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

[The Laughing Fish]

Thanks for the reply, Silver!

it had an anticlimactic ending

Burton had the ending of Hamm's 89 script rewritten several times. I expect the ending for Batman II would have been similarly reworked. But as a starting point, I thought Hamm's first draft was superior to Waters' in almost every respect.

and would've had even LESS Batman screentime than he had for Returns.

I think Batman would have had about the same amount of screen time as in Waters' script. Bruce Wayne would have had a lot more and would have been the film's central protagonist. Bruce was involved in numerous plot strands in Hamm's script.

Hamm's script kept Batman as the main character and also gave substantial roles to Gordon and Alfred. In Hamm's script, Gordon is shown investigating crimes in Gotham, interrogating suspects in holding cells (just like he does in Nolan's films), visiting Bruce at Wayne Manor, and interacting with Harvey Bullock (yes, Bullock was in Hamm's script too). In Waters' script Gordon has four lines of dialogue, all of which could have been spoken by any other generic policeman.


But the treasure hunt storyline tied directly into Bruce's personal narrative (he possess one of the statues, the treasure is buried under Wayne Manor, and he discovers his parents' deaths were connected to the treasure). The election storyline in Waters' script doesn't involve Bruce in any meaningful way. He has one conversation with Shreck about it and that's all.

In Waters' script Bruce is exactly the same person at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. But in Hamm's script he definitely developed over the course of the film, learning to use his public persona to help the disadvantaged and affect positive change in Gotham.

I must admit you've made very good points here. The treasure hunt does tie directly to Bruce Wayne since it not only connects to his parents' deaths,  but it takes place in a final showdown with the Penguin in the Batcave. I actually don't remember in the script that Batman and Catwoman were involved romantically though. But yeah, you make a compelling argument that the film focuses more on Bruce Wayne as the main character, whereas the Waters script tends to emphasise too much on the tragic side of the character.

I think she was. She's even mistaken for Batman during a number of scenes, which results in her crimes being attributed to him. The Bruce/Selina parallels weren't as heavily emphasised in Hamm's script, but the Batman/Catwoman parallels were definitely there.

I actually meant that they didn't really reflect each other in terms of damaged psyche. Hamm's take on Catwoman was rather cold-blooded to the point of being evil. Batman, as you know, wasn't like that at all.

I loved it. They actually had Dick Grayson as a kid instead of a twenty something. They stuck to his back story from the comics and managed to incorporate him into the narrative in a way that was believable and unobtrusive. IMO it was certainly better than Waters' mechanic version of the character.

Eh, fair enough. I guess it just wasn't my cup of tea. And for the record, I didn't like Waters' mechanic idea either. If they weren't going to adapt Robin properly, then I'm glad Burton decided not to go ahead with it. Just like the John Blake thing – only difference is Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing the part made it tolerable.

I thought it was handled in a measured and evenly paced manner. Everything was foreshadowed earlier in the film. The only problem I have with it was that they omitted the split personality/'Big Bad Harv' aspect of the character, so what we ended up with was normal Harvey Dent turning into angry/insane Harvey Dent. But that was a creative decision on Nolan's part and I think it worked in the context of the film. Dent's moral and psychological corruption was the thematic backbone of the entire movie. It's a gradual process that's already underway, even before he gets scarred. He steps outside the law when he condones Batman going after Lau, when he steals the ambulance with the Joker's henchman inside to interrogate him, and when he lies to the public to take the rap for Batman's activities. He also shows subtle signs of anger problems in the first half of the film, particularly when he's interrogating the Joker's henchman. I thought Nolan set his transformation up quite effectively.

I disagree re: Dent being effectively developed. I found him to be shoehorned by the time he becomes Two-Face, and it totally threw off pacing. I had no idea what specific time did the third act took place after he was disfigured. Most of the first half of the film shows Dent being used as a punchline for a joke - like that courtroom scene, there was hardly psychotic how he defended himself at all, it was a cheap laugh if anything - or cracking jokes at his own expense. And Dent never came across as psychotic when he threatened that schizophrenic henchman either. Distressed, sure, and although it may have been the wrong thing to do regardless, you can sympathise why he took the matters into his own hands, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people would do the same thing under that situation. But see, the thing that bothered me about that scene was he still used restraint. In the two-part Two-Face episode in BTAS, when Dent was distressed he became volatile and deranged beyond reason. But in this scene, not matter how distressed he was, he wasn't going to quickly resort to violence, which doesn't convey to me as someone with really deep psychological deficiencies. Anger problems, sure, but far from someone who could be deranged. I see more compelling psychotic behaviour when I see drivers who are prone to road rage.

