Is the 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' franchise the best CBM franchise?

[The Laughing Fish]

Yep, it's rubbish. And there are people out there that use RT as a reason to like or hate something, as proof their opinion is right.

I'll go one better and suggest most of these people who use RT to prove why they think a movie is good or bad is because they can't think for themselves.

[The Dark Knight]

They want to be in the majority. The cool kids club. If other people like something I like, well, that's great. But if not, it doesn't put me off. It doesn't make me change my opinion to suit somebody else's, because that's just dumb. Never apologise for liking something. Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.

[Azrael]

"So, that's what that feels like"

(Someone who loved BvS to a fan of the SW prequels)

[The Dark Knight]

I echo what colors said on the previous page. BvS took the themes of MoS, addressed them head on and expanded the world. That's what I ask of any sequel. Some sequels just pay lip service to the original, and carry on without addressing much other than the fact it's the same bunch of characters. That's 100% not the case here. It is undeniably a sequel to Man of Steel. That film gives everything it's context. I respect that.

[johnnygobbs]

I'll go one better and suggest most of these people who use RT to prove why they think a movie is good or bad is because they can't think for themselves.

I personally make my own mind up, but I don't like shelling out a lot of money on a film at the cinema if I've already got doubts about its quality, which are further confirmed by the general critical consensus.  I'd rather take a chance on something I suspect I will like and which has at least some critical backing (not necessarily 90% plus, but at least something that is vaguely 'fresh').

There has been the odd occasion when I've disagreed with the critical consensus, Zack Snyder's own Sucker Punch is one such example; The Beach is another...I'm sure there are quite a few others.  That said, I find that I'm more likely to agree with the vast critical consensus that give a reasonably positive to films like the underrated Cloud Atlas and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, than I am to the box-office or even audience consensus (bear in mind how overwhelmingly popular the infernal Transformers franchise is with audiences, irrespective of almost unanimously bad reviews).

Suffice to say, whilst I don't always agree with the critical consensus, I trust critics over the general audience who make people like Adam Sandler and Kevin James big box-office stars.    And continue going to see Transformers films no matter what.    I saw two films yesterday, which weren't unanimous hits with the critics, but certainly sounded more promising than Batman v Superman, and my companion and I thoroughly enjoyed those two films.

So I do think for myself, but I also appreciate a rough guide as to whether it's worth spending money on a film or not, and in my personal experience, the critics are usually right, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I'm sorry if people like me are 'hurting' the success of Batman v Superman, but maybe Zack Snyder should have listened to the people who criticised Man of Steel instead of apparently exacerbating everything that was wrong with it.

[The Dark Knight]

Have you even seen BvS yet, johnny?

[johnnygobbs]

Have you even seen BvS yet, johnny?

Not yet.  To be honest, the only thing that really puts me off is the element I was always bothered by; Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor.  He just seems nothing like the Luthor from the comic-books to me, and it's a shame because Luthor is a unique villain, an alpha-male, calm and collected businessman, in a world populated by freaks, psychos, monsters and alien warlords, so this Luthor strikes me as a very missed opportunity. 

[The Dark Knight]

I'd recommend you see the film, johnny. I was downbeat and dejected when the negative critical reviews flooded in. But actually seeing the film for yourself is the only tonic. To know how you truly feel about things. Don't go off second hand information, or even what I'm saying. I'd be interested to see what you think.

[johnnygobbs]

I'd recommend you see the film, johnny. I was downbeat and dejected when the negative critical reviews flooded in. But actually seeing the film for yourself is the only tonic. To know how you truly feel about things. Don't go off second hand information, or even what I'm saying. I'd be interested to see what you think.

Thank you TDK.    I do agree that one shouldn't go off second-hand-information and one should reserve their judgment until they've experienced something for themselves.

[riddler]

JG I wont spoil anything for you but I too had reservations about Eisenberg as luthor I think he's an enjoyable actor on screen but doesn't fit the luthor persona. He plays a younger version and this film in a way is an origin story for Luthor the way that Man of steel was an origin story for the Clark Kent we know as superman. I can tell you by the end he fits the modern luthor much better. The critics probably hate on him but he injects fun into the film in a similar manner to how the Joker should.

with respect to the Incredible Hulk, that film didn't underperform at the box office, it made nearly double its 150 million budget. The main reason we haven't seen another solo Hulk film is that Universal owns partial distribution rights for the character so it's easier for Marvel to include the character in other films than make him a lead character