Unless you don't count with an internet connection – which I doubt, since you're reading this right now – you may have seen or read about the most recent superhero movies that've been released this year: "Batman v Superman" in March, "Captain America: Civil War" in early May, and "X-Men: Apocalypse" in late May. There has been some controversy regarding these movies, particularly with the quality and audience responses; some say some movies are good and that critics are wrong, some say that critics are just biased and love everything that Marvel releases, and others simply see every superhero movie as the same story over and over again. Let's put some order to that mess, right now.

I'm a massive Batman fan, as in "my college thesis that I worked on for six months was about Batman" kind of fan, but I wasn't particularly excited about the most recent Batman film, because of Warner Bros. and DC's recent history with their Superhero movies – aka, "Man of Steel" was a piece of incomprehensible crap with some good action. Naturally, I felt very skeptical with the release of this movie, but I was still excited to watch a new Batman take the lead in a new series of movie. Man, was I right to be skeptical.

"Batman v Superman" has suffered from major criticism since before it released, with spoiler-filled trailers, bad reputation from "Man of Steel," bad press surrounding the studio, and rumors about problems in the editing room. I think the worst problem of all, however, is how director Zack Snyder and Warner Bros. don't understand how to build a Universe. If you watched the film, you know that it's overstuffed with different characters, which isn't necessarily bad, but what's clear is that WB and DC tried to catch up with Disney and Marvel, having a bunch of famous comic book characters meet and fight together. The problem is, Marvel released five movies before releasing "The Avengers," and DC just released one.

Without looking too far, we have another superhero team-up movie less than two months after "BvS", in "Captain America: Civil War." With universal acclaim and incredible box office numbers, "Civil War" has become one of the most beloved superhero movies of all time, and one of the biggest Marvel hits. If analyzed from afar, it doesn't really make sense why "Civil War" was so acclaimed if "BvS" wasn't, as "Civil War" has probably three times more characters, most of which are not even close to being as beloved as Batman, Superman or Wonder Woman.

The buildup that Marvel has had over the years is what makes all the difference. DC tried to cram all-new characters into a movie without giving their Universe time to breathe and set up what they wanted to show. Before "Civil War," Marvel had 12 (!!!) films under their belt, setting up what came to be two "Avengers" movies, and only after that did they get to "Civil War."

This lack of buildup for DC's Universe makes "BvS" feel rather strange and unfamiliar, like if it was missing a lot of important parts of a bigger story. Wonder Woman does nothing but look cool, which makes her a stranger in a film with an already-established – albeit very poorly – Superman. Batman suffers from a different kind of issue, as most fans, including me, would argue that he is very misrepresented in the film. Maybe his odd behaviors and out-of-character decisions have a reason for existing, but we're missing the movies that are supposed to tell that part of the story.

I could get into the millions of other reasons why "BvS" fails, but I'd have to write another thesis project just to do each reason justice – I may do a list of things that make the movie suck; we'll see. Safe to say, Warner Bros. still has a lot to learn for the future, but, fortunately, it seems they are taking note. Getting a supervising producer for all of their films in DC super-writer Geoff Johns, I think WB may still have a chance to redeem itself. They'll never be able to outdo "The Dark Knight," but it'd be nice to see them actually try.

Meanwhile, just watch Marvel movies. Those don't disappoint too much.