Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[Marvin]

Ever notice how it's the same crew that does this? I have.

The only way we'll be able to prove that a bias exists will be if WB makes a movie that has an excellent plot and dialog, but changes the characters in some significant way. If the movie still gets panned, then DC films clearly are held to a different, higher standard.

Preconceptions can be overcome by quality. After B&R, came BB.

And what happens when they make an ok movie.
/thread.

 

[Erzengel]

And what happens when they make an ok movie.
/thread.

Let me know when they've done one.

Kidding aside, when it comes to the DCEU, I think MOS is their okay movie. And it has better audience scores than either BvS and SS.

MOS's scores are also in line with other ok movies, such as IM2, TIH and T: DW.

 

[The Batman]

"Ok" is definitely not the word I'd use to describe MOS or Thor The Dark World, and it's definitely a questionable descriptor for IM2 or TIH.

 

[Marvin]

Let me know when they've done one.

Kidding aside, when it comes to the DCEU, I think MOS is their okay movie. And it has better audience scores than either BvS and SS.

MOS's scores are also in line with other ok movies, such as IM2, TIH and T: DW.

Because the scores are operating outside the realm of being influenced by this very thing we are talking about..

But yes, when they make a movie better than TDK even, in which batman kills all day and night like that scene in the crow with the shootout(the one people think also happened in BvS lol), and they have superman killing and never smilling and with underwear on his head, and the heroes lose..and the world ends.. I too will be interested in seeing these scores.

 

[BlZARRO]

Let me know when they've done one.

Kidding aside, when it comes to the DCEU, I think MOS is their okay movie. And it has better audience scores than either BvS and SS.

MOS's scores are also in line with other ok movies, such as IM2, TIH and T: DW.

According to the audiences, all of the DCEU movies have been Ok, or even more than that.

When you you look at the critical score, you can see big differences between movies that were received very similarly among the audiences.

For example. looking at RT:

Iron Man 2: 72%

Thor: 77%

Man of Steel: 55%

--

TIH: 67%

SS: 26%

BvS: 27%

Even though the audience reception for those movies were very similar, we can see a very significant difference in the way critics review these DC flicks, with movies like BvS and SS being treated as absolute garbage, while the general public simply vews them as underwhleming but still entertaining on the level of other less popular Marvel flicks.

Let's not even talk about the amount of people who use arguments like "Batman kills"; "Joker isn't in the movie enough"; "Superman doesn't smile" as a justification to why these movies aren't good, which doesn't happen nearly as much with less known characters. You make a movie with Ant-Man and the critics and the GA will judge it by the quality of the action, the characters and the story. You make a movie with Batman and people will let their expectations about the character get in the way of how they view the film.

Yes, they're held to a different standard, but we shouldn't expect people who hate this universe to simply admit that, when all they're interested in is defending the idea that these movies are straight up bad and that's the only reason why they received bad reviews.

Yeah, if you make TDK you will get good reviews. That's a given.

 

[Erzengel]

According to the audiences, all of the DCEU movies have been Ok, or even more than that.

I was going to write something else. But how are according to the audiences, are all of the DCEU are ok?

Are you just basing it on ticket sales?

 

[Luke234]

According to the audiences, all of the DCEU movies have been Ok, or even more than that.

When you you look at the critical score, you can see big differences between movies that were received very similarly among the audiences.

For example. looking at RT:

Iron Man 2: 72%

Thor: 77%

Man of Steel: 55%

--

TIH: 67%

SS: 26%

BvS: 27%

Even though the audience reception for those movies were very similar, we can see a very significant difference in the way critics review these DC flicks, with movies like BvS and SS being treated as absolute garbage, while the general public simply vews them as underwhleming but still entertaining on the level of other less popular Marvel flicks.

Let's not even talk about the amount of people who use arguments like "Batman kills"; "Joker isn't in the movie enough"; "Superman doesn't smile" as a justification to why these movies aren't good, which doesn't happen nearly as much with less known characters. You make a movie with Ant-Man and the critics and the GA will judge it by the quality of the action, the characters and the story. You make a movie with Batman and people will let their expectations about the character get in the way of how they view the film.