And what especially bothers me about his descent into madness is how he is manipulated by Joker – the man who played a big part in killing Rachel. I mean, the Joker was the reason why Dent took matters into his own hands with that henchman in the first place when Rachel was in danger – not to mention Joker tried to kill her before. But now that he comes face-to-face with Joker, Dent allows himself to be manipulated, and lets Joker go? Even for someone who became psychotic- that just does not make any sense at all. In BTAS, Rupert Thorne destroys Dent's reputation and inadvertently got him disfigured, and Dent does everything he can to get his revenge. But in the first half of TDK, he does everything he can to stop the Joker when Rachel is in danger, but as soon as he gets disfigured, he spares the main culprit but instead takes his anger out on other accessories, the mob and Gordon? So he resents Gordon for keeping blind faith in those corrupt cops and tortures him emotionally by threatening his family...but spares the guy who intended to harm him and Rachel in the first place? That's just ludicrous.

The things like supporting Batman getting Lau back from Hong Kong and Dent lying to the public that he was Batman bothered me as well because: 1) that whole Hong Kong incident would've been illegal and land Gotham authorities in trouble and 2) wouldn't that whole stunt by turning himself in to get Joker damage his credibility anyway?

Batman never learns from his mistakes or recognises his own hypocrisy

That criticism could just as easily apply to Batman Returns.

That still doesn't make Nolan's films immune from that criticism either. Like I said, it's actually even worse here because Bruce Wayne keeps saying he won't cross that line long before he became Batman, but he does it anyway. For a trilogy that's supposed to focus the beginning, middle and end, it's not clear what exactly his stance on murder really is.

Before that one quote in Returns, it was never explored what his morals were. Hell, one could even try to edit that "Wrong at both counts" remark out of that film, and it doesn't really factor into the movie's conclusion at all. That being said, what I hate about Nolan's movies as well as Returns to an extent is they try to have it both ways – if filmmakers are going to support one stance then they should at least stay consistent. In retrospect I'm surprised Burton left that remark in the final cut –since he was going for a more disturbed Batman.

Batman killing in Nolan's films is an interesting subject and one that really deserves its own thread. I think the point of having Batman kill Dent was to show that although Batman physically defeated the Joker, the Joker won the moral victory by forcing both Dent and Batman to become killers. If Batman hadn't killed Dent, it would make no sense for him to take the blame for the latter's actions; the symbolic value of Batman as a representation of hope would have been untainted. But since it was tainted – he did in fact kill Dent – then there was a logical reason for him to take the fall for both of them. In doing so he ensured that at least one symbol of hope remained for the people of Gotham to believe in.

The problem is that Joker didn't need to force anything – Batman was already tainted because he killed in Batman Begins. He was responsible for the deaths of the fake Ra's and ninjas after burning the temple down (we don't even know if that guy he refused execute even survived), and he had set up the real Ra's to die in the train wreckage. Batman even acknowledged that he had killed Ra's in the Dark Knight Rises when Talia confronted him about her father's death. His argument that Ra's had to die because millions of lives were at stake is rather weak; Joker was trying to do the thing, but Batman saves him instead, and gets sarcastically praised as "incorruptible".

And I don't believe Batman taking the fall is a logical option either. Batman built this crime-fighting reputation by gaining recognition for saving Gotham from the League of Shadows, and continues to fight psychopaths like Joker – in front of many witnesses, and helps Dent's case by kidnapping Lau. After all this, people are supposed to be easily convinced that Batman became a cold-blooded murderer? And assuming if Joker is still alive by the end of TDK, why would he suddenly keep his mouth shut while Batman covers up Dent's murders? He went through all this trouble to corrupt the "beloved" Harvey Dent, yet he'll allow Batman to protect Gotham from knowing the truth?

The only problem with this is that earlier in the film Batman drove the Tumbler at full speed into a head-on collision with one of the Joker's trucks, pulverising the driver's cab and almost certainly killing the driver in the process. Which means he'd probably already killed at least one other person in TDK before he got to Dent...

Great. You gotta love that incorruptible Batman!

Batman was sidelined because of Nolan's desire to make a convoluted plot, without a regard for consistent characterization.

