8 Reasons Why Fans And Critics Can’t Agree On Superhero Films

When it comes to superhero movies, 2016 has been the year of the big showdown. I'm not talking about how every film seems to be about heroes picking their differences up off the side or the emergent rivalry between advocates of Marvel and DC, but of the increasingly enlarging divide between fans and critics.

Oh, sure, there's always been something of a gulf between what professional reviewers and Joe Public think, especially since the end of New Hollywood and the rise of the wide release blockbuster, but it definitely feels like this disparity has now expanded beyond so called "critic-proof" movies like Transformers. Recent panned comic book films like Batman V Superman and X-Men: Apocalypse have seen a major discrepancy in how they're viewed by audiences and professionals, leading to conversations where reviewers have been dismissed as aloof, pretentious or, in some extreme cases, paid off.

This isn't just differing opinions; this is something more fundamental in modern film culture. Critics are fans and regular audiences don't just hoover up any old tat, yet it feels like battle-lines are being drawn. Why is this happening? And why now?

I didn't like either of those movies at all, but it is curious how strong the polarising opinions have been. As a fan and, by the simple fact I get paid to shout about my opinions (I'm not actually conceited enough to exclaim it outright), a critic, I've seen this debate from both sides and want to share my thoughts on why were seeing it now and hopefully try to rationalise a lot of the vitriol being thrown about recently.

As usual, please put all your vitriol down in the comments.

A major defence of Batman V Superman and X-Men: Apocalypse is that they're bringing so much cool comic book stuff to the screen that you can just sit back and enjoy that if nothing else. Everyone points towards the parademons, mainly because it's what Kevin Smith highlighted in his conflictedly gushing fan review, but it's true of things like the Phoenix Force or dead Robin too; these are weighty pieces of source iconography that it is admittedly cool to see on the big screen.

There's the added thrill of accuracy with these. Even though superhero movies have been big for almost two decades now, faithfulness has never been a top priority. Nobody got by on just having Deadpool by name only in Origins: Wolverine or appreciated Venom in Spider-Man 3.

But while they look like the things you enjoy, these appearances aren't all that special within the movies themselves; they're moments that can be said to mean an awful lot if you know the context, but their place in the story isn't all that justified. From a filmmaking perspective, it falls flat. It's not that critics don't appreciate Wonder Woman on screen, it's that they don't feel it justified in the film. Conversely, when T'Challa turns up in Civil War, he's not cool because he's Black Panther, but because the movie's made Black Panther cool.

And so there goes one of the biggest points of praise of these movies from comic book fans. On a basic level, the two groups want slightly different things.

A notable exception to this is Spider-Man: Civil War plays heavily with his iconography, using the "QUEENS" location card to great effect, but even then the film does a solid job of justifying him beyond simply saying the name.