A better question - anyone left to dispute the fact that Civil War underperformed?

i agree. i thought Xmen: A was awesome. i loved it. and BvS was good, worth watching.

That's not a better question.  That's derailing the thread.  If you think it's such a great question make another topic for it.

On topic, Warner Bros. reactions, making changes to the directorial staff and decreasing the influence of Batman vs Superman's producer show how they felt about BvS's performance.  

And nobody ever really questioned that Batman vs Superman had a good opening weekend.  In terms of box office, the criticism is how quickly sales dropped. X-men's sales are really neither here nor there.  They're disappointing on their own, but the movie was never really expected to perform near Batman v Superman at any rate.  So really you have a strawman argument on top of a strawman argument.

I think it took some time to people realise how overestimated DoFP was.

Brian Singer is very limited as an action director. He didn´t bring anyting new to the franchise

Uhhhh... since he directed 5 out of the 6 main entries of the franchise, he had to have brought a hole bunch of new stuff to it...

I mean this was the first movie I fell asleep in the theater for. It was absolute garbage. I'm surprised it even grossed that much second week but for some reason people continue suffering through X-Men movies hoping for a decent one.

no Hugh Jack in this movie?

Xmen movies have never done 800m WW. It's not the 2 most popular superheros ever teaming up for the first time when just ONE of them had made a billion his last 2 solo movies. Expectations were different. Also this movie wasn't that good either. It's better than BvS but that's like saying getting punched in the nose is better than getting punched in the balls.

Who's BM'ing the BvS earnings? I thought everyone recognised that BvS has done well on the money side and that despite being a disappointing movie in many ways it's guaranteed to keep the DCU train rolling.

But on the flip side there was a lot of shit being thrown at BvS before the first thing was known about the movie itself because of Ben Affleck taking over as Bruce Wayne. MoS did OK, but not great, and as far as DC movies go we really only have the Bale trilogy as a recent big success. 

When you look at the Superman movies, what you mostly have is OK to poor box office results. The only amazeballs performance was the original 1978 movie that made $134 million in the USA, equates to >$400 million in today's money n the USA alone. Superman II did almost as well, then Superman III was disappointing and Superman IV was a failure. Superman Returns failed to break even, which is why it never got a sequel. Man of Steel only just made it to profit at the box office, and possibly wouldn't have got a sequel without the plan being to create the DCU to rival the MCU.

And a re-boot of Batman was far from a sure thing. I think people who expected $1 billion as a minimum KPI had far too high expectations. If the movie had been as critically praised as the Avengers movies I think $1 billion was a lock. But with it's relatively poor reviews I think nearly $900 million is an amazing result. It actually suggests that if WB/DC can make a great movie next up then $1.5 billion is definitely possible. So really the box office performance of BvS should give WB quite a bit of confidence.