Besides the inconsistency in Batman's moral code – and I agree with you, that is a problem – I didn't think the characterisation as a whole was problematic. Bruce changes and grows as a character throughout the three films, but the trajectory of his character development always felt natural and consistent to me. I think the only time his character arc progressed in a way that was inconsistent or illogical was the thing about him quitting (twice) in TDKR. But that's another big topic best saved for its own thread.

I can't agree. For instance, Bruce says he wanted to become an inspirational symbol for Gotham, but at the start of TDK he tells off those copycats. And it's not like he advises them to help in different ways or anything, just a casual dismissal and off he goes. But in TDKR, he argues the whole point was "anyone could be Batman (or specifically, a hero)". On top of the fact that Batman drives vehicles that endanger lives and cause collateral damage; those actions are the opposite of an "inspirational" symbol. Man of Steel got criticised for Superman's recklessness, but this gets a pass.

The contradictory messages on human behaviour throughout the film drove me nuts i.e. people panic violently and try to murder Coleman Reese when Joker threatens to blow up a hospital...but convicts on a boat refuse to blow up another boat full of people?!

But people are contradictory in real life. There are good people in the world, and there are bad people, and it's not always easy to make the distinction. Nolan used that uncertainty to create suspense throughout the film. We never knew if the characters – whether it was a major character like Dent, or minor characters like the people on the boat – where going to choose the right moral decisions or the wrong ones. TDK is a film that doesn't shy away from the complexity of human nature. That's one of the things I like about it.

Even though people are indeed complicated in real life, I don't believe TDK presented this idea in a clever, believable or even meaningful way. We hear horrible stories of what happens behind prison walls in the real world, where it's every man for himself, yet Nolan tries to present the idea that not all prisoners should be viewed as deadly barbarians with that boat scene, that even at least one convict has some goodness in them. And they emphasized this by portraying a "hard-looking" thug to not pull the trigger. Yeah right, even if that was the case, that guy wouldn't get his hands near the detonator because he'd be stuck in the middle of a riot. What's made even worse about that scene is how no one in the other boat behaved like a terrified human being in that situation. I saw more believable terror and fear in cheesy, outdated disaster movies compared to this. Sorry, but I don't find that scene, or anything else this movie in general, that's relates anything to accurate human behaviour. Mind you, I DON'T want to see people actually killing each other, but I thought the whole set-up was a lame contrivance. It's actually made it even worse when people go on a killing spree when Bane exposes the Dent cover-up.

But Batman's actions weren't officially sanctioned in TDK. Yes, he was working with Gordon. But it was off the record. That's why the police were still investigating him at the beginning of the film, and why Gordon was being questioned about the light on top of police headquarters. He was still as much of a vigilante in TDK and he was in Batman Begins, only by this point the police had realised it was in their interests to cut him some slack.

The problem is I have with a Batman movie like this is it asks me to buy into the idea it's set in a somewhat more 'realistic-looking' world where characters are drastically changed to suit the tone, and there are rules in place where certain characters can't exist because it doesn't fit in this 'world'. And yet it expects me to suspend my disbelief that police will summon the Batsignal to call for Batman's help. Put it this way, we can't have Superman and Batman exist in the same world, but we can police call for Batman's help even if they don't really sanction his actions? Wrong! The latter is not more believable than the former. If I imagine Batman existing in a more realistic world, there would be NO Batsignal. There would NO cooperation from the police, only zero tolerance. Batman would be hunted down as a wanted fugitive, together with the Joker.

What I liked about Arrow is that they don't shy away from the fact that Oliver Queen is a vigilante (although perhaps they emphasize that too much), and the police don't condone him at all, even when he stops killing people. Arrow may sometimes be seen as a low priority by the cops, but as of now, they never cooperate with him. In fact, Detective Quentin Lance, Black Canary's dad, got arrested recently for cooperating with him. Long overdue, but at least that show has some logic in that regard. Nolan's movies, however, do want to have it both ways, and doing that only hurts my suspension of disbelief.

He was as much of a detective in TDK as he was in any of the other live action films. At least in TDK we got to see him profiling criminals and investigating a crime scene. But I agree that the detective angle is something that needs to be fixed in future films. None of the movies have done it justice so far (except perhaps the 1966 film).

The problem is not only does Batman need Fox's help for most of the time, but how does those scenes actually factor in stopping the Joker? It doesn't really, not in any real significant way. Batman especially never uses his head – only mindless action. Burton's films didn't dig deep into these detective skills either, but at least they hinted he was capable of such skills and used them to undermine his enemies,  i.e. figuring out which chemicals did Joker taint to create Smilex, exposing Penguin's true colours in public (although that's more using his brain rather than using detective work).

