If there WERE a sort-of "anti-DC bias" in the minds of movie reviewers, how do you think it works?

[Kolby Jack]

Full disclosure, I am a huge DC fan and I have liked every DCEU film so far (all two of them I have seen). I think they had problems, but were fairly faithful to the source material and do a good job of differentiating themselves from Marvel. That's not what this topic is about, but I felt I should mention my own feelings in case they become important to whatever points I try to make. Moving on.

So Suicide Squad has been released to... not great aggregated review scores. Now passionate DC fans are frothing once again about purported bias among big name film reviewers against the DCEU as whole, whether it be accusations of being paid off, bashing DC being "trendy," or just not "getting it," and snarky know-it-alls are just jumping on the chance to get someone riled up because that thing they love isn't loved by everyone else and they TOTALLY CALLED IT, YOU GUYS.

But what kind of bias could there be, if any? I'm sure some of you are annoyed at even entertaining the notion that bias could exist against one specific brand in the minds of many reviewers. I'll admit, it's probably not likely, but I also don't think it's impossible. Bias exists in all of us at all times, and it's fairly easy for even the most critical of thinkers to be influenced on a large scale.

So what could be a reason for this supposed bias to exist? The Marvel movies began in 2008 with Iron Man. It was a well received movie that began the whole universe. Also around that time? The Christopher Nolan Batman movies! Also well received, with The Dark Knight being hailed as one of the greatest comic book movies of all time. Clearly, no such bias existed back then. But the MCU was in its beginning stages, hardly the cinematic behemoth of today. Also, the Dark Knight Trilogy had no grander scope, no extended universe, and they weren't trying to mimic Marvel's success like DC is trying to do now.

I don't know. I'm just curious to see what sort of bias could actually be taking pace here. Please discuss, but try not to talk too much about your feelings on the films themselves because there are already topics for that. But I'm sure I'll be disappointed in where this discussion goes no matter what because this is the internet.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Without getting too tinfoil-hat about it, there's a few possible reasons.

The first is that critics have just been spoiled rotten by the spate of really good comic book movies coming out regularly since 2008. People have just...you know...forgotten what a bad comic book movie looks like. And when they think back to real stinkers like the FF movies or Batman and Robin, they slip on nostalgia filters and start talking about how charmingly cheesy it is.

The second is just a sort of shift in the comic book fandom's tastes towards more upbeat and colourful movies, which the DC films decidedly aren't. This one isn't the fault of anyone in particular; it wasn't that long ago that people were railing against the unforgivable cheesiness of most comic book adaptations and praising the "realistic" approach taken in X-Men and the Nolan films. In this case, it's just a change in tastes. It's difficult to realise that it's been almost a decade since the Nolan film trilogy launched; people get older, children grow up and start watching these films and commenting on them, and the whole gestalt changes as a result. Add that to peer pressure, where we're more likely to like something if other people like it and more likely to hate something if other people hate it, and it's easy to see why a fairly serious, gloomy film like Batman v Superman gets such a acidic reaction.

My personal favourite conspiracy theory, however - which I've mentioned in two other threads now, so I won't beat a dead horse though - is that there's just a Marvel fanboy working at Rotten Tomatoes, surreptitiously "re-interpreting" ambiguous reviews...though that's highly unlikely. It's more probable that DC has just had trouble producing an unambiguous hit, and Rotten Tomatoes - as a matter of policy, in fact - interprets "mediocre" as "bad." Controversy and nuance are smoothed over to produce that simple two-digit percentage that so many people put so much damn weight on.

And then it just echo-chambers back on itself, where everyone's saying that the new DC film sucks because its Tomatometer is atrocious, and then the Tomatometer gets worse because it's counting the people saying that the new DC film sucks, and so on and so on in a big ol' circular hate-jerk. I've seen people claiming that BvS left them shaking in anger or gave them apoplexy or whatever, and it's like...guys. It's not that bad. People like to exaggerate for comic effect or extra pageviews, consciously or not.

I really don't think it's anything intentional on anyone's part. Hanlon's razor; never assign malice to what could be explained with stupidity. I think it's just a mix of DC providing a distinctly different style of movie to Marvel and the Internet's general love for forming a hatedom. People really like complaining about shit. They don't want to complain about real shit, like ISIS or racially-charged police shootings, because that's complicated. They just want to shit on Zack Snyder, like the ancient Romans used to shit on a goat before sacrificing it to appease their gods.

