I haven't read that many comics... but I can say that the HP books are a lot better than the movies, but the movies stands on their on merits and if I never had read the books I wouldn't complain about the glaring differences... but on the case of Godfather and LoTR I preffer the movies to the books (and that is because the adaptation was very good and on the case of Godfather a 300 page books got portrayed in 10h movie so it could be very deep unlike HP that books with 700 pages get 2h30 adaptation and several cuts).

Many fanbase driven films tend to have HUGE openings and drop afterward.  The difference is that all the harry potter movies ended up doing outstanding numbers (in a time when anything over 600 million was outstanding, these movies regularly hit 900 million and in the case of Deathly Hallows 2, 1.3 billion.)  

That still doesn't change the fact that we live in an era where ANYONE can watch a comic book movie, because they're everywhere.  a comic book movie featuring the two of the largest icons in pop culture history and the two biggest in comic book history should have made avengers movie money. Easily.  

No, box office is NOT an indefinite gauge of how good a movie is, but it does indicate how much the general public likes a film.  Sometimes a film will make a tonne despite how much people hate it (read: Twilight and 50 Shades franchises) because they are based on popular subjects or source material.  Batman v Superman is one of those. 

As for direct comparisons, box office wise, it's VERY hard to directly compare films that came out in different eras.  Lord of the Rings, Return of the King making 1.119 billion dollars in 2003 is a much, much more impressive feat than Minions making 1.159 billion in 2015.  Why?  Inflation, ticket prices, 3D screens, and the exploding international market.  They came out 12 years apart.  

If a movie like the first HArry Potter came out today, I wouldn't be surprised to see it make closer to 1.5 billion.  If The Dark Knight came out this year, I'd expect the same, yet those are both just below and just above the 1 billion mark when Iron Man 3 is at 1.2 billion and Furious 7 is at 1.5 billion.  

Yet, despite the massively expanding worldwide market, 3D tickets, and all the other things that are helping movies make a billion dollars at the box office, Batman v Superman couldn't muster 900 million in an era where, just that same month, a furry movie about a cute bunny made nearly a billion dollars.  It couldn't muster enough to beat a movie that had similar hatred that came out nearly a decade prior.  it got royally beaten by its only direct competition.  That is a disappointment.  It made a profit, but it was a success when it should have been another mega-blockbuster.  

And as for quality, remember, "SAVE MARTHA!"  

This isn't true at all. The dilemma between both sides is very understandable and believeable in civil war. In bvs it's poorly written and makes batman and superman look like children. Seriously at one point batman is chasing down criminals and superman stops him just to have a talk and doesn't even help stop the bad guys made no sense at all. Batman vs superman also had two major story lines going in that movie and tried to cram them into one movie jus because. Civil war didn't try to do that and focused on one story line. I actually prefer the dark tone of the DC universe but his movie was just not well done. People like you keep coming out and trying to defend it there is a reason your in the minority. There is no double standard. Next time DC should focus on one story Line at a time and make them believable. Like superman should have bee introduced to red kryptonite and gone rogue that would have made bvs believable but it would have take more time introducing it and it would have taken away from the doomsday story they wanted to cram into the end of the movie. Something that should have been its own movie. You don't cram the death of superman into a batman vs superman movie.

The dilema maybe believeable but its execution is far from it and in some cases more outlandish than in BVS, if people like me are defending BVS in your own words then people like you are guilty of double standards. CW focused on one storyline and came out with the same flaws as BVS and the latter had 40 or so minutes cut from its cinema release for a director's cut mind you.

Case point, people said outside of Batman and Superman that Wonder Woman really had no business in the movie yet Spiderman in CW is the most shoehorned character between the movies but its fine in the eyes of your camp, the villain in CW was basically a cameo appearance through out with only 5 minutes dedicated to explaining his motive, he's one of the most insignificant villains I've watched in any comic book movie and is porbably the worst. He essentially was a weak plot device to get the heroes to fight, well that and Captain America going off his rocker at the mention and sight of Bucky and your camp complain about the lack of fleshing out the story in BVS not to mention the villain's plan was so face/palm worthy and silly it's laughable. They focused on one storyline and ended up making one of the most significant sagas in the Marvel comics history end up being a watered down mess that in end seemed inconsequencial which is ironic as the whole fiasco was built on the consequence of their actions, the storyline by default was already in trouble due to the license conflict between Marvel and Fox. The film is essentially just an excuse to have heroes fight rather than the actual storyline and event it's based off.

As I said it's not a bad film but it's no different to its counterpart as it also shares the same flaws don't give a shit if that hurts the feelings of any fan here yourself included as I don't have a preference between these companies, both films are practically the same to me in their flaws.

I have not seen BvS (especially after the mess that Man of Steel was - and all Zack Snyder movies that not 300 for that matter) but the reasoning used to bring SpiderMan into the movie was simply appalling.

I remember buying a PS1 and thinking it was great. Then, I got a PS2 and, again, thought it was great. Later I got an Xbox 360 and a PS3. I thought both were great but I found myself attacking one online to defend the other online. That won't happen again.

I glanced over your post, Runa, but I didn't read to deeply into it. I'm sure you have some valid points. I'd counter with valid points. It would go on forever until somebody felt like they "won" or one of us died. Really, is just not worth the effort.

I've spent thousands and thousands on Marvel and DC Comics. I love both universes and I'm happy to see them doing well on screen. I've seen good, great, bad, and horrible film adaptations from both. I can admit that BvS has flaws just like I can admit that CW had flaws but, at the end of the day, I really enjoyed both. Sadly, for you, you couldn't. And you don't seem to have the ability to like one without attacking the other. Nothing I can say will change your mind.

I'm at a disadvantage because I liked both and you hate one. I'm not going to throw flames at Civil War anymore because I'm no longer in the mood to bash something I loved. I've been there before. We'll just agree to disagree on this one.

I am in a similar boat. I don't read comics and I only recently knew that superhero movies are either DC or Marvel

I  am curious, what did you think of Lex? Since I completely agree with you on Zemo being weak, uninteresting and at times, very dumb. 

Edit: I had no idea that BvS is missing 40 minutes of footage. Good to know.

My opinon on BVS' Lex is that although I can see where some people are coming from in not liking the BVS version of the character I'll say the performance is one of the best in regards to just being a villain. I see BVS' version of Lex more as a new incarnation or version of Lex who brings a new spin and approach to the character rather than following a set template that everyone is used to, in gaming terms this would be a reboot rather than a remake, it won't click with a number of long time fans who are used to the previous interpretations of the character but for a good other number of people it'll be a fresh take who this version will eventually gel with while newer fans would have been given a treat by that performance.

This will sound strange and ironic but the best way I can put it for anyone who hasn't seen BVS is don't go into the film thinking Lex is a James Bond scenario where it's a different actor following the same template go in thinking more along the lines of Batman funny enough where each actor does the role their own unique way.

You show wisdom for your ag... Wait.

I didn't know who Lex was before seeing the movie. Yup, that's how ignorant I am when it comes to comics and superheroes. I never heard of him before!

So You are absolutely right, new comers will have a blast following his storyline, just like I did. I only read reviews after watching the movie and it was SHOCKING to read people complaints about the villain. Some even suggested this he was not the real Lex lmao. What shocked me more was reading what others thought was wrong with the movie. Just sounds like nitpicking and asking the producers to spoon feed us every bit of info because some can't just think it out.

And the thing is, if I speak positively about BvS then I am automatically lumped DC fanboys... yeah, what a super fanboy I am, not knowing who Lex was....