As for the criticism re: Nolan's 'realism' - I'm afraid Nolan brought that upon himself. When people, other than the director himself, praise movies like this for being not 'realistic' and 'intelligent' despite it has flaws that not even silly action movies like GI Joe or even godforsaken Transformers, then that becomes a problem. If he is going to commit to realism, and change characters around to suit his liking then he should've been more consistent with it. If he is going to selective though, he shouldn't call it realistic at all. I mean, the Marvel movies change lots of things to make it look contemporary, but they don't abandon the idea that Tony Stark is a genius who builds his own robotic suits, or Hulk and Captain America became superhuman because of scientific experiments. They don't apologise for the fantasy. But Nolan's films have a lot of cartoonish stuff that's just as outlandish but yet they take themselves so seriously.

Again, this is a criticism that could apply to almost all of the Batman films. Especially Selina in Batman Returns.

I'm afraid it's even worse here since this movie is praised for being clever and so on. I don't normally take Batman movies seriously, I never thought Burton's movies were anything more than entertaining movies with a few ideas here and there, but for movies like this that get praised and hyped for being 'deep' and so on, I expect it to hold up for consistency, actual character development and strong storytelling overall. And the more I think about these movies, the less I'm convinced.

Don't apologise, it was an interesting post. You've obviously thought about it a lot, and the best discussions thrive on a diversity of viewpoints.

Well, I do tend make very long posts.

[Silver Nemesis]

I actually meant that they didn't really reflect each other in terms of damaged psyche. Hamm's take on Catwoman was rather cold-blooded to the point of being evil. Batman, as you know, wasn't like that at all.

I see what you mean. From a psychological perspective, Hamm's Catwoman was a lot more straightforward. There was a weird sadomasochistic subtext to his version, but other than that she wasn't particularly layered. That being said, she was probably closer to what most people expect from the modern day Catwoman. But I happen to think the Pfeiffer Catwoman is more interesting than the Catwoman from the modern comics. Pfeiffer's Selina incorporated the most intriguing elements from every era of the comics up to that point and combined them to create a more memorable and psychologically layered version than we've seen before or since.

Before that one quote in Returns, it was never explored what his morals were. Hell, one could even try to edit that "Wrong at both counts" remark out of that film, and it doesn't really factor into the movie's conclusion at all. That being said, what I hate about Nolan's movies as well as Returns to an extent is they try to have it both ways – if filmmakers are going to support one stance then they should at least stay consistent.

I agree. The line that bothers me more in BR though is when he asks Selina "Who the hell do you think you are?" That's probably my favourite scene in the movie, but his moral indignation is undermined by the fact he killed the tattooed strongman earlier in the film. Burton's Batman never explicitly states that he doesn't kill, and so I don't take issue with him doing so when there's no other choice (e.g. the Joker thug in the bell tower). But there was no need for him to kill the tattooed strongman. And he certainly didn't need to smile while doing it. It would have been much cooler to have had a little fight scene between the two, ending with Batman knocking him into the sewers but letting him live. That's the only scene in the movie where he unambiguously kills someone. It's debateable whether the fire breather survived or not, but I always assumed he did. If it wasn't for the scene with the strongman, BR's haters would have one less criticism to hurl against the film.

But I agree with you about the inconsistency in Batman's morals. There's no use paying lip service to the 'golden rule' if Batman doesn't abide by it. And the only films where he does abide by it are Batman 66 and Batman and Robin. They need to be more consistent about this in future films.

(we don't even know if that guy he refused execute even survived)

Since he was half naked on a snowy mountain, I don't think his chances were too good. Even if he survived the explosion, he likely would have frozen to death outside. If Bruce had difficulty scaling that mountain, then what chance would a podgy out-of-shape farmer have?

And I don't believe Batman taking the fall is a logical option either. Batman built this crime-fighting reputation by gaining recognition for saving Gotham from the League of Shadows, and continues to fight psychopaths like Joker – in front of many witnesses, and helps Dent's case by kidnapping Lau. After all this, people are supposed to be easily convinced that Batman became a cold-blooded murderer? And assuming if Joker is still alive by the end of TDK, why would he suddenly keep his mouth shut while Batman covers up Dent's murders? He went through all this trouble to corrupt the "beloved" Harvey Dent, yet he'll allow Batman to protect Gotham from knowing the truth?

