Are DC films held to a higher Caliber by critics?

[Victarion]

I see what you're doing, OP.

 

[InJustice]

Dark Knight trilogy was great...but it's gone now. They are starting from scratch. I think more people would be excited if Bale and Nolan were included in the building of the first ever DC movie verse. It's fine to be pessimistic. Marvel has nothing to prove now. DC is up to bat now and they aren't starting strong.

No, just no. Bale and Nolan being involved in the DCCU means undermining the story that they created for TDKT.

Why people can't understand this, I'll never know.

 

[metaphysician]

No, just no. Bale and Nolan being involved in the DCCU means undermining the story that they created for TDKT.

Why people can't understand this, I'll never know.

There's an easy answer: because the least popular aspect of TDKR with the fanboys is the fact that it ended. Bruce Wayne retired, the cowl is passed on, story over.

"Bale and Nolan being involved with the DCCU" is code phrase for "The ending of TDKR gets retconned, possibly with John Blake horribly murdered for good measure".

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think part of it is that there are way less DC films. Plus, Batman and Superman are huge names.

Thor and Captain America for example just aren't in the same tier.

No one really cared about Green Lantern, because, well, he's not Batman or Superman.

 

[Rocketman]

I think there's definitely a Quantity vs. Quality issue too. Marvel seems to be cranking 'em out twice a year, which is great, but how many times have we been disappointed now? I thought Iron Man 2 and 3 were both a jumbled mess, and I thought Thor 2 was way too humorous for its own good. Did I enjoy them though? You bet I did.

I don't know. I personally think Marvel needs to slow down. If all of this leads to a reboot of characters, it will have been for nothing. And if it leads to gaping continuity errors, again, it will cause major frustrations. I can foresee the plans for the next three or four years, but what comes after THAT?

Guardians of the Galaxy 3?
Thor 4?
Captain America 4?
Ant-Man 3?
Avengers 5?
Doctor Strange 4?

Again, not being pessimistic... I just don't know how far it can really go. And this goes for DC too. I personally don't like shared universes, and I've made this known several times on these boards. I think they're limiting, and I think they're temporary.

 

[Marvin]

Throwing people through buildings doesn't count as a contribution?

My memory is bad, when did he throw people through buildings. Ignoring how many other heroes throw people though buildings, I honestly don't remember it happening in mos on the part of superman.

 

[jmc]

I think there's definitely a Quantity vs. Quality issue too. Marvel seems to be cranking 'em out twice a year, which is great, but how many times have we been disappointed now? I thought Iron Man 2 and 3 were both a jumbled mess, and I thought Thor 2 was way too humorous for its own good. Did I enjoy them though? You bet I did.

I don't know. I personally think Marvel needs to slow down. If all of this leads to a reboot of characters, it will have been for nothing. And if it leads to gaping continuity errors, again, it will cause major frustrations. I can foresee the plans for the next three or four years, but what comes after THAT?

Guardians of the Galaxy 3?
Thor 4?
Captain America 4?
Ant-Man 3?
Avengers 5?
Doctor Strange 4?

Again, not being pessimistic... I just don't know how far it can really go. And this goes for DC too. I personally don't like shared universes, and I've made this known several times on these boards. I think they're limiting, and I think they're temporary.

I've always felt, and still do, that the whole cinematic universe thing won't have longevity. It just doesn't make much sense to me to be honest doing it.

 

[InJustice]

There's an easy answer: because the least popular aspect of TDKR with the fanboys is the fact that it ended. Bruce Wayne retired, the cowl is passed on, story over.

That's not an "easy" answer. That's incredibly narrow-minded and shows how fans can't appreciate the vision that Nolan had for his trilogy. Nolan's Batman made it especially clear in TDK, that this Batman isn't someone who's going to keep doing this well into his 70s, that there was potential for catharsis and freedom from his trauma.

"Bale and Nolan being involved with the DCCU" is code phrase for "The ending of TDKR gets retconned, possibly with John Blake horribly murdered for good measure".

It's more than that.
- TDKT showed how Bruce can move on from his trauma. Why is Bruce coming back if he's supposedly free from Batman's grip? Connecting MOS negates this as if it's some simple afterthought. It's not simply the ending that would be redundant, but the entire narrative of TDKT as a whole. It fails to make sense when you connect the two.
- If Superman's arrival was that big of a deal in Metropolis, Smallville and the World, why wasn't Bruce Wayne on top of this? Hence, the timing difference between the two movies is non-sensical.
- The tonal differences: Man of Steel accepted superpowers whereas Nolan made it clear that supernatural traits do not exist in his world. Connecting Man of Steel with TDKT makes the tonal difference that much more jarring.

And most importantly, Nolan intended for his work to be separate, WB not revisiting and connecting TDKT is proof that they respect Nolan's wishes.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I can foresee the plans for the next three or four years, but what comes after THAT?

