I riled some people up on the Morning Spoilers thread today. Even got called a troll. Why is it that when you insult Man Of Steel and the DC/Warner Bros. idea of universe building people always default to the same arguments?

"Man Of Steel made a lot of money!"

Warner Bros. doesn't want to make a lot of money off one or two DC movies every four years. They want to make a lot of money off of a lot of DC movies every year. The studio needs to build a franchise to do this. Endlessly retelling the origin of Superman is not going to accomplish this. What Warner Bros. and DC keep doing is endlessly recycling the only two characters that they have managed to make money off of. Mostly, they are in the business of making bigger movies, not better movies. MoS 2 does not seemed primed to buck this trend at all.

"Arrow is much better than Agents of SHIELD!"

I only watched the first handful of episodes of the first season of Arrow, so I'm not going to argue about the relative quality of each show. What I will argue is that comparing Arrow to Agents of SHIELD in terms of universe building is currently comparing apples to oranges. Until Warner Bros. and DC demonstrate that Arrow and the upcoming Flash show have any tie to the cinematic universe, we may as well just discuss whether Birds of Prey was better than Mutant X.

"Green Lantern wasn't that bad!"

That's a damn lie and you know it!