No. It is in the actual critical and audience positive response, in people analyzing how this new Superman film fixes an ongoing problem that superhero media has suffered for at least the past decade, and how it in fact broke down specifically the things that people thought they "had" to do because audiences asked for it.
Because, need I remind you, Batman v Superman was nowhere near as well-received by audiences...and yet it still made a significant profit over its budget, even when you account for the "budget doesn't include a huge amount of the cost to do a film". That is, it made something like $874M in 2016 dollars, on a budget somewhere between $250M and $325M. Making two and a half to three times the listed budget still means it was an unequivocally successful film, a top-ten film that year for gross income in fact--and yet it was a critical and audience disappointment. 2017's Justice League was even worse, failing to reach the break-even point.
Just because something is an unequivocal success doesn't mean it is well-made or what its audience actually wants. That also doesn't mean it is a horrible awful monstrosity that needs to be burned with fire. It just means that raw profit does not tell you if the thing was good, well-made, or what audiences are actually looking for. Profit is a proxy measure. Proxy measures not only can, but do fail to actually measure the thing they are proxy for. It's an unfortunate truth (it would be lovely if we could consistently measure things by proxy data that is way easier to obtain and analyze)--but it is a truth nonetheless.
And if film examples aren't enough, consider the rocky road World of Warcraft was on and has only questionably gotten away from in the past couple years. They began to focus almost exclusively on proxy measurements like number of active users per month or the percentage of players that engaged with a specific kind of content, rather than...y'know...sitting down and doing the work of designing content that was genuinely enjoyable in and of itself. And guess what that did? It ended up creating a system that players felt obligated to engage with, despite disliking or even outright hating it. Their "data-driven" design ended up creating a situation that players did, in fact, engage with in record numbers, and which was driving players away. From what I've heard, the ship has been righted since...but players are leery that Blizzard has learned the wrong lessons and is now plowing ahead into a different kind of anti-player design, rather than truly buckling down and figuring things out.
Financial success is a proxy. Personally, I think it is a significantly over-valued proxy. Doesn't mean it should be ignored (which I literally already stated, albeit in a different post). Just means that we absolutely must not pretend that sales = quality, nor that sales mean every player is blissed-out ecstatic about every single thing. Which, yes, is an argument people make on this board all the time, that because 5e sold well that must mean players are extremely happy with everything in it. (This, of course, conveniently ignores all the data from WotC itself showing that there was significant customer dissatisfaction with several parts of 5e that 5.5e attempted to address.)
