etc.) should not be obliged to follow a formula. If the, in this case filmmakers, artist chooses to go the traditional route because that's the approach they think best expresses their creative impulses--perfectly fine. However, if they think a different take is the way to go, that too is perfectly fine. The audience isn't owed satisfaction (nor is the artist owed acclaim). It's owed a movie in exchange for a ticket purchase. The artist owes the film. That's it. Shackling artists to a formula is a recipe for blandness, in the aggregate.