(I am not totally 100% on ancient Roman religious practices)

 

[Kolby Jack]

Snip.

That's an interesting take on it. I can't argue against the idea that people like to be edgy on the internet solely to be edgy. That's certainly true, but do you think it even extends to professional critics? I mean at least some people consider a critic to be a type of journalist, with its own flavor of journalistic integrity. They're still people, but you'd think they'd be able to catch themselves forming this sort of mindset.

To add on to your point about the old bad comic books movies, I think most people may not necessarily think of them of them as "charming," but they don't treat their badness like it's some kind of personal attack. Maybe because back then they were kids, and that shit didn't matter. And now they're grown and they think if they know better, the world should too. And when the world doesn't live up to their own ideas of growth and improvement, it hurts them? I'm no psychologist, of course, but I can't see any other reason why people react with so much bile and fury when they see a bad movie or game they were emotionally invested in.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Possibly the success of the MCU and the X-Men movies have gotten people excited for big, multi-hero and multi-story settings, something which DC hasn't done til recently, and seems to be trying too hard to catch up with.

The comics themselves have settings that are ponderously large, with lots of heroes and crossovers.

Though, I'm the wrong person to ask, I like the sillines of Batman and Robin (the hero is into dressing up as a bat, you might not want to take any film about this person too seriously), and I think the MCU is rather woeful. Mixed feelings on the X-Men films, though.

 

[votemarvel]

I find myself agreeing with a lot of the critics.

I am a pretty big reader of DC and Marvel comics, but on the cinematic side Marvel seem to be embracing their comic book roots while DC are fighting equally hard to ignore them and make their movies 'realistic and grounded'.

Personally speaking I far prefer the approach that the MCU is taking, it's not as if there aren't dark moments but it's never a dark universe. The DC cinematic universe though is just layered with darkness and misery and if I wanted that I'd turn on the news and see what crap we are doing to ourselves in the real world.

I've not seen Suicide Squad yet but of people I know who have seen it, they say it's a much needed boost of humor into DC's movies.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Without getting too tinfoil-hat about it, there's a few possible reasons.

The first is that critics have just been spoiled rotten by the spate of really good comic book movies coming out regularly since 2008. People have just...you know...forgotten what a bad comic book movie looks like. And when they think back to real stinkers like the FF movies or Batman and Robin, they slip on nostalgia filters and start talking about how charmingly cheesy it is.

Which Fantastic Four? The Early 2000s one? Because I have not seen a single person defending that movie and also that movie would totally fit with the main Marvel movies these days. I mean Doctor Doom aesthetically looked like Doctor Doom.

Also I knew people will end up loving Batman and Robin despite the very much deserved panning it got. I just think it reminds people of Adam West Batman.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

The thing is I'm a DC fanboy. More specifically I'm a Superman fanboy. And I hate the DCEU too. I don't read many Marvel books but I still prefer their movies. Because DC's are an absolute mess. They're poorly made films. The editing is a mess, the narrative is patchy and all over the place, everyone except Batman and Alfred are awful, seriously the relationship between Clark and Lois is just terrible, there's no chemistry there. BvS tried to tell way too many stories and as a result ended up half telling all of them. Lex makes no sense, sure people have tried to justify his actions but nothing in the plot itself does. Way too many dream sequences as a quick way to teach the characters lessons. That's not plot, that's sidestepping the plot to rush things along. And all that being said there's movies I like that you could say worse about I'm sure. People are going to dislike things you like, sometimes even the majority is going to dislike things you like. We all need to grow up and deal with that mkay?

The plot of BvS does make a lot more sense in the extended cut. There's still some holes and things that could've been improved, but it expands on Clark and Lois as well as elaborating on the details of Luthor's plan. For example, the reason he bombed Capitol Hill was because

Spoiler

Senator Holly Hunt had found out that he was bribing/blackmailing people to pose as "survivors" of a Superman incident and lie about it on the stand; she was planning to publicly exonerate Superman at that very hearing.

I have to disagree with you on Clark and Lois' relationship. I found to be a big step up from Man of Steel. That bathtub scene was adorable. My sister was sitting next to me just going squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I do think the film's two major flaws were its very poor editing (in the theatrical cut, at least) and, relatedly, the fact that it tried to shove two film's worth of story and film into two-and-a-half hours.