Yes, they're held to a different standard, but we shouldn't expect people who hate this universe to simply admit that, when all they're interested in is defending the idea that these movies are straight up bad and that's the only reason why they received bad reviews.

Yeah, if you make TDK you will get good reviews. That's a given.

Batman is the only DC character Marvel fans don't really bash. They mostly hate superman.

 

[Luke234]

I can't believe anyone would think Iron Man 2 and 3 are anything but terrible. Same with both Thor movies. As a fan of the first two DC movies ( haven't seen SS) I can't believe the hatred spewed about them after Ben freakin' Kingsley. I still can't believe how stupid that was.

 

[BestGirl]

According to the audiences, all of the DCEU movies have been Ok, or even more than that.

When you you look at the critical score, you can see big differences between movies that were received very similarly among the audiences.

For example. looking at RT:

Iron Man 2: 72%

Thor: 77%

Man of Steel: 55%

--

TIH: 67%

SS: 26%

BvS: 27%

Even though the audience reception for those movies were very similar, we can see a very significant difference in the way critics review these DC flicks, with movies like BvS and SS being treated as absolute garbage, while the general public simply vews them as underwhleming but still entertaining on the level of other less popular Marvel flicks.

Let's not even talk about the amount of people who use arguments like "Batman kills"; "Joker isn't in the movie enough"; "Superman doesn't smile" as a justification to why these movies aren't good, which doesn't happen nearly as much with less known characters. You make a movie with Ant-Man and the critics and the GA will judge it by the quality of the action, the characters and the story. You make a movie with Batman and people will let their expectations about the character get in the way of how they view the film.

Yes, they're held to a different standard, but we shouldn't expect people who hate this universe to simply admit that, when all they're interested in is defending the idea that these movies are straight up bad and that's the only reason why they received bad reviews.

Yeah, if you make TDK you will get good reviews. That's a given.

But those certainly aren't the only criticisms that can be leveled against the DCEU. BVS and SS were plainly hacked to death in the editing room. Any movies as poorly constructed as those were are going to get hammered by critics.

 

[DrCosmic]

I'm implying people shouldn't grade things by the amount of change but the quality itself.

People naturally do both. This is what I disagree with. While I agree that flouting expectations has an effect on how flaws are viewed, I don't believe this is wrong. I think it's a just and unavoidable aspect of using an established brand, that you get a built in audience that you now owe and have to live up to.

If I decided to make a movie about, say, Monopoly as a gritty body horror flick, people will naturally go in expecting a movie about making and losing money, because everyone knows that's what Monopoly is. If the filmmaker decides they have a better idea, then the audience will hold them to that standard: have a better idea. After all, if you change Monopoly, it has to be better than it used to be, because people like it the way it is. If you change it from what people like, and don't give them something they like more, you get criticism AND disappointment.

The way around this, is to not use that brand. Man of Steel would have been a great Hancock sequel, and not received the hatred it did, even if it was criticized for the same flaws, people wouldn't have cared as much or expected as much. But it also would not have gotten the built in audience, and if you want that audience, you have to target that audience. It's pretty straightforward, I think.

Then you factor in the standard that producers/studios are holding these films to, and you have a whole different ball of wax.

 

[TeeKay]

The Mandarin twist caused controversy. So no, Marvel didn't walk away from it unscathed.

 

[BlZARRO]

But those certainly aren't the only criticisms that can be leveled against the DCEU. BVS and SS were plainly hacked to death in the editing room. Any movies as poorly constructed as those were are going to get hammered by critics.

Just the fact that they're even present proves that these movies are judged in a very special light.

 

[BlZARRO]

The Mandarin twist caused controversy. So no, Marvel didn't walk away from it unscathed.

The problem is that nobody cares about Mandarin outside hardcore fans. The audiences barely know who he is. It's not that big of a risk to do that to a not so popular character.

 

[Steamteck]

The Mandarin twist caused controversy. So no, Marvel didn't walk away from it unscathed.