Who knows? I sure as hell don't want to. I was surprised with the Guardians of the Galaxy announcement. I was surprised with Ant-Man. I was surprised with Age of Ultron. I'd like to continue being surprised with the announcements for movies two-three-four years out. It'll only get stale once the surprises disappear. They have decades upon decades of source material to augment original storylines. I hope they keep surprising me, and I doubt they'll disappoint in that aspect.

 

[chaseter]

There's an easy answer: because the least popular aspect of TDKR with the fanboys is the fact that it ended. Bruce Wayne retired, the cowl is passed on, story over.

"Bale and Nolan being involved with the DCCU" is code phrase for "The ending of TDKR gets retconned, possibly with John Blake horribly murdered for good measure".

Not really.

 

[chaseter]

No, just no. Bale and Nolan being involved in the DCCU means undermining the story that they created for TDKT.

Why people can't understand this, I'll never know.

Not really.

 

[Poni_Boy]

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?

Rotten Tomatoes isn't the be-all-end-all of review aggregation but it's a solid jumping off point. When comparing the movies that Marvel Studios vs "new generation" of WB/DC put out the review percentages seem to be on point with the fan/general audience consensus:

Iron Man 93%
The Incredible Hulk 67%
Iron Man 2 73%
Thor 77%
Captain America TFA 79%
The Avengers 92%
Iron Man 3 78 %
Thor TDW 65%

Superman Returns 76%
Batman Begins 85%
The Dark Knight 94%
Green Lantern 26%
The Dark Knight Rises 88%
Man of Steel 55%

Honestly this argument about "critics have a Marvel bias" seems to stem specifically from "critics didn't like Man of Steel as much as I did" without simply stating that.

 

[InJustice]

Not really.

Mind explaining how?

I've already posted showing how it does undermine the story.

 

[slumcat]

Isn't this thread disingenuous to the extreme?

This is basically the equivalent of a Twilight fan saying " I love Twilight. I. How on earth can it be bad??? THE WORLD is wrong or there is something wrong with the world if they think it is a bad movie."

I would like to tell DC fans that there is no getting around the truth that MOS got panned by critics and sits with a rotten egg on its face on RT. One of the rare big budget superhero movies to be panned this way. Accept it and live with it.

 

[slumcat]

I will also out of magnanimity oldrazz propose a theory as to why the critics tore it apart.

Suppose there is a stupid kid on the playground. And he is strutting his stuff. But the older kids don't go after him because he is disarming and with a wink in his eye, knowing what he is and genial about it. That movie is Thor 2.

Now suppose there is another kid even stupider and strutting his stuff and acting all hoity-toity and important and claiming profundity, it is then that the older kids will rag him to pieces. That movie is MOS. A movie which has delusions of profundity and importance while in actuality it is just logic-fail ludicrous hokum. Most blockbusters are the later but thankfully few have the former.

That is the thing with DC movies like MOS, TDKR, Inception - all dumb **** blow-em-ups that thing they are meditations on humanity. And therein lies their biggest fail. Their emptiness laid bare due to the vast chasm between what they claim and what they deliver, their barren imagination put into sharper relief by their self-aggrandizing delusion.

 

[Marvin]

If your theory is to be believed, then the critical establishment is even more bs than one would imagine. We already have to content with the 'game' that is Armond White, now this..

Isn't this thread disingenuous to the extreme?

This is basically the equivalent of a Twilight fan saying " I love Twilight. I. How on earth can it be bad??? THE WORLD is wrong or there is something wrong with the world if they think it is a bad movie."

I would like to tell DC fans that there is no getting around the truth that MOS got panned by critics and sits with a rotten egg on its face on RT. One of the rare big budget superhero movies to be panned this way. Accept it and live with it.

Critics not liking something doesn't actually mean they are right. Not when they themselves are split(see air M. Night film reviews to see consensus) and the audience score disagrees. Kubrick's films have been said to have been appreciated over time, maybe people will come around to the shock of having their preconceptions met head on.

It's easier to sit with science magazine than it is with a bunch of self important opinions. Just saying.
The issue the TS stated didn't seem to be about mos deserving higher so much as why are other films that aren't all that much better(in his opinion) being given scores very much higher.

I half expected someone to answer, 'because the marvel films(thor 2 in this case) are that much better', however I doubt anyone would be so bold.

 

[InJustice]

My memory is bad, when did he throw people through buildings. Ignoring how many other heroes throw people though buildings, I honestly don't remember it happening in mos on the part of superman.

That's because it never happened. Zod was the one who threw Superman into buildings. The only time Superman was reckless was when he faceplanted Zod by the side of a building.

 

[Lord]

My bad,
I thought you were talking about which studio has had a bigger impact on the industry and sub genre. I'd argue that WB/nolan's 'grounding' approach has had more impact than marvel studio's approach to super heroes. I see now you are talking about the impact of the avengers on the industry. To which we've seen nothing other than a JLA green light imo.

Actually, The Avengers has lead to Sony, WB and Fox looking back at their properties and starting to expand on them in order to release a major event film. Even studios started to think about the possibility of a G.I.Joe/ Transformers crossover and the new Evil Dead seems to be partially inspired by that aproach, with the intentions of mixing the reboot universe with Ash in the future.

