In the wake of negative reviews for films like Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and the division between critics and fans even to the point of misdirected hatred causing fans to petition for Rotten Tomatoes to get shut down because of their negativity towards the DCEU(which is ridiculous), there has been an ongoing trend where fans are constantly arguing about what Superhero films should be in regards to the tone and general conventions the films should cater to.
So, in light of this situation, I want to address these specific things today:
- The type of "reviewing" that professional film critics are using for comic book films.
- The role it's playing in how people view comic book adaptations
- The hypocrisy of critics when it comes to non-Marvel comic book adaptations
On to the issue regarding how these movies are being "reviewed" by the so called "Professional critics" in light of the situation surrounding the latest entries in the DCEU such as Man of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and the recently released Suicide Squad. It’s quite often that the negative "reviews" of these films often contain little or not actual reviewing. These films have either gotten broad criticisms like "It's too dark" or "Its not fun" while wrapped in a package of over-the-top hyperbole and snarky comments that references their competition (Marvel) as a means of belittling it.
The reasons why this doesn't count as reviewing or legitimate criticism are:
1. The term "fun" is extremely subjective due to people finding different things fun and a film being fun for the viewers isn't limited to a film with lots of humor and wit. People can arguably have just as much fun at the theater watching a thought provoking and/or grim nihilistic film as they can have watching a lighthearted action romp filled with moments of levity. Not to mention that what's fun for one person isn't always fun for another.
2. The average "professional" critic review these days seem to consist of
- 50% Over the top Hyperbole
- 40% Snarky remarks
- 10% Broad generalizations
- 0% Actual reviewing
For example, I've seen reviews for these films say things along the lines of "the story is a mess", "it's an abomination" or my favorite, "It's An all out attack on the idea of entertainment" but never go in-depth on why besides blanket statements.
However, the criticisms referenced above are mostly in the case of the reviews for Suicide Squad, which I admittedly have not seen yet but plan to in the future. Nonetheless, The reason why this is a problem is because what use to separate professional critics from the average moviegoer saying how he/she feels about a movie is that they would actually analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the movie in a fairly in-depth fashion as well as give their opinions based on those things as opposed to just reacting.
Now it seems that the so-called "professional critics" are just as biased and reactionary as the average moviegoer, which is not the way it should be, because if they are are the same then what's the point of having professional critics anymore?
The things I see said in these "reviews" are things that one could easily get from a comment section on Facebook, a tweet, or just be told by a friend of theirs in casual conversation. Now some might say I'm "overgeneralizing" the way critics review these films but I've never said ALL critics, so keep that in mind.
Now let's move on to the role these "professional critics" are playing in how people view comic book movies as a whole. Ever since the popularity and success of films like Iron Man, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Antman and Deadpool, there seems to be a growing demand for more "fun" comic book movies. Nothing wrong with this in and of itself but it becomes a problem when critics or fans start saying that those movies are what all Comic Book movies are "supposed to be".
I can understand wanting a movie that is funny and optimistic but in the midst of the growing demand for lightheartedness/optimism as well as complaining about superhero adaptations that "take themselves too seriously", something important is being lost in translation:
Comic Book Movies are NOT a genre, so the critics and fans that share those views should stop treating it like one by advocating that studios (WB or otherwise) conform to one convention when making these adaptations. Contrary to popular belief, comic book movies (much like comic books themselves) are diverse enough to have any tone or style and that has been the case since day one.
Some are dark/nihilistic, lighthearted/optimistic as well as comedic/irreverent. There should be nothing that stops comic book movies from being just as diverse as their source material because hindering that would cause all comic book movies to end up being a repetitive experience and the notion that they should be done only one way is not only narrow-minded but creatively limiting as well.
So, as far as I'm concerned, using "OMG GRIMDARK!!" or "Its NOT FUN!!" as criticism is weak, generic and shows a lack of objectivity because the film isn't being judged on its actual merits as much as it is being judged on what a viewer/critic felt it "should be".
To put things in perspective, I like Marvel movies and characters just as much as the next guy but I don't think it's fair to pressure Warner Bros into making "Marvel style" movies with DC characters for the reasons stated above and once critics stop having this mentality, non-Marvel Comic Book Movies would be able to get more objective criticisms based on its actual merits.
Speaking of judging things objectively, let’s speak on the hypocrisy that critics have shown towards non-Marvel/DC comic book adaptations. Some of the common criticisms that have been rearing their heads when it comes to these films are:
- It's not fun
- It's too dark
- Too many plot holes
- It's too generic and/or more of the same
The funny thing about the first 3 points is that Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight was not only praised for being gritty and realistic but it was also rather incoherent and had plot holes such as how Joker was able to set in motion everything he did without flaw despite claiming that he "doesn't plan" or how Harvey Dent was able to survive the explosion with just his face burned and still be able to talk perfectly as a couple examples.
However, those criticisms about plot holes, bad editing, and being too dark were frequently used to attack Batman vs Superman:Dawn of Justice yet The Dark Knight is given a pass for those things and still lauded as a masterpiece. Now there are criticisms of Suicide Squad being "more of the same" or "another generic Comic Book movie",which is rather humorous when you consider that the Marvel movies (for better or worse) have the same tone and presentation style in arguably all of their movies in the sense that they are presented as safe crowd-pleasers that somewhat address serious issues.
Never mind that critics and a contingency of fans feel that this is what Comic Book movies are "supposed to be" as stated in this article before.
So, just in case, you guys are wondering where I'm going with this, I'll sum it up with one simple question: How can one criticize something for being "more of the same" yet at the same time advocate that a company should conform to the same style of movies presented by their competition?
It's either one of the other, we cant have both...especially when Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice were criticized for being too different from those conventions that made Suicide Squad supposedly come off as "more of the same".
Now as a bonus, I want to touch on the unfair standard that the DCEU is being held to. Marvel's comic book films seem to be able to get away with being "flawed but entertaining" but when a DCEU comic book film comes out, it has to be Godfather or it gets crucified with lots of over the top hyperbole laced with snarky comments. For instance, look at Iron Man 2, A film that's perceived flaw was it being bogged down in too much world building to set up The Avengers at the expense of strong storytelling and character development yet critic reviews were mostly forgiving of these flaws. Even if one takes anticipation level into consideration, it is still representative of the fact that DC gets held to a higher than Marvel or any other studios that make Comic Book movies in a similar fashion.
Allow me to conclude by saying that there is nothing wrong with liking or disliking the films mentioned in this article for your own reasons or for things you felt were good/bad but I recommend deciding that based on the film's merits overall for the reasons stated above.
I also want to reiterate that if critics/fans continue to demand these comic book movies to conform to the "Marvel way" then there's a huge chance that these films will become stale and slowly lose its relevance. Which is actually very reminiscent to the fate that Western films suffered during its dying days. Which is something I'm sure Comic Book Movie fans would hate to see happen due to the fact that adaptations of these comic books that were once a pipe dream are now possible since the brands are now proven viable as big budget blockbusters.