The mandarin was literally for me the smallest problem with IM3 for me. TDK seemed like a masterpiece after that film.

 

[Predator jp]

People naturally do both. This is what I disagree with. While I agree that flouting expectations has an effect on how flaws are viewed, I don't believe this is wrong. I think it's a just and unavoidable aspect of using an established brand, that you get a built in audience that you now owe and have to live up to.

If I decided to make a movie about, say, Monopoly as a gritty body horror flick, people will naturally go in expecting a movie about making and losing money, because everyone knows that's what Monopoly is. If the filmmaker decides they have a better idea, then the audience will hold them to that standard: have a better idea. After all, if you change Monopoly, it has to be better than it used to be, because people like it the way it is. If you change it from what people like, and don't give them something they like more, you get criticism AND disappointment.

The way around this, is to not use that brand. Man of Steel would have been a great Hancock sequel, and not received the hatred it did, even if it was criticized for the same flaws, people wouldn't have cared as much or expected as much. But it also would not have gotten the built in audience, and if you want that audience, you have to target that audience. It's pretty straightforward, I think.

Then you factor in the standard that producers/studios are holding these films to, and you have a whole different ball of wax.

yeah, you can't and shouldn't expect us to be completely objective when you take advantage of iconic characters or brands.
when the first Hollywood Godzilla came out, i heard a lot of people saying 'i would've enjoyed more if it hadn't Godzilla name on it'.

 

[The_Manhunter]

No doubt about it. Zack Snyder could sneeze during an interview and have his film get poor reviews as a result.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Snyder must sneeze a lot then lol.

 

[Luke234]

The problem is that nobody cares about Mandarin outside hardcore fans. The audiences barely know who he is. It's not that big of a risk to do that to a not so popular character.

I'm not a comic book reader. I had no idea about who the mandarin was. But the set up and reveal was so stupid I didn't even believe it. I thought it was an outtake on the copy I got as some kind of joke my friend was playing on me or something until it kept going.

 

[Nemeres]

The issue of preconceptions is a very impractical one on which to base a defensive argument in this particular case, bc it could be used to defend any adaptation, biopic or historical film that is otherwise faulty, on that premise only. It bails out Pearl Harbor, it bails out The Last Airbender, and on and on. And it's not limited to adaptations, any film can benefit from it. "You have a preconception of what's funny, that's why you don't like Grown Ups," etc.

 

[The Batman]

People naturally do both. This is what I disagree with. While I agree that flouting expectations has an effect on how flaws are viewed, I don't believe this is wrong. I think it's a just and unavoidable aspect of using an established brand, that you get a built in audience that you now owe and have to live up to.

If I decided to make a movie about, say, Monopoly as a gritty body horror flick, people will naturally go in expecting a movie about making and losing money, because everyone knows that's what Monopoly is. If the filmmaker decides they have a better idea, then the audience will hold them to that standard: have a better idea. After all, if you change Monopoly, it has to be better than it used to be, because people like it the way it is. If you change it from what people like, and don't give them something they like more, you get criticism AND disappointment.

The way around this, is to not use that brand. Man of Steel would have been a great Hancock sequel, and not received the hatred it did, even if it was criticized for the same flaws, people wouldn't have cared as much or expected as much. But it also would not have gotten the built in audience, and if you want that audience, you have to target that audience. It's pretty straightforward, I think.

Then you factor in the standard that producers/studios are holding these films to, and you have a whole different ball of wax.

The issue of preconceptions is a very impractical one on which to base a defensive argument in this particular case, bc it could be used to defend any adaptation, biopic or historical film that is otherwise faulty, on that premise only. It bails out Pearl Harbor, it bails out The Last Airbender, and on and on. And it's not limited to adaptations, any film can benefit from it. "You have a preconception of what's funny, that's why you don't like Grown Ups," etc.

These are some good posts right here.

IMO, If MOS didn't have that built in audience, it wouldn't even be talked about right now, at least not to a great extent. The defining attribute of MOS is that it is a polarizing take on a pop culture icon. Other than that, it doesn't add anything the CBM genre or movies in general that other flicks haven't done better, IMO, and that goes double for BvS.

