Are DC films held to a higher Caliber by critics?

[Raiden]

Are they?

DC superheroes that were made before or during in the last 10 years or so on Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy run. I'm not sure I can sit through any of them more than once, even SR.

 

[Raiden]

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.

So for the bad movies, you counted the Marvel movies that were made by Fox and Sony, but for good Marvel movies you only counted ones made by Marvel Studios, and avoid mentioning Spider-Man 1 & 2, X-Men 1 & 2, and First Class?

 

[milost]

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.

Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, X2, Iron Man, First Class, Captain America, and Avengers are just as good and on "another level" than some of the ones you listed, atleast Begins, Man of Steel and TDKR.

What the hell is so great about Man of Steel?

In my mind, these are the greats/good flms DC has under their belt (some that I don't even like),

- Superman: The Movie
- Batman 1989

- Batman Begins
- The Dark Knight

(If we count these as 'DC', V especially)
- Watchmen
- V for Vendetta

- TDKR

Maybe Superman II and Batman Returns as well.

The rest, Superman Returns? Man of Steel? Catwoman? Green Lantern? Pretty much all the Superman sequels of the 80s? The Scumacher films? JONAH HEX? Are you kidding me?


Marvel (if we count Disney, Sony and Fox) has much more with consistent quality all around,

- Spider-Man
- Spider-Man 2

- X-Men
- X2
- First Class
- The Wolverine

- Iron Man
- Captain America
- Thor
- Avengers


Now you got your Elektra's, Fantastic 4's, Ghost Rider's etc. but they were, at the time, always sprinkled in with quality movies (because of the different productions). I prefer DC and Batman as a whole, but Marvel has trumped them as far as I'm concerned. There's a reason DC/Warner's is jumping the gun with their team movies.

 

[DACrowe]

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.

TDKR still received nearly 90 percent good reviews and was on many top 10 lists at the end of that year.

But it honestly wasn't as good as TDK and Bane just isn't as good a character as the Joker. So those points are valid.

 

[Lord]

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.

Eh? What? In least those films had decent directing on the very least, Green Lantern even failed at playing it safe.

 

[DACrowe]

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.

Critics do not think it is the best movie ever or better than sliced bread like fanboys do, this is true.

However, it cropped up on countless Top 10 lists in 2008 (TDKR did as well) and was nominated for Best Picture or put in its circle list by National Board of Review, The Critics Choice Awards, AFI, and guild members like the Directors Guild, the Producers Guild, and the Writers Guild.

It was actually incredibly well received by critics and is still the one that they compare nearly all superhero movies to. It is also why the Academy now nominates up to 10 movies instead of only five.

With that said, yes fans tend to overrate it as the best movie ever.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It is also why the Academy now nominates up to 10 movies instead of only five.

Glad you mentioned it. The critical and moviegoer backlash against the Academy not nominating The Dark Knight convincing the Academy to change the nomination process was quite the achievement.

 

[Shikamaru]

Watchmen and V for Vendetta shouldn't count IMO. Aside from them not being based on any DCU characters, those are almost straight adaptations of graphic novels. It is very hard to screw up something like that when the intentions are to make them almost page-to-page translations, especially when the graphic novels they're based on were both critically acclaimed in the first place.

But even then, those films were not received anywhere near as well as their respective books were. V for Vendetta got a lot of criticism for the source-material departures it made, including criticism for changing the whole message. And although I liked the Watchmen film, it tried to do way too much. It was clearly not the best pick for a film, as its reception shows. Watchmen is one of those books that you have to read at your own pace. It is very heavy and there is a lot to it. If you've never read the book or don't know anything about it, chances are you will be confused by a lot of things, which is a major criticism that movie got from non-comic book fans. I watched the film with my parents and they didn't understand a lot of the film. I had to constantly fill them in with details and explanations.

 

[moviedoors]

Critics do not like superhero films.

Period.

Blatantly not true.

 

[Raiden]

Watchmen and V for Vendetta shouldn't count IMO. Aside from them not being based on any DCU characters, those are almost straight adaptations of graphic novels. It is very hard to screw up something like that when the intentions are to make them almost page-to-page translations, especially when the graphic novels they're based on were both critically acclaimed in the first place.

But even then, those films were not received anywhere near as well as their respective books were. V for Vendetta got a lot of criticism for the source-material departures it made, including criticism for changing the whole message. And although I liked the Watchmen film, it tried to do way too much. It was clearly not the best pick for a film, as its reception shows. Watchmen is one of those books that you have to read at your own pace. It is very heavy and there is a lot to it. If you've never read the book or don't know anything about it, chances are you will be confused by a lot of things, which is a major criticism that movie got from non-comic book fans. I watched the film with my parents and they didn't understand a lot of the film. I had to constantly fill them in with details and explanations.

