Hollywood is fully integrated into the military-industrial complex. Inflicting disproportional damage on the population of whoever the enemy is is how The Great US Empire wages war. So that is what the population at home is meant to support. So that is what is shown to the young, easy to influence generations.

I mean, the easy answer is all Hollywood action movies contain gratuitous destruction for the sake of visual interest.

It was honestly my first thought as a kid: “Oh my god! That guy’s food stall was completely destroyed by that car! What will he do now? Is there anyone he can call to get it replaced?”

The simpler answer is to accept cinema violence is a childish thoughtless moment anyway, and we shouldn’t compare it too much to real life. But in Gadot’s case, I suppose gratuitous destruction fits very much with her home country’s philosophy.

and you wonder what the filmmakers were trying to say with it

No deeper meaning, just action.

This is pretty silly. Superhero movies constantly feature superheroes and supervillains causing mass property damage. Superman will be thrown through buildings. Cars will be used as throwing weapons, etc.

It's a deliberate cinematic choice. Superheroes just flying in the sky punching each other doesn't convey the power involved in these characters. No, if you want to portray superheroes in a way that actually feels real to people, you need to show them interacting with our ordinary world. You show them treating things we experience as solid, indestructible, and immobile as mere tissue paper.

This is just "show, don't tell." Sure, you could have some character verbally explain that "Superman has the strength of a million men!", but if all you saw was Superman fighting in a cloud or an empty field, that wouldn't really mean much. You can't feel it. Watch Superman casually pick up a skyscraper, and suddenly your mind can actually grasp the scale of his power.

'Future terrorists' is I believe how they described unarmed kids.

the current one is. the older ones are far superior.

What's crazy is that after she killed all these drafted soldiers in a morally grey war, with no hesitation, suddenly there's this whole moral line drawn about killing someone who's actively committing war crimes and fully intending to prolong the war and keep making chemical weapons.