 

[BestGirl]

The issue of preconceptions is a very impractical one on which to base a defensive argument in this particular case, bc it could be used to defend any adaptation, biopic or historical film that is otherwise faulty, on that premise only. It bails out Pearl Harbor, it bails out The Last Airbender, and on and on. And it's not limited to adaptations, any film can benefit from it. "You have a preconception of what's funny, that's why you don't like Grown Ups," etc.

This is a wise post.

 

[Marvin]

People naturally do both. This is what I disagree with. While I agree that flouting expectations has an effect on how flaws are viewed, I don't believe this is wrong. I think it's a just and unavoidable aspect of using an established brand, that you get a built in audience that you now owe and have to live up to.

If I decided to make a movie about, say, Monopoly as a gritty body horror flick, people will naturally go in expecting a movie about making and losing money, because everyone knows that's what Monopoly is. If the filmmaker decides they have a better idea, then the audience will hold them to that standard: have a better idea. After all, if you change Monopoly, it has to be better than it used to be, because people like it the way it is. If you change it from what people like, and don't give them something they like more, you get criticism AND disappointment.

The way around this, is to not use that brand. Man of Steel would have been a great Hancock sequel, and not received the hatred it did, even if it was criticized for the same flaws, people wouldn't have cared as much or expected as much. But it also would not have gotten the built in audience, and if you want that audience, you have to target that audience. It's pretty straightforward, I think.

Then you factor in the standard that producers/studios are holding these films to, and you have a whole different ball of wax.

I'm not talking about if the audience get's what it expects, I know not everyone can rise above their conditioning as an audience to not do this thing you describe. I'm talking about in the grander scheme, I'm talking on the intellectual level, grading art at the highest level. Not if fans got what they wanted. Editing, story telling etc.
There are 3 main problems with being complacent to the reality of preconceptions when letting it determine the value of an artistic accomplishment.

1. What if the audience has been conditioned all this time into thinking something that's actually poor is the standard. If all superhero material for 70 years was meandering nursery rhymes and nothing more. Then Civil War comes along in 2016. Ok well people expected this one thing and they got this other thing, and we are going let them(wherever they may be) determine the quality. If batman only wore pink in comics all this time, if villains only helped heroes never hurt them. It would take the quality we have determined exists in all these films as is(see TDK), and remove it. My point is if you simply receive art external to that sort of thing then you are far more likely to make an accurate analysis/observation of it. The very fact that even in source material things change greatly is proof that they are demonstrable in their original conception alone and always. What a sad state that the quality of something is wholly or even partly determined by if Frank Miller or Claremont has had their paradigm shifting run yet. Remove that circumstance and make yourself able to see stuff for what it is. And sure the audience may not be there yet, critics may not, but we/you can in the here and now.

2. People often cite source, but there is so much of it that all they almost often are simply being selective. For everyone that says that ain't right, they often simply haven't read it all or aren't up to current events. Cap being in present day ain't right for some people. With superman there is cannon for almost all we see in these movies, so when people cite source as a starting point, it's another sad reality I suppose. Which brings up a greater issue of who is deciding what scripture is 'source'. For at this point anyone can use source to say justify killing or not, it has to go beyond if it's source accurate, it has to be at the very least a discussion about why either source is better. But the discussion rarely even gets there before it's had.

3. When you use simple quality as a denominator, everyone everywhere can latch on, it's universal(for arguments sake). When you as a critics or someone suggesting stuff use your own preconceptions as the denominator you are skewing things. You've licked sour candy all day(all your life) and then when asked if a particular apple is sweet your analysis better applies to those with your same tailored experience. If all you've done is read one type of spiderman book then when you go to give an opinion that is intended to represent a base understanding for the G.A. your's is very accurate for the people with your experience, during your time. This is why one should strive to not narrow things in this way.

