Seriously. Look at this guy.

All films that are released usually have some sort of critical feedback. Many times it is either a standpoint on what works or what doesn't work in the film and many times can offer some insight on what to look forward to in a movie. However I've noticed as of late that movie critics seem to be earning the enmity of fans from all across the board. Particularly fans of the DC Extended Universe franchise of films. And I ask myself what what really is the purpose of all of it? And as 2017 rolls around can the same scorn be expected?

Its no surprise that the DC Extended Universe has been a subject of controversy in 2016, both for its film choices, handling of characters, the flunkies who direct the films and the editing, pacing and extended cuts across the board. As a result the movies have become critically panned and many of the DC FU fanbase is not pleased because of this.

Even as much of the fanbase seems divided over these movies I think it would be interesting to note why they seem to venomous towards the film critics and address a few points and misunderstandings that DC FU fans seem to prescribe to and devote them to.

1. If a Movie Gets Critically Panned Blame Rotten Tomatoes

This one has always made me chuckle quite a bit both from its absurdity and the fact that it seems to demonize and perpetuate a witchunt against critics of DCEU films. Many of which have given very explicit reviews on what the movie failed to accomplish just as many movies receive. The general consensus is that RT is an entity which goes out to purposefully dismantle DC FU films and give them bad reviews...

Maybe just maybe?

First of all RT is an aggregate site that compiles reviews from all across and is ironically co-owned by Warner Brothers?

Now ignoring what is fundementally wrong with blaming a website that is co-owned by the company who makes these films, how do you think anybody would respond to overhyped movies getting deconstructed and panned across the board? Certainly rationally right as many DC FU say that critics don't matter in the end?

Well that is not the case.

Seriously? Over the reception of one terrible movie?

Its baffling and honestly makes little to no sense.

The moment a movie that a person liked is given a bad critical score you go after them. Which ironically enough contradicts everything that DC FU fans say about "Crticis Not Mattering In the End".

2. Critics Are Biased Towards the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Hate DC

Now this has to be one of the most ironic and precious things I've seen spouted by the DC FU fanbase and many of the cast who play parts in the movies. Has the last number of years with critically and fan acclaimed movies coming from DC not been an eye opener to you at this point?

Seriously? I don't think I've ever heard anything more absurd in these past few months. The Dark Knight Trilogy got amazing reviews and were classics. The first two Burton Batman films got noteworthy praise, Superman 1 and 2 both got praise.

Critics love well done and well made movies that for the most part tell a coherent story and don't make you cringe or feel contempt for the characters in them

1. Ledger’s performance is monumental, but The Dark Knight lives up to it. Nolan cements his position as Hollywood’s premier purveyor of blockbuster smarts

Mark Dinning

Empire

2. The Dark Knight is bound to haunt you long after you've told yourself, Aah, it's only a comic-book movie.Full review

Richard Corliss

3. You may have to fight yourself out. But a movie this potent and provocative is well worth the battle.Full review

Peter Travers

Rolling Stone

If critics really hated DC would they have been praising these films since the early 70s and 90s and well into the 2000s?

No.

To assume otherwise would just be asinine and completely contradictory to any sort of rational thinking. The main problem "fans" seem to have is that when a movie they overhyped gets destroyed by critical reception that it automatically means the critics hate DC and are payed off by Disney.

Theres many things wrong with this picture. For starters.

Exhibit A: The Joel Schucamer Films

Back in the day these films were noted from being horrible and complete travesties as opposed to the first two Batman films predating it.

Nobody back then said critics hated DC when these two films got panned by both fans and critics?

And now they have another entry to add to the collection as well.

Exhibit B: Green Lantern and Jonah Hex

Long before the DCEU ever came into existence and during the TDK Trilogy Era, DC decided to launch two films both of which were complete disgraces and completely disrespected the source material in the movies they were in. Both because of bad plot, bad effects, cringeworthy scenes.

Now its important to remember, that both these movies were reviled by fans...and again by extension the critics as well. But nowhere around this time did I hear people say "You Hate DC because you don't like these movies". Why is that? Because these were again, terrible movies that came from the DC Brand. I never heard people say that critics were biased when they took apart these movies. I never saw the amount of scorn the DC FU fanbase gives people over BVS when these movies came out? Yet ironically they're from the DC brand.

Either its a case of double standards or the hype for these movies made people too devoted to it without actually looking past what made the movie bad.

And rightfully so. A movie with Batman fighting Superman? For the first time? On paper that sounds like a cinematic event for the ages. But the disappointment that set in from people caused them to wrongfully retaliate against anybody who didn't share the sentiment and didn't think the DCEU was worthy of praise. Or should even improve. Maybe one day we'll get a proper Batman vs. Superman flick that won't be overhpyed or helmed by Zack Snyder? Perhaps? I hope.

And even then with the amount of astounding evidence, people still wanna say that critics despise DC? Again, many can see that there has been an influx of people who share this sentiment.

And even for the fans who believe that DC can do much better and need to improve heavily upon these recent entries of movies seem to earn the ire and displeasure of the DC FU fanbase. And it all seems to point to the reception of the movies released in 2016.

Now with all of this I've just asked myself...the fans seem to be giving the critics of these movies a lot of attention? Now if the DCEU films had gotten good reviews fans wouldn't complain right? I mean again if the reviews didn't matter you wouldn't be making an effort to attack them and say that they're evil men and women who hate the DC Brand and only care for movies made in the MCU brand. I think that ironically speaks volumes on the level of insecurity that DC FU fans have in themselves. Again, if critics didn't matter you'd leave it be, but because a movie you didn't like gets dismantled....now they matter huh?

