Back in the saddle, into the fry pan -
someone, probably.
Internet fanboy-ism is an ever amusing element in the modern times. We all have computers, we all have the internet, and we all... like things? I'm not sure where I was going with that, but you get my point. Now, outside of us using the internet as a collective database of naked bottoms, we also love to use it as a means of bitching. Bitching about things we hate, bitching about things we love, bitching about how other people hate things we love, bitching about how we hate things other people love.
Now, fanboy is a word we use to describe people who will blindly love and support a pop-culture related something, usually beyond reason, all the while blindly criticising the main rival of whatever that something is. These fanboys are the master bitch-ers. This generally sets up a rivalry between opposing, erm, factions that occupies many an internet forum. You see it with Xbox v Playstation, Star Wars v Star Trek, Lord of the Rings v Harry Potter, hell, you even see it in the three Pokemon Go teams. But the current flavour of fanboyism is the DC v Marvel movie argument.
Comic books have been a staple of our culture since the 30s, with the two biggest publishers being DC Comics and Marvel Comics (there are others, and they may be big, but I don't care). Now, in case you have been living under a rock this past decade, what was once just a scattered smattering of comic book hero movies with no collective attachment to one another has given way to 'Cinematic Universes'. These create an internal world where series of movies all take place parallel to one another, with all the same characters inhibiting. These type of shared universes have certainly existed in film before (Universal Monsters, View Askewniverse, A Nightmare on Elm Street/Friday the 13th, Alien/Predator etc.) but never quite as ambitious as what we are receiving now. The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) currently has 13 released movies, with a further 9 in development, and a further line of television series. The newer, but no less ambitious, DC Extended Universe (DCEU) has 3 released films with another 10 in development. Both these 'universes' share characters within each film, and follow overarching plots, with each film a piece of that universe's ultimate story.
Full disclosure, I have never considered myself a fanboy of either (hey, isn't that a cop out!). I loved the first two Superman movies as a kid, watched X-Men: The Animated Series and had a Wolverine toy. When the initial comic book movies came out, I thoroughly enjoyed the X-Men movies, thought Spider-Man was a little overrated, and the Fantastic Four movies were dumb but enjoyable. I still maintain that Batman Begins is the best of The Dark Knight trilogy. I watch all these movies that come out! I want all of them to be good, because if they are not, well I wasted my money, and that sucks. That doesn't mean I don't prefer one of the film series, however, and I'm sure as this post goes on, you will discern which.
So to link my inherent rambling about fanboys and comics is the long term rivalry between fans of DC Comics and fans of Marvel Comics. This rivalry has extended into the film stratosphere, with the growing discontent of DC fans based on the perception of their believed 'unfair' treatment of DC films by film critics. Why is this? Well, as of right now, the films DCEU released have all received lukewarm at best, poor at worst, reviews. Generally speaking, the best way to determine how a film is fairing with the critics is through the use of two sites: Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic. Both of these are aggregate websites in that they do not have original reviews of their own, instead acting as a database of other recognised critic's reviews of films, and compiling overall ratings based on this collective. Rotten Tomatoes does this through a 'Fresh/Rotten' system (read: good/bad) whereby they read each individual review, determine whether or not it is a positive or negative, and then present a percentage based on positive reviews. If 60% or more of these reviews are positive, the film is thereby determined as 'Fresh'; conversely, if only 59% or less are positive, the film is considered 'Rotten'. Metacritic takes a simpler approach in that it collates all the reviews that give out the numerical film 'score', and discern the average based on that. As mentioned earlier, the DCEU has 3 released films, none of which have fared extremely well with critics. These films, and their respective Rotten Tomato and Metacritic scores, are as follows:
Man of Steel, Released: 2013.
