"Superman": no, thanks

In what seems to be a desperation move, James Gunn (or his studio) has already released "Superman" on home video, skipping the standard several months' delay. This is probably in an effort to win back at least enough money to make up for production and marketing costs. I've seen a few clips of the movie on YouTube... and frankly, they look awful. That, coupled with the angry rumors I've heard about how the movie twists and breaks the Superman mythology (Superman is way underpowered; the Kent parents are dumb hicks while Superman's Kryptonian parents wanted him to become Earth's ruler; Superman's red trunks make an unabashed return; a young Lex Luthor pout-cries in anger, etc.), leaves me with no desire at all to see this film. The studio should have stuck with Henry Cavill and his sleeker suit. And as the longer cut of "Justice League" revealed (my one-sentence review is here), Zack Snyder is capable of making a decent movie; I think, though, that he needs to be kept away from scriptwriting so he can stick to being behind the camera. In the movie clips I saw, James Gunn is obviously still in thrall to the quippy Marvel mentality, and a lot of critics have complained that Gunn is still slavishly following his "band of misfits" template—a template he's admittedly good at realizing in movies like "Guardians of the Galaxy"—thereby making "Superman" less about Superman and more about the team he fights alongside. Nope, not dropping any money on this.