I also do not like to count Watchmen and V for Vandetta movies, which are okay but not amazing movies. Furthermore, if you count these movies then you will also have to count Constantine and Jonah Hex.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

For what is is worth, I think Marvel's movies always get similar reviews because their movies are all essentially the same. The odd one like Iron Man or The Avengers is elevated above the rest of the pack in terms of execution, but the ones released thus far are all very similar. If you like one, you probably like all of them and vice-versa. This is not the case for WB, Fox, and Sony.

 

[Green Goblin]

I don't really care what critics have to say.

Their opinions are no less than ours

 

[The Endless]

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.

haha Green Lantern is Steel level bad. It's no where near as good as the likes of IM3 or Thor 2. The acting in those movies along elevates them above Green Lantern.

People say Marvel play it safe. True, for the first series of films. But they had to, if any of those films bombed then Marvel Studios goes bankrupt. DC are back by the mega studio Warner Bros.

And now were are seeing Marvel take more risks. IM3 basically was Shane Black sticking a middle finger up to Marvels formula. And Guardians of the Galaxy?!?! Come on.

 

[Raiden]

For what is is worth, I think Marvel's movies always get similar reviews because their movies are all essentially the same. The odd one like Iron Man or The Avengers is elevated above the rest of the pack in terms of execution, but the ones released thus far are all very similar. If you like one, you probably like all of them and vice-versa. This is not the case for WB, Fox, and Sony.

As I said in my previous post, I don't think Marvel movies are essentially the same, but I think Marvel has tried to make them a little safer while ensuring that they will not be terrible films and tank, because early on (before Disney's acquisition), they had to pay off Merrill Lynch's loans so they cannot afford to make stinkers like Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Catwoman. They also had to ensure that they can build up to The Avengers (a gamble before its release), and therefore Marvel would rather make them middle-of-the-road and not risk a bomb, so even the worst-received movie like IM2 did not crash-and-burn. Making a movie within a cinematic universe is alot different than Nolan's movies, which were contained within its own universe and didn't have to be mindful how it can integrate itself to MOS and other DC movies. I think with all the variables factored in, I'd give Marvel Studios alot of credit for the movies they made. I would definitely rewatch any of them again over many other CBMs.

 

[chaseter]

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?

Batman has great reviews from the critics. So, your point isn't valid. MoS was the worst superhero movies of 2013 and the sequel is shaping up to be a bigger turd somehow.

 

[insideguy]

Watchmen and V for Vendetta shouldn't count IMO. Aside from them not being based on any DCU characters, those are almost straight adaptations of graphic novels. It is very hard to screw up something like that when the intentions are to make them almost page-to-page translations, especially when the graphic novels they're based on were both critically acclaimed in the first place.

But even then, those films were not received anywhere near as well as their respective books were. V for Vendetta got a lot of criticism for the source-material departures it made, including criticism for changing the whole message. And although I liked the Watchmen film, it tried to do way too much. It was clearly not the best pick for a film, as its reception shows. Watchmen is one of those books that you have to read at your own pace. It is very heavy and there is a lot to it. If you've never read the book or don't know anything about it, chances are you will be confused by a lot of things, which is a major criticism that movie got from non-comic book fans. I watched the film with my parents and they didn't understand a lot of the film. I had to constantly fill them in with details and explanations.

V really isnt even close to be a straight up adaption of the graphic novel.

 

[Shikamaru]

^ That's my point. They couldn't even do that.

Despite the film being received "well", it isn't anywhere as well received as the book.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

As I said in my previous post, I don't think Marvel movies are essentially the same, but I think Marvel has tried to make them a little safer while ensuring that they will not be terrible films and tank, because early on (before Disney's acquisition), they had to pay off Merrill Lynch's loans so they cannot afford to make stinkers like Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Catwoman. They also had to ensure that they can build up to The Avengers (a gamble before its release), and therefore Marvel would rather make them middle-of-the-road and not risk a bomb, so even the worst-received movie like IM2 did not crash-and-burn. Making a movie within a cinematic universe is alot different than Nolan's movies, which were contained within its own universe and didn't have to be mindful how it can integrate itself to MOS and other DC movies. I think with all the variables factored in, I'd give Marvel Studios alot of credit for the movies they made. I would definitely rewatch any of them again over many other CBMs.

It isn't a complaint. Merely an observation. I like the Marvel films. There are minor differences between them of course, but overall they are very similar to each other. And that's why the critical response to each one tends to be similar as well. I can't speak for Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man because they haven't been released yet.