I actually agree with this too. Kevin Smith made the same point in one of his podcasts. It would have been better simply to have told the truth about what happened to Dent and then blame his death on the Joker to protect Batman. Doing so wouldn't have invalidated the legislation he'd worked on when he was in office, and when people found out what the Joker had done to him it might even have created greater public sympathy for Dent. And people still would have had Batman to look up to as a symbol of hope. I think Gordon realised they'd made the wrong move in TDKR.

Perhaps Batman's real reason for taking the fall was that he wanted an excuse to quit?

I can't agree. For instance, Bruce says he wanted to become an inspirational symbol for Gotham, but at the start of TDK he tells off those copycats. And it's not like he advises them to help in different ways or anything, just a casual dismissal and off he goes. But in TDKR, he argues the whole point was "anyone could be Batman (or specifically, a hero)".

I see what you mean. But that's really a flaw in TDKR rather than the first two films. TDKR does introduce a number of inconsistencies with BB and TDK, but they don't detract from my enjoyment of the first two films.

Well, I do tend make very long posts. 

You should read some my rambling posts. Though if you do, you may expire from old age before you reach the end of them. 

Anyway, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on The Dark Knight. You've explained and justified your viewpoint well and I respect your opinion. But I still think it's a good film. It does have its flaws, but ultimately I think its strengths greatly outnumber them. Chacun à son goût.

[The Laughing Fish]

I agree. The line that bothers me more in BR though is when he asks Selina "Who the hell do you think you are?" That's probably my favourite scene in the movie, but his moral indignation is undermined by the fact he killed the tattooed strongman earlier in the film.

The only excuse I could come up with is Bruce fell in love with Selina and didn't want her to get into trouble, and became even more desperate upon learning she was Catwoman. That line during ballroom scene doesn't really bother me since he was putting on that billionaire facade, but in the end he could always try to talk her out of killing Shreck without putting himself on a moral pedestal. It's an very odd thing to say since he doesn't hesitate to kill some of the worst scum in society himself. There's no point denying it, the "wrong on both counts" line was simply out of character.

Perhaps Batman's real reason for taking the fall was that he wanted an excuse to quit?

I like to think that Nolan was simply making stuff up as he went along. 

I see what you mean. But that's really a flaw in TDKR rather than the first two films. TDKR does introduce a number of inconsistencies with BB and TDK, but they don't detract from my enjoyment of the first two films.

I think what bothers me especially is for all the talk of "symbolism" and "inspiration", you rarely see what sort of impact that Batman has on society. In BB, you see the police reacting to his presence, but you don't see what impression he is having on the public because he never fights random crime. Apart from the copycats and a brief debate during Dent's press conference in TDK, it's the same thing.  In contrast, the heroes in Donner's Superman, Raimi's Spider-Man, Whedon's Avengers and even Webb's Amazing Spider-Man, you see them save people, making their presence felt and everyone takes notice. With those contradictions mentioned in the third film, it makes that scene with Batman and the copycats even more frustrating.

Anyway, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on The Dark Knight. You've explained and justified your viewpoint well and I respect your opinion. But I still think it's a good film. It does have its flaws, but ultimately I think its strengths greatly outnumber them. Chacun à son goût.

Fair enough, I'm glad you still enjoy the film despite acknowledging its share of problems. There are a few things I did like such as the opening bank heist, the two short fight scenes involving Batman at the car park and nightclub and the chase scene. But those are all action scenes. Other than those, the rest of the film just simply didn't cut it for me. Ah well, it's been a fun discussion! 

[mrrockey]

I think in terms of pure AMBITION, MCU easily beats them all. But in terms of quality, I think The Dark Knight trilogy is probably the most consistent. There hasn't been a single decent Superman film since Superman II in my opinion. 

The Burton/Schumacher Batman franchise is probably the most inconsistent. I thought the '89 film was great, Returns was good but certainly flawed, Forever was a mixed bag(occasional great ideas, occasional stupidity), and Batman & Robin is another one of those "so bad, it's good" movies for me.

While I don't think any of the Blade movies were GREAT, but I thought the first two were great, gory fun with ENOUGH of an emotional center for you to care. The third film on the other hand, just felt like a generic music video disguised as a film.