As much as I loved Wonder Woman, her inclusion in the film turned it into Justice League 0.5, and necessitated the addition of Doomsday to a plot that ultimately should have been limited to Batman and Superman doing a meet-and-beat. (It's where you meet someone, then beat them.)

If WB and Zack Snyder hadn't overreached and just made two freaking films - one where Luthor manipulates Batman into fighting Superman, and another where Luthor creates Doomsday and the proto-League has to form to defeat it) they would've done a lot better. And probably made twice as much money! Seriously, why are they trying to make fewer films?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

That's like asking if the Angry Video Game Nerd had a LJN bias. Its not his fault all the shit games came from one company.

So too DC. Its not the reviewers fault that the current DC movie franchise is shit.

Also Dark Knight is like the 3rd Best movie of all time on IMDB, and Fantastic Four happened. Also X-men. And Deadpool. And Spiderman. And basically everything Marvel related not in the movie franchise.

I think its worth noting that, looking at history, bad DC movies are the exception whereas bad Marvel movies were the rule until Iron Man.

 

[mecegirl]

There isn't a bias there just haven't been any stellar DC movies lately besides the Batman ones. And really they don't need to be stellar just fun, its not like every recent Marvel film has been a masterpiece just entertaining. Once DC hits their stride the reviews will even out. Fans of the comics can offer deeper critiques like how MOS was a little too dark for a story centered around Superman, but beyond that there are other issues with the movies pacing and characterization. The characters just weren't likable. Not everyone going into the theater knows Perry White and Lois Lane in the comics so you got to grip them from the start.

 

[CaitSeith]

It would be like a worm that borrowed inside the critic's mind a unconsciously makes them feel disgusted at DCEU movies. In fact, it's literally a very little bio-engineered worm designed by Marvel that was set loose in theaters where the critics usually watch their movies! So, next time put some foil over your head when you go to watch some Marvel. /s

 

[GestaltEsper]

You know, a part of me can't wait for Wonder Woman and Justice League to come out. They look pretty good from the trailers and hopefully will be very well received. But as much as I'd love to see the end of the "anti-DC/Marvel fanboyism" nonsense, but at the same time I can help but feel like it'll just embolden fanboys to act even more obnoxious. I know the smart thing would be to just swear of social media whenever a CBM comes out, but I'm not that smart.

 

[Saltyk]

Well, it might help, if DC would make a good movie...

seriously the relationship between Clark and Lois is just terrible, there's no chemistry there.

I actually felt that there was more chemistry between Bruce and Diana than Clark and Lois. That's how little chemistry they had. Though, I will say that Bruce and Diana actually did have chemistry.

 

[Laughing Man]

If WB and Zack Snyder hadn't overreached and just made two freaking films - one where Luthor manipulates Batman into fighting Superman, and another where Luthor creates Doomsday and the proto-League has to form to defeat it) they would've done a lot better. And probably made twice as much money! Seriously, why are they trying to make fewer films?

Which ever way you slice it they are trying whatever they can to bring their movie universe up to the same pace as Marvels. The only issue being that Marvel started their setup in 2008 and have had 11 movies introducing all, well most of their main protagonists all the while building the extended universe in the background through subtle hints comments and inclusions within those movies. They now have a Universe where they can get two teams of super heros on screen comprising of no less than 12 different super heroes and then have them go at each other without making it seem like a child sitting in a bucket of action figures smashing a bunch of hereos together, we had a story for these guys we know who they are we know their background, we saw them fight Loki, Ultron, we saw them in their own movies and got to know who they are and why they are doing what they are doing and it made sense. On the other handt Batman Vs Superman felt like a child pulled his Batman figure out of his toy box got his Superman figure and decided to smash them together for 5 minutes before Wonder Woman turns up and they all become friends, more worryingly that setup makes a hell of a lot more sense than the one the actual movie used.

To put it in a Marvel context it's like having Hulk turn up in a Thor film just because they wanted the two of them to go at each for a bit, which we know fine well they will do in Ragnorak, the thing is because of 11 movies and a whole back story set up over those movies we now know why Hulk will turn up in the next Thor movie and we know why he and Thor will have a go at each other.

DC are desperate to be able to introduce characters and have them do stuff but because they haven't spent the time or effort establishing these character they are left with over convoluted story lines designed to force characters in to interaction with each other. You know what the funny thing is though, they CAN get it right, the way Boomrang gets captured in Suicide Squad was a brilliant little intro to The Flash (again something DC aren't getting right, why have a TV show about the Flash, produced by your TV branch and then use a totally different actor for your movie version??)

