Are DC films held to a higher Caliber by critics?

[LordofhouseEl]

I ask this because it seems they get harsher criticism, recently saw Thor the dark world and I can honestly say that this movie was the worst superhero movie of 2013. I thought the movie was horrible even more some than MOS. After the movie I was curious of what it's RT score was and got blown away when I saw it scored higher than MOS and was considered fresh. So I started thinking how one movie could get away with one thing while another simply gets a pass. Does all this stem from the Avengers ***** or was MOS received in such a way because people expect more from DC?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Or the critics can have different opinions than you.

Now that that's out the way, Marvel does seem to be less harshly judged at times. I think it's because they've built up much more goodwill with fans during and after phase one that flaws are more easily overlooked.

 

[Lord]

It's because MoS has more problems in filmmaking, Marvel's films play it safe and reach their goals.

 

[The Endless]

Marvels films are more universal and family friendly. They get judged as such and mainly hit what they are going for.

DCs superhero films seem to aim higher, but don't quite hit the mark.

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[Tvar10]

I've been thinking this for a long time. Iron Man 3 was highly overrated but the critics praised it. And thor 2 wasn't anything special and was considered fresh. I think DC movies get compared to previous movies. (TDKR from TDK and MOS from the original superman) and get judged on that. I noticed a lot if reviews for TDKR were bad because the villain wasn't as good as the joker. That's unfair criticism and comparison.

 

[jonathancrane]

Critics do not like superhero films.

Period.

 

[747]

Personally I'd rate Thor 2 and MoS pretty much the same, in the quite good to good department, but for different reasons since they have such different approaches. In their own ways both have several very weak elements, several really good and are both ultimately enjoyable to me as a whole

Maybe the critics just have a different taste than you on this matter? And many other fans too for that matter.

 

[Lord]

To be fair, most superhero films don't make anything worth being reminded for by the critics, while The Dark Knight was for many years one of my favorite films and is possibly one of the best superhero films, However even that one is not perfect, and you can see why critics wouldn't find it all that good, considering Christopher Nolan relies a lot on spoon feeding the audience about what is going one or what they should feel. (i'm saying this as a major Nolan fan, he is one of my favorite directors, but i gotta admit that he does indeed have some problems)

And when there is one superhero film done in an interesting new manner, the following films just repeat what this one did, just look at The Man of Steel, where the filmmakers implemented what worked in Nolan's Batman trilogy, into Superman.

 

[Solidus]

To be fair, most superhero films don't make anything worth being reminded for by the critics, while The Dark Knight was for many years one of my favorite films and is possibly one of the best superhero films, However even that one is not perfect, and you can see why critics wouldn't find it all that good, considering Christopher Nolan relies a lot on spoon feeding the audience about what is going one or what they should feel. (i'm saying this as a major Nolan fan, he is one of my favorite directors, but i gotta admit that he does indeed have some problems)

And when there is one superhero film done in an interesting new manner, the following films just repeat what this one did, just look at The Man of Steel, where the filmmakers implemented what worked in Nolan's Batman trilogy, into Superman.

What alternate universe did critics not care for TDK?

That and no film is perfect.

 

[redhawk23]

The vast majority of critics don't know the difference to begin with.

 

[Lord]

What alternate universe did critics not care for TDK?

That and no film is perfect.

I didn't mean that they didn't care at all, just that they didn't really regard it the same way some of the general public and fan boys do, which lead to many people complaining that it wasn't nominated for the Oscars when it comes to the best picture.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Here's an essay I posted in the Thor threads a little while back. I actually liked MOS better than Thor 1 and 2, but the perspective of this article sheds light on why the MCU movies are better received than the DC movies.

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/01/03/cultural-lessons-of-2013-thor-is-the-new-superman/

 

[terry78]

You can make a superhero flick as deep and artsy and filled with pathos as you want. To most people even if it is engaging, it's still men running around in costumes.

 

[Solidus]

I didn't mean that they didn't care at all, just that they didn't really regard it the same way some of the general public and fan boys do, which lead to many people complaining that it wasn't nominated for the Oscars when it comes to the best picture.

Ya and many critics up roared because of that. Variety even said TDK clearly got snubbed. You do remember it did well with the WGA, DGA, SAG etc. No it was quite highly regarded and was in many top 10 lists of big critics.

It's just here on the Hype, some want to downplay that. But the Oscars mean squat, they've always given it to films that have been much more forgotten then other films that came out during those years.

 

[Lord]

I don't see many downplaying it here in the hype though, most international critics don't hold it high though, it's mostly American critics those who gave it such critics.

