I seriously can't fathom how people can take a general criticism (and as far as I can tell in this thread, the people who mentioned it LIKED the movie!!!!!) and turn it into all these random explanations that just go on and on. Some of the stuff... I don't even want to touch it.
It's not a random explanation. Really. You have yet to explain what is convoluted or wrong about "Clark Kent has never fought before and is unable to prevent himself from being thrown by trained killers into higher-populated areas". In fact, you have yet to address this argument at all; you are simply going round in circles about how large numbers of people have made the argument you are making so it must be right. This is an appeal to popularity fallacy and all it means is that large numbers of people weren't paying much attention to Clark's background or what was happening in the fights. Nearly every time he goes into a higher populated area during the fight it is because he was thrown there. Really.