Again all of this preconception stuff I personally encourage when discussing what one 'likes', what works 'for them', this allows us to better understand each other, when you say you like such and such comedy, it tells me about you, violence in cinema, happy endings..etc. But when the discussion is about 'good/bad' or a broader observation of fact and such, it's less than helpful and not something I think ok. Sure it happens but calling it what it is goes further. For all the people that thought the civ war spidey suit was bad based on this thing, turns out judging things from that sort of place proved fickle. As it does when applied to things beyond costumes.

Someone makes an indie master stroke in commentary of social awareness, the human condition and tribalism in our cities and social constructs, along with the heroes journey and some breakthroughs in cinematography ala Citizen Kane. He does so using an adult take on Sesame Street with urban kids wearing coloured T shirts representing characters from that show. As a film analyst I will receive this piece of art for what it is. As a movie fan I will pay $12 and call it a bad movie for not delivering on a Sesame street. It's up to the individual to determine which one you want to be is my point.

Peace.

 

[DrCosmic]

The issue of preconceptions is a very impractical one on which to base a defensive argument in this particular case, bc it could be used to defend any adaptation, biopic or historical film that is otherwise faulty, on that premise only. It bails out Pearl Harbor, it bails out The Last Airbender, and on and on. And it's not limited to adaptations, any film can benefit from it. "You have a preconception of what's funny, that's why you don't like Grown Ups," etc.

This is a great summary of a criticism of this idea that I don't fully get. People's preconceptions of what's funny causing them to dislike, I dunno, Pluto Nash, doesn't "bail out" that film. It wasn't funny to most people. That affected how they viewed the film, and it, even with its same flaws, would have been rated much higher if it had been funny, that is, met most people's expectations of a comedy. There's nothing wrong with that. Pointing out that a film didn't meet the audiences expectations of the genre, or marketing, or brand and how that affected how the film is perceived isn't a "pass." It's just the reality of how opinions are formed and how they inform. Some brands are mishandled. Some movies are mis-marketed.

The Last Airbender is a great example. Really just poor movie in general. Looks bad, sounds bad, bad acting, just really silly and almost mindless. Like the Spy Kids series. But the Spy Kids we know is a dumb kids movie. The Last Airbender is supposed to be an adaptation of a very smart very charming animated series, and so when they both have a plothole, they aren't judged equally. One made a story with a plothole in it. The other took a beloved story and *put* a plot hole in it. Even though it's the same cinematic flaw, one involves significantly more incompetence and flouts an expectation.

So it's the opposite of a pass, or a "bail out," at least to me. The DCEU failed not only the DC Comics fan audience, but the Western culture that has invested the fictional Superman character with consistent cultural meaning over the course of many decades. No one made them use these characters that are held to a higher standard. No one made them give us the one-two punch of deeply flawed films that ALSO don't improve upon the cultural expectations of Superman.

I'm not talking about if the audience get's what it expects, I know not everyone can rise above their conditioning as an audience to not do this thing you describe. I'm talking about in the grander scheme, I'm talking on the intellectual level, grading art at the highest level. Not if fans got what they wanted. Editing, story telling etc.
There are 3 main problems with being complacent to the reality of preconceptions when letting it determine the value of an artistic accomplishment.

1. What if the audience has been conditioned all this time into thinking something that's actually poor is the standard. If all superhero material for 70 years was meandering nursery rhymes and nothing more. Then Civil War comes along in 2016. Ok well people expected this one thing and they got this other thing, and we are going let them(wherever they may be) determine the quality. If batman only wore pink in comics all this time, if villains only helped heroes never hurt them. It would take the quality we have determined exists in all these films as is(see TDK), and remove it. My point is if you simply receive art external to that sort of thing then you are far more likely to make an accurate analysis/observation of it. The very fact that even in source material things change greatly is proof that they are demonstrable in their original conception alone and always. What a sad state that the quality of something is wholly or even partly determined by if Frank Miller or Claremont has had their paradigm shifting run yet. Remove that circumstance and make yourself able to see stuff for what it is. And sure the audience may not be there yet, critics may not, but we/you can in the here and now.

