Not exactly what I was getting at.
Gleason has a style that is dismissable as bad, but as someone who has read one book or another at any time with his art for the last decade, it does take some getting used to, but isn't bad IMO. If it being pandery is a complaint, I'd argue that you probably feel the same way about Rebirth as a whole, correct?
As for the plots of the book, I think they are used to to serve a purpose beyond just telling a story. The Eradicator one was meant to formally establish Superman as back as well as the world being aware of that. This one is clearly setting up Super Sons. The fair issue and Dinosaur Island were the ones that really seemed to be the most focused on just telling a story, and they were wonderful. DC seems to still be placing pieces on the board to establish the status quo of the DCU post-Rebirth in certain books, including this one. It'll be interesting to see what Tomasi will do with it once it stops being a book used to universe build, and is allowed to just be a vehicle to tell Superman stories. Personally, Action seems to be the "Superman" book. Superman seems to be Superman's version of BaR. Personally I'm okay with that, and am loving it, but I can see how others might not.
The difference I was getting at however is the broader introduction of the Batfamily to the book within the context of the establishment of a book that will focus on members of each of them. Anytime there is a Bat/Super book, the fans of one family do tend to squabble with those of the other.