OT: Why the DCEU really is better than the MCU

If you are allowed to think and believe that the MCU is better, then I and others allowed to believe that DCEU is better. That's how opinions work, on a platform of mutual respect. Both franchises are viable, successful, entertaining, profitable and here for the long haul no matter what anyone says, and there is more than enough room for both of them to exist even if each of us has a preference for one or the other. Please remember that.



Quote taken from the end of the blog and the one that is most relevant. I happen to agree with him, I loved the first Avengers movie and the first Iron Man, I enjoyed the Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant Man. I have thoroughly enjoyed MoS and BvS and preferred them to anything MCU, and I have enjoyed Suicide Squad. But, and this is the salient part, the fact that I preferred the DC movies is only my opinion and my taste. I don't care that someone else doesn't and can understand that they may prefer the MCU movies. Whatever, I will still go and see the MCU movies on opening night as I will the DCEU ones and will enjoy nonetheless. Live and live, and enjoy the movies and the popcorn and Pepsi (there's another argument )

I just don't understand the mentality!! There is another guy called ArArArchstanton posts here on other boards is exactly the same as the DC guy but he's all for the MCU. I don't get it. And give pathetically low ratings because it's "the enemy".  Still children will be children

Majority opinion can be an ass though and also changes over time. Plenty of films that flopped on their initial release are considered classics now. Conversely films that were considered masterpieces on their initial release can fade into mediocrity as time passes.

As far as BvS goes I liked it. Got everything I wanted out of it. There were some things they could have left out and the story could have done with some rough edges being removed. MoS I was meh on. Suicide Squad was goid for 1 hour, the first hour, and tben fell off a cliff. Felt like I needed a PS1 controller to kill the final boss.

I can name four classics that were nominated for Razzies: Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, The Thing, Scarface and Wall Street. The main reason I'm not naming more is that I couldn't be bothered going any further forward than 1988.

Razzies are specifically a refelection of perception at the time a film came out and nothing else. It's a fair bet that initially reviled films like Vertigo and It's a Wonderful Life would have fared well at Razzie time too.

Thazz not even an article, you knobjockey. Its full of lies and deception 

That's cool. I can name hundreds, if not thousands, of movies that received positive press, hit box office projections, weren't divisive among fans, didn't send the studio spiraling into damage control mode and weren't nominated for any Razzies.  

Thing is the Razzies were not as well-known or as notorious as they are now back in the 80's, and the reasons why the films you listed were hated were not the same as the reasons why the Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad were hated.

Scarface wasn't immediately well liked because its portrayal of gang violence and drug abuse that was just too much for its time. In addition to that, the film also sparked controversy for its questionable portrayal of Cubans and its over-use of profanity.

The Shining's reception was mixed because it was slower paced than most of the horror films around its time, that it deviated too much from Stephen King's novel( King was not quiet about it, either), the scares were viewed as either an annoyance, too excessive in presentation, and unnecessary at times. It was intended for a mass-market release, whereas most other Kubrick films were targeted at a more niche audience where reception grew over time through word of the mouth.

The Thing wasn't loved on initial release because critics found the make-up effects, while technically brilliant, visually repulsive and excessive. The film was also looked at as a bit of a slow burn with characters that were not that easy to latch onto and because it was a remake of a well-liked monster film comparisons to it were unavoidable. Like The Shining it was not your typical horror film that was released to the market at its time.

Wall Street was well received on release, won lots of praise from critics and was up for many prestigious awards, the only problem critics had were Darly Hannah's performance which earned her a Razzie award.

The films of the DCEU so far do not have the type of questionable content that sparked as much debate as the aforementioned films and did not do anything game changing to its genre that other, far better films had already done before.

This is so pitiful.
dcfan is on the MCU/DCEU boards getting owned vis-a-vis Marvel v DC, everyone says Marvel is doing better but him.
So he sees this article and is like, "I know, I'll show this to my friends on the sports forum and they'll validate my opinions!" That's how batshit insane he is.

If BvS had won an Academy Award for best picture*, fans would be saying how great a film it was. I doubt that you'd be trying to throw cold water on their jubilation because the Acadamy Awards are "just a measure of what people thought of the film at the time". The Razzies are the anti-Acadamy Awards. If you dismiss the Razzies, then you must dismiss every single award, audience reaction and critic review, now and forever as just a measure of what people are thinking about a film at a particular time. 

... and just like that, your entire argument collapses upon itself and vanishes in a puff of smoke.







*