Rotten Tomato rating: 55% (Rotten) (based on 301 reviews)
Metacritic score: 55 (based on 47 reviews)
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Released: 2016
Rotten Tomato rating: 27% (Rotten) (based on 344 reviews)
Metacritic score: 44 (based on 51 reviews)
Suicide Squad, Released: 2016
Rotten Tomato rating: 29% (Rotten) (based on 137 reviews)
Metacritic score: 42 (based on 45 reviews)
Now, as we can see, Rotten Tomatoes uses a much wider base for its reviews, as not every reviewer feels the need to assign a score to their review. Irrespective of this, you can certainly see an emerging pattern in that these DCEU films are hardly critical darlings. Compare that to the slate of Marvel films below:
Iron Man, Released: 2008
Rotten Tomato rating: 94% (Fresh), (based on 266 reviews)
Metacritic score: 79, (based on 38 reviews)
The Incredible Hulk, Released: 2008
Rotten Tomato rating: 67% (Fresh), (based on 222 reviews)
Metacritic score: 61, (based on 38 reviews)
Iron Man 2, Released: 2010
Rotten Tomato rating: 72% (Fresh), (based on 276 reviews)
Metacritic score: 57, (based on 40 reviews)
Thor, Released: 2011
Rotten Tomato rating: 77% (Fresh), (based on 267 reviews)
Metacritic score: 57, (based on 40 reviews)
Captain America: The First Avenger, Released: 2011
Rotten Tomato rating: 80% (Fresh), (based on 245 reviews)
Metacritic score: 66, (based on 43 reviews)
Marvel's The Avengers, Released: 2012
Rotten Tomato rating: 92% (Fresh), (based on 317 reviews)
Metacritic score: 69, (based on 42 reviews)
Iron Man 3, Released 2013
Rotten Tomato rating: 79% (Fresh), (based on 291 reviews)
Metacritic score: 62, (based on 44 reviews)
Thor: The Dark World, Released: 2013
Rotten Tomato rating: 66% (Fresh), (based on 247 reviews)
Metacritic score: 54, (based on 44 reviews)
Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Released: 2014
Rotten Tomato rating: 89% (Fresh), (based on 258 reviews)
Metacritic score: 70, (based on 47 reviews)
Guardians of the Galaxy, Released: 2014
Rotten Tomato rating: 91% (Fresh), (based on 288 reviews)
Metacritic score: 76, (based on 46 reviews)
Avengers: Age of Ultron, Released: 2015
Rotten Tomato rating: 75% (Fresh), (based on 309 reviews)
Metacritic score: 66, (based on 49 reviews)
Ant-Man, Released: 2015
Rotten Tomato rating: 81% (Fresh), (based on 271 reviews)
Metacritic score: 64, (based on 43 reviews)
Captain America: Civil War, Released: 2016
Rotten Tomato rating: 90% (Fresh), (based on 320 reviews)
Metacritic score: 75, (based on 52 reviews)
Now that we've gotten through that long list of numbers (that I am sure most of you skipped over anyway), we can discern the fact that critics are indeed more favourable to MCU films over DCEU films. What does this mean? Well, if you are a DC fanboy, it means that obviously film critics are biased, have an agenda, and are being paid off by Disney. If you are grounded in reality, however, it just means that critics haven't taken to DC films as warmly as they have Marvel films. This could be for a number of reasons. It should be noted that, based on Metacritic's scores, the difference between the universe's average film scores is not even too vast: 66 for Marvel, 47 for DC. Yes, clearly Marvel is still faring better, but it paints a better picture than the 81% vs. 37% for their Rotten Tomato rating. But why? As it stands, the DCEU is still in its infancy compared to the MCU. The MCU is currently in it's third 'phase', and has seen dozens of characters introduced, evolve, and interact with the other characters. Comparatively, the DCEU has barely started, with one solo film, and two ensemble films. If you were to compare the first 3 Marvel films to the first 3 DC films, things don't look as dire.
I don't want to divulge into a bunch of reviews for each of these films, but I will try to justify their significance in the "bigger picture" of the universes as a whole. Iron Man was a big gamble for the newly minted Marvel Studio, the character being a relatively second-tier comic book character in terms of recognition from the general public. But, I think we can all agree, they knocked it out of the park. The casting of Robert Downey, Jr., an up-and-down actor who had had several drug-related issues throughout his career, was an inspired choice, and the man is now synonymous with the character. But the next two released films? The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2. Neither of these films were bad, but certainly not to the level of quality that the first Iron Man was. The first Iron Man was fresh, with a gentle approach to the world-building attitude of the cinematic universe, but it's sequel shamelessly tried to shoehorn in elements of future MCU films, whilst presenting a relatively formulaic plot with some fairly shallow character additions. But the goodwill of the first film managed to gloss over a lot of the flaws present, and it was largely forgotten. The Incredible Hulk, on the other hand, was a generally bland affair, and suffered a bit of an identity crisis in what kind of film it wanted to be, a serious character reflecting one, or a romp-a-stomp Hulk-smasher, a general reflection of the difficulties of the character itself. However, being so closely released to the far superior Iron Man, in conjunction with the eventual reshuffling of Hulk actors, The Incredible Hulk too has managed to be largely forgotten in the franchise. So what does this say about the MCU? Well, despite a blockbuster initial entry, the MCU certainly suffered some growing pains on its way to becoming the behemoth it currently is.