And there's also Universal trying to bring Universal Horror back, they even said they wanted Van Helsing and The Mummy reboots to be set in the same universe.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Studios are in a constant battle to one-up each other. When another studio does something that works (read: $$$) the rest will attempt to follow suit. X-Men was a game changer. Spider-Man was a game changer. TDK was a game changer. The Avengers was a game changer. Those are the "milestones" of the modern superhero movie culture. People put more weight to The Avengers' influence on the genre because it's both the latest and the most lucrative, so the other studios are trying to follow suit.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Thor 2 didn't get much better reviews than Man of Steel. It was only at 65% itself.

The probable big difference is that Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston are charming and charismatic leading men able to elevate the material around them and carry a film on their backs. Henry Cavill and Michael Shannon are not.

 

[Marvin]

^Maybe wait till mos2 where a possibly more a peace less 'in search of..' clark is written into the script.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So the OP is saying professional critics are Marvel fanboys?

Thor 2 was almost Marvel Studios first rotten movie. So I think they're tough on Marvel movies too. In fact, I'd say they seem to be getting tougher on the entire superhero genre.

I think many critics are tired of superheroes and their popularity.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Studios are in a constant battle to one-up each other. When another studio does something that works (read: $$$) the rest will attempt to follow suit. X-Men was a game changer. Spider-Man was a game changer. TDK was a game changer. The Avengers was a game changer. Those are the "milestones" of the modern superhero movie culture. People put more weight to The Avengers' influence on the genre because it's both the latest and the most lucrative, so the other studios are trying to follow suit.

Agreed. We'll put.

I've always felt, and still do, that the whole cinematic universe thing won't have longevity. It just doesn't make much sense to me to be honest doing it.

I think the main problem will be that you have to see a all movies to get what's going in the sequel to an earlier

Iron Man 3, Thor 2 and Cap 2 were/will be dependant on having seen Avengers.

As sequels to their previous movies there's too much missing in between and they don't flow.

As the cinematic universe thing goes on and on audiences will had to have followed all movies to get what's going on. They can't just watch Captain America then The Winter Soldier as they don't follow each other

They rebooted and constantly relaunch the comics to get people into it without having to know the baggage from earlier comics.
The movies will have to do the same soon enough.

 

[C. Lee]

My memory is bad, when did he throw people through buildings. Ignoring how many other heroes throw people though buildings, I honestly don't remember it happening in mos on the part of superman.

I just popped the DVD in and took a look....and at no point does Superman knock Zod through a building like Zod does to him.

However, there is one part that some may be referring to when they say that he caused damage to the city. Superman disables Zod's ship, but he doesn't do anything to divert it when it falls (unlike in SR where he safely places the 747 on the ground, or in STMP where he replaces the damaged engines with himself and lands the president's plane) and it smashes through 4 highrises before crashing in the street taking out several smaller buildings. Now, we haven't been shown the full extent of his powers at this time, it's quite possible that Zod's ship is just too big for him to be able to stop, but it would have been nice to see him try.

 

[Marvin]

I just popped the DVD in and took a look....and at no point does Superman knock Zod through a building like Zod does to him.

However, there is one part that some may be referring to when they say that he caused damage to the city. Superman disables Zod's ship, but he doesn't do anything to divert it when it falls (unlike in SR where he safely places the 747 on the ground, or in STMP where he replaces the damaged engines with himself and lands the president's plane) and it smashes through 4 highrises before crashing in the street taking out several smaller buildings. Now, we haven't been shown the full extent of his powers at this time, it's quite possible that Zod's ship is just too big for him to be able to stop, but it would have been nice to see him try.

I see. One can only imagine how many more of those buildings near ground zero were still populated at that point. The DP seemed to have evacuated pretty quickly. I suppose that's what they were referring to when they said throwing people through buildings lol. A gaff.

Anyways this is where that preconception thing really kicks in. If it wasn't for the previous examples you keenly listed, and if this was the first anyone had seen of the hero would the lack of showing him do something that came before be so obvious to us, I mean to say would anyone even be asking about it.. Ignoring that in the other two examples there was no antagonist and there was also crap load more time..does the circumstance ever get the character (aka the character known for being perfect) off of the hook. I'm firmly in the group that thinks it would be great to see him try but I also oppose the group that somehow asserts a negative due to the lack of bonus stuff.

I suppose the simplest question would be, when The Avengers brought down their various flying whales on various city structures, without trying to 'catch them' did we assert the same negative or did 'we' all just accept it due to no precedent set by previous films? How important is 'trying to catch' really? That's really the point here, how much does the precedent of superman set by previous canon affect the objective analysis. And how of did that affect the films reception vs the same things happening in marvel films.

I heard someone say, 'why didn't superman use his heat vision on the falling glass?' Again, ignoring the very different circumstances(to Superman Returns), how much of ones enjoyment has been conditioned by the precedent set by the previous films..and is that a factor in the critical discrepancy the TS pointed out.