Re: Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy vs Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy
Originally Posted by kedrell
To me, saying something is epic is more indicative of time passed in story-time than any other factor. And BB was basically the life story of a guy from a little kid all the way to being Batman. The 5 months in TDKR really didn't feel in any way the same league. Now that's not to say a film that takes place over only months or a year can't feel epic as well. Hell, the whole quest in the LOTR films takes place over only 1 year and that feels plenty epic. But then it's chalked full of references to thousands of years of back story of the world it exists in so that will help.
Are you referring to a particular LOTR film or the trilogy as one 9-hour film? I felt ROTK was the most epic of the films for the sense of a bygone age I got when Frodo returned to the Shire. I also feel TDKR is comprable to ROTK, if not a bit better as far as driving home the importance of stopping the Big Bad goes (something I felt Tolkien was weak on in general, but I digress). The scope of the threat in LOTR and ROTK was, however, much greater than TDKR.
So I feel both are epic in their own right, though my preference leans toward TDKR (admittedly, I am not a big LOTR fan in general. Nor am I a big Batman fan beyond the Nolan films and BR).
"I defeated your uncle Victarion and his Iron Fleet off Fair Isle, the first time your father crowned himself. I held Storm's End against the power of the Reach for a year, and took Dragonstone from the Targaryens. I smashed Mance Rayder at the Wall, though he had twenty times my numbers. Tell me, turncloak, what battles has the Bastard of Bolton ever won that I should fear him?" - Stannis Baratheon