In comparison to the MCU, which opened with a relatively untouched (at least in the cinematic sense) character, to kick-start their cinematic universe, DC chose the longtime fan favourite in Superman. Now, Man of Steel was the third iteration of the Superman character, and, as noted, has been a very well known commodity for decades, so his selection could be seen as a relatively 'safe' choice. Yet, as this version of the character was entirely removed from that of the other version, we once again have to engage in an origin story, and justify this version of the character. What we eventually got was a more sombre re-imagining that eventually descended into a relatively formulaic, bad guys try to take over the world film. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't an out-and-out success either. It couldn't use goodwill from past films because, well, somewhere after The Quest for Peace and Returns, that dried up, but at the same time, it didn't hold a candle to both the first two Reeve-led films, either. So it sat oddly in the middle, with it's mixed reviews reflective of that. Sometime after that, it would appear as though Warner Bros (DCEU's distributors) hit the panic button, and decided to put all their eggs in one basket by announcing Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, a singular film that tried to act as a sequel to Man of Steel, whilst introducing a new Batman, but also provide the inspiration for the creation of the Justice League. What we eventually got was a 3-hour mess that simply collapsed under the weight of its own expectations. A director's cut released post-cinema does manage clean up some of the mess, but the damage was already done in it's cinematic release. If DC had chosen to parallel the slower build-up of solo character films that Marvel had, this misstep could have been forgiven. But this wasn't a quiet film about the Hulk's internal quarrels or Iron Man's drinking problems, it was the match up between two of the most recognisable comic book characters in history, Batman and Superman. It's failure as a film caused massive ripples because of the significance of the film it was.
As of right now, I have not seen Suicide Squad. Most reviews note similar issues to BvS, however, in that it's narrative is all over the place, and it lacks fluidity. I will be able to talk on this later, hopefully.
So why are these films being attacked so much more than any of the Marvel failures? I don't want this to simply come down to an argument of genuine quality, because in the eyes of fanboys, well, that is pretty irrelevant. As a franchise, the comparison of current DC films and current Marvel films is unfair to the DC films. They are still trying to find their feet as a collective unit, and Marvel has been operating for the last 8 years with a relatively strong vision throughout. Yet who is making these comparisons? Marvel fans, I can guarantee you, don't. As it stands, Marvel fans can smugly look down without even having to say anything. The films are more commercially and critically successful. But not a comment goes by from a DC fan without the inevitable comparison to the Marvel films, and the criticisms as to why it's not as good as it's made out to be. The chip is on the DC fans shoulder, whether they want to admit it or not.
One of the chief criticisms from DC fanboys of the Marvel franchise is the lighter tone of the Marvel films. Even in the quote unquote darker films in the Marvel universe, there is still lighter moments, which DC fanboys generally deride as campy humour aimed at children, further suggesting that if films are to have elements of humour in them, they must be aimed at children. Now dictionary.com gives the following definitions for the adjective 'camp':
1. (of a man or his manner) ostentatiously and extravagantly effeminate.
"a heavily made-up and highly camp actor"
2. deliberately exaggerated and theatrical in style.
"the movie seems more camp than shocking or gruesome"
Having seen all the Marvel films, I can categorically state that none of them contain humour in this sense, so such criticisms are either hyperbole, or commenters don't know what campy humour actually is. I would generally lean towards the former, which would go hand in hand with the silly scepticism associated with the critics general honesty. In contrast to these criticisms is that DC films are too smart and tonally dark for casual movie goers, which (once again, I have not seen Suicide Squad), judging from BvS, I can only assume they mean literally dark, because it is certainly a very dreary
looking film, with a strong grey colour palette. As for the actual tones, well, thus far, the DCEU has taken a mostly humourless approach to their opening two films, but being humourless doesn't automatically translate to it being a darker story. Iron Man as a character was kidnapped by terrorists and forced to come face-to-face with the by-product of his weapon genius in the opening Iron Man film. There has been plenty of films in the MCU dealing with the moral dilemma of the usage of weapons of mass destruction, and also that of external authority and accountability. Furthermore, to automatically attribute Batman v Superman as a film that was simply too smart for the masses because of how confusing its plot was at points is just wrong, and the release of the extended version of the film further points to that because its sole purpose was to clean up those confusing elements by re-adding expository scenes. To clarify, the extended cut is much less confusing in this manner than the theatrical release, although Lex Luthor's ultimate plot is still very convoluted.
Thus far, I think the biggest thing missing from the DCEU is charm. Robert Downey Jr. injected so much charm into the Iron Man series, and each lead thus far has had it in various helpings, be it Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Chris Pratt (so many damn Chris'!) and Paul Rudd, with the only notable exception being Edward Norton in what was a terrible miscast role (a mistake that was quickly rectified). This charm can ultimately paste over some flaws of the weaker entries in the MCU (as well as the previously mentioned goodwill of the stronger entries). Of the DCEU, two of their three films have been ensemble films of which there is no clear lead, and the third, Man of Steel, seemed content with portraying Superman as an incredibly boring character (which is, admittedly, kind of in line with his general character). No one character is particular endearing to the audience, certainly not in the way Robert Downey Jr. was for the MCU. Will that change in the coming films? Maybe. We've had some footage shown of the upcoming Justice League movie, and whilst there seems to be a stronger emphasis on humour, is Ben Affleck and his grumpy Batman the right person to be leading that? Time will tell...
