The Marvel movies have made more money; their popularity shows they are better

The argument

Movies which are popular with audiences are popular for a reason; they are good, quality, widely-appealing films. Box office is not an arbitrary proxy for that popularity but a direct measure of it, since every ticket is a separate person choosing to see the film. When a film makes it big at the box office, the amount of money it has made shows just how popular it is. By that measure, it's clear that the Marvel movies have been much more successful than the DC movies. Of the top ten superhero movies between the two, Marvel claims all but one — a near-sweep of the category rather than a narrow edge within it. The starkest difference can be seen between the two franchises' crossover events, which are also the fairest comparison available, since each studio assembles its biggest characters and spends accordingly. Marvel's The Avengers, released in 2012, made 1.5 billion dollars at the box office, while Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, released in 2016, only made around 900 million. The second round widened the gap rather than closing it: Avengers: Infinity War made 2 billion dollars at the box office; Justice League made 650 million (even less than the preceding Dawn of Justice), so DC's flagship team-up performed worse the second time out. Marvel's movies are simply more lucrative, and DC has fallen behind in almost every contest. With Marvel's Phase 4 looming on the horizon, and with the failures of Justice League still lingering in fans' minds, this battle for the box office is not very competitive. Since audiences register what they think of a film by turning up for it, that verdict belongs to the audience rather than to any critic.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Marvel has seen success at the box office, and DC has its shares of failures. But don't dismiss DC's efforts too quickly, as it's proving it can learn from its mistakes. After Justice League flopped, Aquaman performed much better, taking in 1.1 billion dollars at the box office. And the highly acclaimed Joker earned over a billion dollars as well. Not only that, but its return on investment (ROI) was 1,949 percent - the highest rate out of all of Marvel and DC's films. DC is quickly closing the gap and catching up to Marvel's box office success. But even if that weren't the case, how good a movie is isn't wholly determined by its profits. For example, James Cameron's Avatar made even more money than Avengers: Endgame (until the latter released in theaters for a second time). Does that make Avatar a better movie than Endgame - or even a good movie at all? On the contrary, the consensus is that Avatar was quite forgettable, despite its enormous budget and revenue.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Box office measures how many tickets were sold, which is a claim about popularity rather than quality. The counter-argument makes the point directly, naming a film that outgrossed the others without being better regarded. [Rejecting P2] The comparisons are drawn from a particular moment. The counter-argument names later releases from the other studio that earned comparably, and one that by return on investment did considerably better. [Rejecting P3] "More lucrative" restates the first two premises. The conclusion needs a criterion of "better" that the argument never supplies beyond revenue — which is precisely the criterion in dispute.