This year hasn't been a particularly good year for the summer blockbuster, in spite of numerous major studio releases very few have reached critical acclaim. With so many film studios spending millions and delivering only promising trailers to audiences it seems a bit discouraging to head to the movies this summer. Specifically this year has marked the launch of Warner Bros DC Cinematic Universe and despite having legal ownership of decades of brilliant material as well as some of the finest authors work to potentially adapt for its features, their films are almost always universally panned by critics and comic book fans alike. Albeit these films do boast feats of having grossed millions of dollars upon their opening weekend as well as receiving enormous world-wide exposure along with media coverage, but each film was subject to intense criticism and lots of negative reception. In the case of Batman v Superman there was a record breaking drop-off in the box-office and for it's predecessor Man of Steel there was intense critical backlash towards the destruction caused during the films final battle that generally polarized audiences. Why is it critics are so unwelcoming to DC films? Are they biased towards Disney's Marvel Studios?

Before we talk about these films themselves lets discuss film as a medium in general, film is part of a movement of theater called Realism. Realism was born in the late 19th Century and isn't at all ancient or very dated, the idea of this movement is portray incredible ideas and images through the innovative medium known only as the camera. It was to pursue the emotions found in everyday real-life but through this revolutionary device known as the video camera or simply camera, now the goal of film making is to give insight into life through film which in essence is just meant to be a more fantastic and sensational medium for real-life much like the stage of a theater. A filmmaker or director should have their own unique style that captures the audiences emotions and peaks their interest. Through this craft their art is born and the director is supposed to captivate our mind with sights and sounds uniquely in coordination with their specific vision. This is what we movie goers call "art" and for every great film their exists a unique style crafted by the director at the helm of the project. Ideally these projects are meant to connect to a wider audience of people, Steven Spielberg famously effected beach season when he released Jaws in the summertime. This unknowingly caused mass hysteria which really hurt beaches that season. Sometimes films upset people and are banned for portraying content some political parties might find unsuitable, this occurred when Stanley Kubrick released A Clockwork Orange. Content that was considered to sensitive for many European countries was prevalent throughout that picture invoking concerns reminiscent of Nazi and totalitarian dictatorship, the film was incredibly controversial but it was later venerated as a classic nevertheless by the youth all across the globe.

In regards to the Superhero genre it's a relatively young genre, unlike the Western genre it has major support from geek culture, the Internet, and of-course Disney owning a major comic and film studio. This particular studio being the owner of one of the highest grossing franchises of all time, we are of course referring to the MCU or Marvel Cinematic Universe which has actually grossed over a billion dollars, putting it up there with Harry Potter, Rocky, Star Wars, and James Cameron films as part of the highest grossing films to chart at the box office. Generally comic book movies have huge followings, extensive lore, and often have stories which can be the perfect outlets for directors to show off their own unique style. Sam Raimi for example showed us how his adoration for 1960s camp can blend well with Spider-man. His films Spider-man and Spider-man 2 are truly great films, however not all superhero films has found such groundbreaking success.

DC and Warner Bros hold the IP for some of the most celebrated characters in fiction this includes television rights, film rights, and even toy rights. Not only do they own the characters image but they own their authors stories and with each story an opportunity to make a brilliant product. This potential is ever-present in their projects but never quite delivered in the film-making. In both Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad each film has a large cast, an ambitious plot, and some killer visuals with tons of special effects. However that is the sum of Warner bros film-making and all depth is completely washed away in favor of mass appeal or eye candy. You see Batman v Superman was an awful film, it was a botched attempt at conveying a story fans and critics could have easily enjoyed. It was edited to the extent where the establishing shots, plot points and even vital character beats were missing from the official release. So many aspects of the plot are left unclear that some stuff seems out of the blue regarding the plot, in fact there's a dream sequence in a dream sequence which is incredibly silly even in a comic book film. On a final note the rest of the League appears in the form of footage on a computer in an email, it was certainly a stinker. Now Suicide Squad on the other hand suffers from not being a truly coherent film, instead of an edgy evil Avengers-style villain flick we ended up with a rather disjointed mess. Yes I'll admit Margot Robbie is one gorgeous girl and everybody loves Will Smith. But if you look passed the Fresh Prince of Be-lair and actually grasp how lame the films antagonist is you'll probably just really want your money back. As a fan myself who read the graphic novel I know how underdeveloped the plot and characters are, and I know the film is an experience where it's so bad it's just a funny hot topic commercial by the ending. In-spite of being a massive fan of the comics the flaws really do a disservice to all of us who wanted something unique they could really get into. Regarding the critics and the reason they don't enjoy the films, that's because they lack the unique story or stories that made us fall in love with these characters growing up. Regarding the studios, well when you're making hundreds of millions of dollars I can't imagine it's a real problem putting more into production, with profits so high why even consider whether or not the story is good, mediocre or blatantly god-awful.

Regarding characters and intellectual properties, Warner Bros actually owns the pioneers of comic books by owning DC. But owning the original archetype characters and their stories doesn't necessarily spell out a win. These characters became so important to younger generations not simply because they had cool powers or looked edgy on the covers. But more often than not a comic book character has a truly unique and creative story to tell which spoke to the readers growing up and made them incredibly attached. Sandman by Neil Gaiman for example tells stories specifically for individuals who are lonely and often attracts older more mature readers. Although the film studios are bent on putting millions of dollars into the production of their films they often interfere with the film itself. Studio interference has led to muddled story-lines, extensively re-shoots, and often difficulty with the director or actors. None of which actually make the story of any of the productions at all better. Perhaps if Warner Bros put less effort into making things look edgy and more money into making the story standout they'd make a unique film that we won't soon forget about.