Correct me if I am wrong but haven't the big budget winners made the cash by being so good that folk have gone to see the movie more than once. Avengers was so good I saw it with one group of mates and then went and saw it again a few nights later with some work mates (that kind of thing.) If people only saw Batman Vs Superman once and decided it wasn't worth seeing it again then what does it matter if the critics down voted it, the consumer still saw it and decided it wasn't good enough to pay to see it again. Then again they didn't help their situation by saying that they would then release an uncut version a couple of months later, when you're dealing with marketing THAT stupid you deserve to fail.

 

[Dizchu]

The anti-DC bias comes from people who don't want to see movies that suck. :^)

Seriously though, that's all there is to it. The management of the DC film franchise has been abysmal, the people putting these films together have no idea what they're doing and they're just ripping off Marvel hoping that lightning can strike twice. Only with Marvel they let the people with actual talent make the decisions which is why we get entertaining films.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

Is this a hypothetical thing? If so, I couldn't tell you. I don't think there is an "anti-DC" bias, I do think though that Marvel has created the current mold for this type of movie (for better or worse) and at least two of three DCEU movies (can't talk about Suicide Squad, I haven't seen it yet) completely shit on it. As I've said in another thread about RottenTomatoes, critics have to follow the general audience consensus and their sensibilities, as their job is to literally tell you whether or not you should spend money on a film. You won't get a Polygon 10/10 "Gone Home" situation from the majority of critics when it comes to genre tent poles, whether the actual film deserves it or not.

And yeah, full disclosure, I'm a DC fanboy too; not in the sports teams kind of way (as Comic Book Girl 19 very nicely put it), I just like DC characters and material more than Marvel. I also really, really like the Ultimate Cut of Batman v Superman.

DC are desperate to be able to introduce characters and have them do stuff but because they haven't spent the time or effort establishing these character they are left with over convoluted story lines designed to force characters in to interaction with each other.

There is a ridiculous amount of studio interference for DC and in all the wrong ways. The primary problems in BvS and -as I hear- Suicide Squad come from choppy editing and re-shoots and 'easter eggs'. If the creators were left alone to do their thing, perhaps all three movies would've been received better.

Okay, except Man of Steel. The massive scale of destruction was all Snyder. Didn't mind it, personally, that shit happens in comics every in other issue, but it bothered a lot of others.

 

[COMaestro]

I do not see an anti-DC bias in reviews, I just see a bunch of mediocre DC movies, earning their poor review scores. The worst offender was BvS. There is so much in that film (theatrical release, I have not seen the extended cut and will not pay money to do so) that is poorly, if at all, explained, contradictory or nonsensical elements (Superman can hear and rescue Lois from anywhere in a heartbeat, but can't find his mother in the same or neighboring city in thirty minutes is my biggest peeve), and tries to cram in two of their most well known storylines from comics, fully introduce Wonder Woman, and provide sneak peeks of other metahumans all in one movie, ensuring they do a crappy job of all of it. I say this as someone who believes Man of Steel is okay and that BvS isn't as bad as most people say, but it's not good either. It is simply mediocre.

Suicide Squad has been the highlight of the DCEU so far, and even then I can't give it more than a 7/10, and probably more like a 6.5. It was at least fun and Will Smith did a great job when I thought he would just end up phoning it in for this one. Really, all the actors did a good job with their roles, though I didn't like Leto's Joker, but I'm not sure whether to blame him or the script for that. However, the plot was just pretty crappy and none of these "villains" really felt equipped to handle such a situation as they were assembled for ("What if Superman had decided to fly into the White House and take the President?" I believe is how it was worded in the movie).

I have to disagree with you on Clark and Lois' relationship. I found to be a big step up from Man of Steel. That bathtub scene was adorable. My sister was sitting next to me just going squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Those thirty seconds of bathtub scene were the only bits of Clark and Lois relationship that worked. There was no chemistry between them at all for the entire rest of the movie.

 

[twistedmic]

The second is just a sort of shift in the comic book fandom's tastes towards more upbeat and colourful movies, which the DC films decidedly aren't.

I think it's this more than anything else. The bulk of critics, and possibly the general public, seem to want movies that are more in line with Marvel's style of being bright, colorful and on the more lighthearted and comedic side of things.
IT seems to me that any movie that goes for a darker, more serious and less comedic stance gets harsher reviews from critics and the general public.