Does branding make a difference in how artwork, tv, or films are perceived and rated?

[Clark-Kent]

Like taking the most obvious example into play there is "Man of Steel" a DC film and let's be honest, there is a certain brand stigma that they are behind Marvel in the film industry. The reception from fans seemed pretty decent but in terms of the critical reviews it was pretty mediocre. Comparatively some may argue there were Marvel films that garnered more success critically without (subjectively) actually being better films. Is there an idea of the branding that plays in, or that there is a more vast interrelated shared universe? By that I mean, if you felt "Iron Man 3" for example was not as good as "Man of Steel" is there a possibility that the Marvel name which has a better track record factored into the reception critically?

Looking at television, DC actually gets a lot of acclaim for being good at tv shows but not good on film. Is that really true though? Like, would you actually put shows like "Arrow" or " Gotham" up against "Daredevil"?! It seems to me that because there is more to offer in DC tv that perhaps the tv branding gives them a bit more recognition as a whole.

In terms of comics you have the mantra of Marvel being more "real people with real issues" and grittier in a grounded reality. DC being more powered and out of touch. While that may have been true to some extent years before, I do wonder if that evolved but people stuck with the brand idea in separating how they feel about heroes from Marvel vs heroes from DC.

Thoughts?

 

[Boy Scout]

Are you talking about fan culture or in general? Because the answer is yes, but the extents vary.