If Marvel/Disney makes a film as bad as Green Lantern, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, or Ghost Rider, like the other studios then they will get bad reviews too.

 

[weezerspider]

It's all about what you've set out to accomplish in your film. If you set out to make a cerebral character drama masterpiece about Superman and you don't exceed, you failed your goal. The film is probably missing something. However, if you set out to make an entertaining popcorn flick with little more expectations and you succeed, then you reached your goal. For the most part, the film is made how you envisioned it. That means, there are probably less issues with the film.

The guy who tries to hit a home run and hits the ball all the way to deep center, but ultimately the center catches it, hit the ball further than the guy who got a single, yet the guy who hit the single actually got on base. Whether it be because of their work with Nolan or whatever, DC, for the most part, has strived to make bigger, more 'artistic' films than Marvel and are flying out every time, where Marvel keeps hitting singles, a few doubles and occasionally the home run( The Avengers and Iron Man), because they aren't trying to hit a homer every time, they are keeping their goals realistic and becoming more efficient at what they are doing. I admire DC's goals. I admire Marvel's consistency. Both could learn from each other. However, you are always going to take a single over a fly out, which is why Marvel gets better reviews more consistently. When DC makes something good (Nolan's work), it gets all the praise it deserves.

If you don't get baseball analogies...well you are **** out of luck.

 

[MrMaooz]

It's all about what you've set out to accomplish in your film. If you set out to make a cerebral character drama masterpiece about Superman and you don't exceed, you failed your goal. The film is probably missing something. However, if you set out to make an entertaining popcorn flick with little more expectations and you succeed, then you reached your goal. For the most part, the film is made how you envisioned it. That means, there are probably less issues with the film.

The guy who tries to hit a home run and hits the ball all the way to deep center, but ultimately the center catches it, hit the ball further than the guy who got a single, yet the guy who hit the single actually got on base. Whether it be because of their work with Nolan or whatever, DC, for the most part, has strived to make bigger, more 'artistic' films than Marvel and are flying out every time, where Marvel keeps hitting singles, a few doubles and occasionally the home run( The Avengers and Iron Man), because they aren't trying to hit a homer every time, they are keeping their goals realistic and becoming more efficient at what they are doing. I admire DC's goals. I admire Marvel's consistency. Both could learn from each other. However, you are always going to take a single over a fly out, which is why Marvel gets better reviews more consistently. When DC makes something good (Nolan's work), it gets all the praise it deserves.

If you don't get baseball analogies...well you are **** out of luck.

This a great analogy. One of the best when comparing the DC and Marvel movies. Nice perspective.

 

[Lord]

The Man of Steel was actually more Nolan wannabe than artistic. A Superman film similar to the Fleisher cartoons with a Metropolis that looks as a true city of the future would be an artistic film. What we got was good action, shaky cam where it's not necessary and the usual WB filter where the film loses all of its color.

 

[weezerspider]

This a great analogy. One of the best when comparing the DC and Marvel movies. Nice perspective.

Thanks. Marvel's put themselves in a position now where it will be easier to try a few homers and take a few chances (GOTG and Ant-Man), where as DC kind of started swinging for the deep ball early on and have been left in the dust. That said, the few times DC has made it work, its been huge(Nolan's Batman films) and had a much bigger impact in the film industry than any one film Marvel has done, so it really is a matter of perspective. Personally, I'd like Marvel to try and add some depth, while I'd like DC to pull back a little and get the little things right first. As I said, they could both learn from each other.

 

[Lord]

GOTG is a film taking chances? Looks like the plot will be very "safe".

I also wouldn't say that Nolan's Batman films have had a bigger impact on the film industry, due to The Avengers, every studio is now looking at their library of properties in order to come up with similar event films.

 

[chaseter]

^^ Except for the Avengers. That is now the bar for superhero movies. It's even why DC is trying to copy Marvel by adding everyone to MoS II without any of the setup...aka fail.

 

[Marvin]

GOTG is a film taking chances? Looks like the plit will be very "safe".

I also wouldn't say that Nolan's Batman films have had a bigger impact on the film industry, due to The Avengers, every studio is now looking at their library of properties in order to come up with similar event films.

That's just one film. Marvel is more than just avengers.
As much as the marketing dept will try and have you forget. The first avenger for example.

^^ Except for the Avengers. That is now the bar for superhero movies. It's even why DC is trying to copy Marvel by adding everyone to MoS II without any of the setup...aka fail.

If they were copying marvel, wouldn't they too be doing set up films?
Seems to me they are finally doing the Superman/Batman film they've tried to get going for years now.

With the addition of Wonderwoman. The character everyone said WB would never ever commit to. Even while marvel was making a raccoon movie...
They can't win.