 

[Solidus]

I don't see many downplaying it here in the hype though, most international critics don't hold it high though, it's mostly American critics those who gave it such critics.

Hah, that's a lot of films that we love that they don't. Especially many "Oscar winning" ones. You're backpedaling now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_The_Dark_Knight

Here's a list of things it was nominated/won, many of them international. I hate when every thread gets pulled into a TDK/Nolan debate, but if you notice 99% of the time it's because of terrible false statements like "critics did not care for it" which you know is just a flat out lie.

As for this OP, I don't think critics know/care.

 

[jacobed]

Yes they absolutely are. With Dc movies especially the ones that Nolan is involved in or helped create. We look at them expecting not only a great comic book movie but a great movie in general. With Marvel we look at them and say yeah it was good for a Marvel movie. The standards for Marvel's movies are just less because they're less caliber and quite frankly they are all exactly the same thing

 

[Rocketman]

Are DC films held to a higher Caliber by critics?

Yes, because they're considerably better.

 

[redhawk23]

Yes they absolutely are. With Dc movies especially the ones that Nolan is involved in or helped create. We look at them expecting not only a great comic book movie but a great movie in general. With Marvel we look at them and say yeah it was good for a Marvel movie. The standards for Marvel's movies are just less because they're less caliber and quite frankly they are all exactly the same thing

^And that thing they are is generally entertaining. They are all quite similar and tone and such but really there one big series so it makes sense, and with phase 2 now the movies have moved farther apart. Thor 2 was able to go further with the the fantasy than the first film and all signs point to Captain America 2 emphasizing a spy thriller vibe, then of course who the hell knows what Guardians is going to be like.

Iron Man 3 may not be dour but the writers took some pretty big risks and those risks actually served some pretty stealthily laid-out themes (corporate/media constructed lowest common denominator villain mirroring the "re-branding" of a propoganda hero)

While the whole Mandarin thing ticked a lot of people off, it was an admission that the character was pretty terrible to begin with.

Man of Steel gets slammed because it disregarded much of what people like about the characters. To get Pa Kent so wrong is to equally get a large part of Superman wrong. That's not "living in the past" that's "why this character has endured for 75 years."

 

[redhawk23]

Are DC films held to a higher Caliber by critics?

Yes, because they're considerably better.

Are they?

 

[Shikamaru]

I didn't mean that they didn't care at all, just that they didn't really regard it the same way some of the general public and fan boys do, which lead to many people complaining that it wasn't nominated for the Oscars when it comes to the best picture.

Oscars =/= critics

And getting a mid-90 rating on RT does not constitute a film being praised by critics? It is the most critically praised CBM so far.

 

[MrMaooz]

The Marvel movies are just straight up fun action flicks. Aside from BB and TDK, I think Marvel has better quality.

 

[Rocketman]

Are they?

Yes.

That movie is no worse than Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Daredevil, Elektra, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four 2. If it's not equal to the quality of those films, I'd argue it's microscopically better.

Now, does Marvel have anything on the level of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, Watchmen, or V For Vendetta? I say no... with respectful consideration for The Avengers and Iron Man.

 

[metaphysician]

Yes.

That movie is no worse than [long list]

The world as a whole, critic and audience, disagrees. Radically. Just because you think Green Lantern is no worse than any other movie, doesn't mean its true.

 

[Raiden]

Yes they absolutely are. With Dc movies especially the ones that Nolan is involved in or helped create. We look at them expecting not only a great comic book movie but a great movie in general. With Marvel we look at them and say yeah it was good for a Marvel movie. The standards for Marvel's movies are just less because they're less caliber and quite frankly they are all exactly the same thing

Marvel movies are not exactly the same; they just have less peaks and valleys like DC movies, and tried to play it safer in Phase 1 because their goal was to eventually led into The Avengers. And this committment means that they have to make sure the movies will not turn into disasters like GL did. Everyone just forgot that before Avengers came out, it was perceived as a huge risk due to the committment to make those movies about B list superheroes and there was no guarantee that Avengers would even make that much money, and when IM1 started Marvel was borrowing money from Merrill Lynch to make MS movies.

People think that Marvel played it safe too much, but recently they gave the rein of IM3 to Shane Black and pretty much let him make the movie he wants to make, and even then people still criticized Marvel. I for one think Marvel has done the job as well as any studio could've done. WB always go back to movies starring Batman and Superman, and avoid their other superheroes because they don't like taking risks. Marvel actually made franchises out of "household" names like Iron Man, Thor, and Capt. America, names that non-comic book crowd had never heard of only a few years ago. To me, this accomplishment is far more impressive than making yet another Batman film.