I actually think the first X-Men is quite overrated. While it wasn't bad, it was just sorta bland and ho-hum in hindsight with nothing really memorable about it. X2 was an excellent follow-up, though. It explored the characters and themes much deeper, had much better cinematography and action, and actually took a few risks with the story I didn't expect. X-Men: The Last Stand was more satisfying than both on a pure VISCERAL level, but it lacked the heart or complexity that made the second film so successful. While X-Men Origins: Wolverine was pretty cliche and weak with its script, I DID enjoy it more as a simple action romp than any of the other X-Men films so I will give it that.  X-Men: First Class is the only X-Men film to rival X2 with its script, characters, and ideas while still being an entertaining comic-book movie. The Wolverine was GOOD, but the plot got overly convoluted towards the end and I thought the robot samurai was just too over-the-top and silly for what is, a more low-key, character-driven story than the previous films.

I thought the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy was pretty good overall. The first Spider-Man certainly wasn't deep or thought-provoking, but it had enough heart and charm to make up for those weaknesses. The second film on the other hand, had a much deeper, more emotionally engrossing script, better written characters, and overall, just a smarter film than the original. The third film certainly had its problems, but it was entertaining from beginning to end and there were a lot of really good, memorable scenes in it so I didn't hate it.  The reboot just came off bland and soulless and the sequel was just BAD. The love story was just constant bickering and arguing without going anywhere until the last 20 minutes. The villains were all rushed and poorly developed. And Spider-Man himself wasn't even in the film much after the first 15 minutes.

The Fantastic Four movies were just 2 hour visual effects reels with barely any story going on.

I haven't seen the first Hellboy but I thought the second film was a lot of fun. While it wasn't anything special in terms of story, it was just so much fun with its humor, action, and visuals so it really didn't bother me.

[riddler]

Another celebrity death; the colonel from Iron man 2 and captain america winter soldier Gary shandling died at age 66

[johnnygobbs]

Another celebrity death; the colonel from Iron man 2 and captain america winter soldier Gary shandling died at age 66

Damn! 

I'm a huge fan of the "Larry Sanders" show so this is terrible news for me.

RIP

[thecolorsblend]

It's a lopsided comparison. The MCU is made up of individual franchises. Comparing their entire universe to individual franchises from other studios is bound to favor Marvel.

Instead why not ask how Marvel's franchises stack up to others. And frankly, I think that tends to work against Marvel since they're every bit as trilogy-fixated as every other movie studio. That favors the other studios because their stories lend themselves to end points. But Marvel Studios ostensibly will "never end". It's an ongoing thing just like the comics. I don't think the Iron Man franchise is much to write home about. The first movie is rightfully a legend, the wheels came off the wagon in Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 was okay but not as fun as the first one or as character-driven as the second. It's just sorta there.

To date Marvel hasn't made another solo Hulk movie because their first one flopped. Thor: The Dark World was, again, fun but not quite as good as the original. It's too soon to say where Ragnarok will fit into that. Avengers: Age of Ultron didn't seem to amaze anybody.

It looks like Marvel's hat trick is creating franchises that peter out after the first entry. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is arguably the only real example of Marvel Studios delivering the goods the second time... but people debate even that. Civil War looks promising but a lot of the hype centers around Black Panther, Spider-Man and other newcomers. The Civil War storyline almost seems like an afterthought, which is a damn shame because Civil War is an amazing storyline.

Meanwhile, Man of Steel and Batman v Superman clearly go hand in hand. MOS introduces the characters and BvS really took the story and the characters to the next level. BvS is a Superman sequel, I don't care what anybody says to the contrary. The conflicts in BvS involve, affect or otherwise originate from someone from MOS.

So far this Superman franchise is as entertaining to me as anything Marvel has done and, unlike Marvel, both entries so far have been equally good.

I'm glad Marvel Studios is around doing their thing but they really need to improve their game when it comes to making sequels that equal the original of whatever franchise they're working with.

[johnnygobbs]

Lowest ranked MCU film on Rotten Tomatoes: Thor: The Dark World Score: 66%

Highest ranked DCEU film on Rotten Tomatoes: Man of Steel Score: 56%

Cue the hate and anger...

[The Laughing Fish]

Rotten Tomatoes scores are meaningless. What's important is your personal opinion, not others.

I for one enjoy Man of Steel and Thor: The Dark World equally. And besides, if we choose to take the critics' word for granted, we're lead to believe that something like Superman Returns is not only better than MOS, but also better than Captain America: The First Avenger, T:TDW and The Incredible Hulk. To which I say: no.

[The Dark Knight]

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. It's an opinion business, and I rate my own experience over somebody else's. BvS is not deserving of the hate, and I find it bizarre to be completely honest. But if we're talking about audience reaction, and if it really matters to me, well...the majority of people here liked it, and that satisfies me.