2. People often cite source, but there is so much of it that all they almost often are simply being selective. For everyone that says that ain't right, they often simply haven't read it all or aren't up to current events. Cap being in present day ain't right for some people. With superman there is cannon for almost all we see in these movies, so when people cite source as a starting point, it's another sad reality I suppose. Which brings up a greater issue of who is deciding what scripture is 'source'. For at this point anyone can use source to say justify killing or not, it has to go beyond if it's source accurate, it has to be at the very least a discussion about why either source is better. But the discussion rarely even gets there before it's had.

3. When you use simple quality as a denominator, everyone everywhere can latch on, it's universal(for arguments sake). When you as a critics or someone suggesting stuff use your own preconceptions as the denominator you are skewing things. You've licked sour candy all day(all your life) and then when asked if a particular apple is sweet your analysis better applies to those with your same tailored experience. If all you've done is read one type of spiderman book then when you go to give an opinion that is intended to represent a base understanding for the G.A. your's is very accurate for the people with your experience, during your time. This is why one should strive to not narrow things in this way.

Again all of this preconception stuff I personally encourage when discussing what one 'likes', what works 'for them', this allows us to better understand each other, when you say you like such and such comedy, it tells me about you, violence in cinema, happy endings..etc. But when the discussion is about 'good/bad' or a broader observation of fact and such, it's less than helpful and not something I think ok. Sure it happens but calling it what it is goes further. For all the people that thought the civ war spidey suit was bad based on this thing, turns out judging things from that sort of place proved fickle. As it does when applied to things beyond costumes.

Someone makes an indie master stroke in commentary of social awareness, the human condition and tribalism in our cities and social constructs, along with the heroes journey and some breakthroughs in cinematography ala Citizen Kane. He does so using an adult take on Sesame Street with urban kids wearing coloured T shirts representing characters from that show. As a film analyst I will receive this piece of art for what it is. As a movie fan I will pay $12 and call it a bad movie for not delivering on a Sesame street. It's up to the individual to determine which one you want to be is my point.

Peace.

Okay.

1. The audience isn't idiots. They know an improvement when they see one. Batman was a comedic character, but Miller's take was correctly understood as a deepening of the characters themes and an expansion of the mythos that was in keeping with the core of the character. If Miller hadn't figured it out, maybe no one would have til Nolan. Regardless, the audience at large would recognize and applaud a superior adaptation, even though it was different. CW's Arrow Season 1 is a great example of what would have happened with Batman if they had waited a few extra decades to change him. The DCEU is divisive because the changes are not generally better, not because there are simply changes.

2. People don't cite source very often actually. They just have a *feeling* of Superman. His well known powerset and lifestyle denote certain thematic elements: freedom, hope, power, aloofness. These ideas are exemplified and explored in the most critically acclaimed stories. People don't sit down and cite comics, people, generally just have a common idea of what Superman is. Snyder has a different idea than most and isn't interested in the themes that are intrinsic to the premise of the character. Citing an obscure or elseworld's comic doesn't make society wrong about what Superman represents to society.

3. There are no facts in opinion. If everyone eats sugar all day (generally society does) and then takes a bit of an apple, they will say it's not sweet. If we drink water and eat cashews all day, we will say the apple is sweet. If I'm serving someone, and I know they eat like most people, I'm not going to give them an apple and call it dessert, and if I do, I'm either ignorant of society, or at fault for trying to get them to change what the word dessert means to them.

You can do a movie like Man of Steel, and get accurate critical acclaim, but you can't expect society to change their definition of the word "Superman" just as you can't expect them to change their definition of the word "cat." If you cast a dog as a cat, then your film has to address that you are trying to change the meaning of a thing, to change the conversation, get people to think, etc. Same with your Sesame Street analogy, inverting the expectation. This is an artistic technique to create commentary.

But you have to do the commentary, and it has to be good. If you just say dogs are cats, or use imagery without adressing the meaning of that imagery, it's the same thing as using words without meaning, to literally have your characters sprewing word salad, because you're using words without their meaning and just expecting the audience to assign new meaning, and value that meaning over the established meaning of those words and images just because you say so. That's poor communication, and so it follows that that's poor filmmaking.