Its ironic and a bit silly to be honest. I think the critics of the DCEU movies find it funny or perplexing whenever people go after them for a few terrible movies. I mean they're just doing their job so why are they the bad guys all of a sudden?

Its worth many laughs to be honest. And honestly I don't see any end in sight to it.

At the end of the day if the critics don't matter and you're a fan of the DC FU, stop complaining about them and saying they're biased. Maybe if you saw it from a different perspective and why the films failed you may even get some real insight and character growth. Again, they're just bad films. They'll be rebooted, forgotten and one day people will get a proper DC Films Universe that can do the characters justice.

The DC Extended Universe. One of the most talked about, controversial and hottest topics around the Internet and outside of it. Beginning with Man of Steel directed by Zack Snyder this cinematic universe was meant to be a launching point for shared interactions, stories and chronology that could bring the glorious scope of DC characters to life for generations to come. While the films and their methodology are still finding their footing so to speak and they take a look at plans for the future I believe they could use some help from directors who have a much grander and established foothold in story-telling and directorial style. In truth, I feel that it would be a treat if one man helped out Warner Brothers, given his staunch record of critical, financial and cinematic acclaim.

Indeed I found this to be one of the best choices to help guide the DCEU and help them out so that they can be firm, staunch competitors with the MCU and hopefully tell better more coherent stories throughout each ensemble and solo film. Now, why Gibson you may ask?

1. Has An Excellent Understanding of Story Structure

Its no surprise that looking at Gibson's track record the man has a high prestige and accomplished field for movies. Not just from the standpoint as an actor, but as a director who can manage large scale films with emotion and visual gravitas. Far exceeding Warner Brothers current directors such as Zack Snyder and David Ayer, Mel Gibson has been in the business of film for decades now and by all accounts can be counted on to take the characters of the DC Universe to heights they haven't seen since Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy

Mel could offer some very distinct and welcome flavor into the DCEU. And ultimately it wouldn't just extend to one film, but even several films as well. Braveheart is a film that while rife with historical inaccuracies almost perfectly encapsulates the tale of William Wallace and the struggle of a nation to win their freedom. Something that is very well missing from the DCEU is the personal struggle missing from the characters we follow. Whether it be to the fault of the writers or directors the films ask the audience to sympathize and grow with characters who just aren't endearing at all. Their conflict and lack of personal standing as they tackle their conflicts is almost devoid of any real emotion.

Compare the death of William Wallace, a man a warrior-poet so staunch in his love for his people and resolve that we as the viewers feel for him. A simple man who doesn't need a Christ allegory to be endearing at all.

And then compare it to the "Death of Superman" arguably one of the most iconic and well known standing story lines featuring one of the most iconic and beloved characters to ever exist. Theres no real emotion that can be felt because we don't grow with Cavill who by all accounts has had much more screen time and budget devoted to him than William Wallace and the film Braveheart as a whole. That is undoubtedly alarming. Especially for arguably the most well known superhero to exist.

We can very well see the difference in how Mel manages to portray a compelling protagonist opposed to other directors such as Zack Snyder and David Ayer who put emphasis on superficial visual spectacle, cheap, jumbled and inchorent story-telling and a lack of coherence for the supporting characters or protagonists.

Even take the story of Desmond Doss, during WWII as an example. Mel tells the story of REAL people in REAL scenarios as human beings. Not as godlike figures who are emotionally and mentally detached from the world around them such as Snyderman or murderers like Batfleck who have become demoralized and seek to kill other heroes based on lack of information or presumed moral background. While lacking some themselves

And the results speak for themselves.

2. Is the Most Experienced and Accomplised Director/Actor Alongside Ben Affleck. Could Help Him Helm the DCEU and Guide it in the Right Direction to Relieve the Stress Ben Has Come to Face

Its no surprise that out of the numerous men and women working to help the DCEU that Ben Affleck has his hands full. Indeed, much like Mel Gibson he is a failry accomplished actor and director with decades of experience as a writer and helmer of his films. He has arguably the most experience out of anybody working for the DCEU, both as an actor and director as opposed to his co-workers like Zack Snyder, David Ayer, Henry Cavill and Jason Momoa.

Indeed both are men who are renowned for being talented in directorial works and acting.

Could you imagine these two auteurs of film working together on characters we all know and love? I daresay it would be a spectacle and would assuredly inspire much more confidence in the DC Film's Brand than we currently have now. Two men of great experience helping to craft this universe? That is what the DCEU so desperately needs and craves. They can turn this....

into this...

3. Acknowledges the Evidently Flawed Film that is Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice

While many actors and others involved with the DCEU acknowledge its faults, such as Jeremy Irons and even Affleck himself, sometimes you can be hard pressed to find anyone with a blunt and true statement on why the film may have gotten a sour reception. For the case of Batman vs. Superman Dawn of Justice Mel will tell it like it is.

"I’m really baffled by it. I think there’s a lot of waste, but maybe if I did one of those things with the green screens I’d find out different,” he added. “It seems to me that you could do it for less. … You’re spending outrageous amounts of money, $180 million or more. I don’t know how you make it back after the tax man gets you, and after you give half to the exhibitors.”

This is so true. The film and many efforts of the DCEU cost way too much to be bothered with often wasting egregious amounts of production and budget. It is no surprise with directors like Zack Snyder, who put too much emphasis on visual "spectacle" and needless waste of money that somebody more experienced has to tell it like it is.

Mel would find a way to use his resources carefully and diligently in conjunction with his story-telling and vision for his craft.

And indeed he offers a very true and concise opinion of the film.

“It’s a piece of s--t,”

Yes it is Mel. It truly is.

Mel can acknowledge that the film did not live to expectations and I firmly believe would help steer the DCEU in the right direction.