If Man of Steel wanted to do this dark Superman, they had the burden of proving that the bright Superman was inferior to what they presented. And they did not do that. They assumed that people would feel so, and the people who already felt that way loved the movie despite it's flaws, and the people who hate that idea hated the movie and oft recite its many flaws.

 

[Flint Marko]

But you have to do the commentary, and it has to be good. If you just say dogs are cats, or use imagery without adressing the meaning of that imagery, it's the same thing as using words without meaning, to literally have your characters sprewing word salad, because you're using words without their meaning and just expecting the audience to assign new meaning, and value that meaning over the established meaning of those words and images just because you say so. That's poor communication, and so it follows that that's poor filmmaking.

If Man of Steel wanted to do this dark Superman, they had the burden of proving that the bright Superman was inferior to what they presented. And they did not do that. They assumed that people would feel so, and the people who already felt that way loved the movie despite it's flaws, and the people who hate that idea hated the movie and oft recite its many flaws.

I do appreciate that you are making this discussion about the content of the film itself as opposed to pointing the finger away from the film makers and towards the audience and critics, but I will say that I don't necessarily agree with the bolded. They didn't have to prove that the "bright" Superman was inferior. I think, if anything, they just had to prove that what they were doing was a valid interpretation.

But, most of all, they just have to make good movies. Even an OK movie would do at this point. They have yet to do so, and as such any bias that may exist has yet to make itself apparent. The fact that nearly every single negative review for all three movies cite criticisms that would be applied to any other big budget blockbuster, regardless of preconceptions or brand-awareness, says as much, particularly when the same general criticisms are consistently appearing in most of the reviews for each film (thin characterization, over-reliance on uninteresting action, terrible editing, etc.).

 

[DrCosmic]

I do appreciate that you are making this discussion about the content of the film itself as opposed to pointing the finger away from the film makers and towards the audience and critics, but I will say that I don't necessarily agree with the bolded. They didn't have to prove that the "bright" Superman was inferior. I think, if anything, they just had to prove that what they were doing was a valid interpretation.

But, most of all, they just have to make good movies. Even an OK movie would do at this point. They have yet to do so, and as such any bias that may exist has yet to make itself apparent. The fact that nearly every single negative review for all three movies cite criticisms that would be applied to any other big budget blockbuster, regardless of preconceptions or brand-awareness, says as much, particularly when the same general criticisms are consistently appearing in most of the reviews for each film (thin characterization, over-reliance on uninteresting action, terrible editing, etc.).

For me, the bias is apparent, again, not in the presence or abscenes of actual criticisms, but in the way they are handled and addressed, which often includes acknowledgement of the bias. E.g. two cops see the same nonviolent crime committed by a minority. One cop kills the guy and reports minority culture as a factor in the crime as well as the observable facts, while the other arrests the guy and reports the observable facts. The biased person in such a case, isn't just giving an indication of bias, they are describing exactly what their bias is, no matter how many real criticisms the biased person has in addition to the bias they express. Bias will always search out real criticisms for support. The only time real critcism can be evidence of bias is in the presence of perfection.

I'd agree with the idea that they do just have to make good movies, and that would solve the problem entirely. I'm not quite convinced that an okay or "merely valid" movie would do the trick because it is expected for DC movies to be competitive with Marvel films, because they're DC films and DC Comics is competitive with Marvel. That standard will not just vanish away. A merely okay film (I'd argue Man of Steel is this, but it is divisive and so alternates from worst to best movie ever) would sort of cement the idea that DC is a lesser Marvel, and while that may be true from a business angle, it's bad business to admit it and it would cause the film to be regarded, by some, as a failure and huge disappointment. DC is behind in a losing game, they kinda need to swing for a home run. The mis-handling of that pressure, I think is where a lot of the problems of the DCEU come from. Perhaps settling for second place or playing a much longer game would be a better alternative all in all, but the way they're going, by being very very distinct in style they can say "This is how it should be." Which is ridiculous, but the alternative seems to be admitting a major loss. I don't think they're ready to let that much money walk away, no matter how deep a hole they're digging.