Tdk vs Avengers

[OcStat]

Don't get me wrong, Nolan should get that credit. But if it wasn't him, someone would have figured it in time. Some posters try to credit almost every comic book film since TDK to him in one way or another and I think that's reaching.

And I don't want to get the impression that I don't think very highly of Christopher Nolan, but Batman was probably the easiest comic superhero to adapt in the style he chose.

[Senator Pleasury]

I've been saying this too much but the first time I saw someone treating a comic book superhero with such realism it was incredible was the TV pilot movie for The Incredible Hulk TV series - and I have to emphasize I am talking about the TV pilot only. The way Dr. Banner gets to the gamma radiation formula or the way he could have avoided the tragedy but couldn't, the way Hulk is seen as a true monster that ruins his life... and to think they'd take decades to get to that point again.

But I also think Bryan Singer did his share with X-Men.

Now, Nolan had it easy with Batman? Excuse me but if anything he made it look easy. The tone he chose for the movies could have easily gone terribly wrong, absurd and boring.

[OcStat]

Originally Posted by Senator Pleasury

Now, Nolan had it easy with Batman? Excuse me but if anything he made it look easy. The tone he chose for the movies could have easily gone terribly wrong, absurd and boring.

The intricacies and perfect handling of all the plot threads in TDK I am sure was not an easy task, I don't mean it in that sense.

The tone he chose was a perfect fit. It just suits Batman better than any other character. And as a character, Batman is more or less already in a relatively grounded universe (Not speaking for the DC comics as a whole). People rave over the fact that TDK was this elaborate crime-caper, and not so much a comic book movie. But to me, a crime-caper comic book movie, about Batman, just makes sense.

[Lord]

The Dark Knight by far, i found The Avengers a little......hollow

[terry78]

Basically the argument is apples and oranges. The real comparison would be how good JL may be.

[MessiahDecoy123]

It just comes down to what you prefer.

A pretentious CBM that ”elevates” the genre based on a single iconic performance.

Or a proud CBM that exposes what makes comics appealing to every generation.

[jmc]

It's not pretentious. Jesus christ, don't be a tool.

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm worried that every comic book movie is going to copy Nolan's approach like Man of Steel did.

I hope heart and imagination aren't lost in rush towards bleak realism.

[Human Torch]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

It just comes down to what you prefer.

A pretentious CBM that ”elevates” the genre based on a single iconic performance.

Or a proud CBM that exposes what makes comics appealing to every generation.

I think that sums it up quite well.

It seems like most people want to a film that appeals to film school snobs,as opposed to a film that respects the actual genre.

[Human Torch]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

I'm worried that every comic book movie is going to copy Nolan's approach like Man of Steel did.

I hope heart and imagination aren't lost in rush towards bleak realism.

I don't think we have to worry about that as far as Marvel is concerned.DC on the other hand,will likely be mired in bleakness for the foreseeable future.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by jmc

It's not pretentious. Jesus christ, don't be a tool.

Don't get your panties in a twist.

I'm allowed to consider a movie with forced 9-11 allegories and over-glorified monologues , ”pretentious”.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Don't get your panties in a twist.

I'm allowed to consider a movie with forced 9-11 allegories and over-glorified monologues , ”pretentious”.

You can, but I don't think you quite understand what the word pretentious means.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by jmc

You can, but I don't think you quite understand what the word pretentious means.

Okay, then feel free to let me know in what ways I'm misusing the term.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

It just comes down to what you prefer.

A pretentious CBM that ”elevates” the genre based on a single iconic performance.

Or a proud CBM that exposes what makes comics appealing to every generation.

And you're calling TDK pretentious?

It more than elevates it; it captures why Batman has been so popular for so many decades while simultaneously making it current to the time it was made in (post-9/11 Bush Years paranoia). And is far more than the Joker. I will take its portrayal of Bruce Wayne, Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon's triumvirate any day over the Avengers cracking wise. And I loved Whedon dialogue when it is cracking wise.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Human Torch

I think that sums it up quite well.

It seems like most people want to a film that appeals to film school snobs,as opposed to a film that respects the actual genre.

I would rather have a film that embraces the true essence of the character and its real genre (i.e. Batman is crime, Spidey is teen/young adult melodrama, X-Men is social allegory, etc.) than one that assumes because it is based on a comic book it is all about bright colors and extravagant costumes.

Don't get me wrong. Avengers worked very well for what it was. But I guarantee you that Whedon will not make that same movie again.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Okay, then feel free to let me know in what ways I'm misusing the term.

Pretentious means something that thinks itself to be of greater importance than it actually is. It was never the film makers intention to make a movie that was trying to see itself as important, it was simply to make the best possible Batman movie they could. Just because a film asks it audience to pay attention and takes the subject matter seriously doesn't mean it thinks itself to be pretentious, how is it any different to what comic book writers do? Not every superhero comic is a continual run of splash page action scenes mixed in with some witty dialog. Some of them go pages and pages without action and are entirely dialog focused and require you to pay attention. What's the difference? One's an illustration? Because it's not as 'fun'? I don't recall every comic book story I've read to be 'fun'. If you don't like engaging storytelling and just want an easy fun ride, that's fine, but don't make out TDK is trying to be something it isn't, all it did was take a concept and do something different with it. Those who say it elevated the genre came from the people watching it, not the film makers, don't mistake the two. Not your cup of tea? Fine, but don't make out there's only one way to do superheroes, you're ignoring the very medium these characters are based on if you think that way. You say Avengers is proud to be a superhero movie - I agree, but if you think it shows off the best quality of what's in comic books you're sadly mistaken because the one thing good comic books have that Avengers doesn't is a story.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

But I guarantee you that Whedon will not make that same movie again.

I agree 100%. I said this in the last page but Avengers will probably be the last time we get such a pure superhero movie.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

And you're calling TDK pretentious?

It more than elevates it; it captures why Batman has been so popular for so many decades while simultaneously making it current to the time it was made in (post-9/11 Bush Years paranoia). And is far more than the Joker. I will take its portrayal of Bruce Wayne, Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon's triumvirate any day over the Avengers cracking wise. And I loved Whedon dialogue when it is cracking wise.

I wouldn't consider the characterizations of Bruce, Dent, or Gordon neither poor nor groundbreaking.

They're are reasonably accurate outside of Two Face (which I consider inaccurate) but nothing special.

Without Heath's Joker TDK would probably be in the same category as Dark Knight Rises which is pretty good but far short of legendary.

[Squaremaster316]

I prefer a film that elevates the genre and shows that both the films and the comic book medium that they come from can be as diverse as any medium of entertainment (The Dark Knight)

Some others might prefer a stale, generic cluster***** that does nothing new and is produced by con artists that make others think they're doing anything unique or difficult (which The Avengers is neither).

If the world ever does suffer a massive, apocalyptic cataclysm, let's hope that all records of Marvel's entire filmography will be one of the things that justifiably goes up in smoke.

[flickchick85]

I hate all this mudslinging. It's like my two favorite kids hate each other.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

And you're calling TDK pretentious?

It more than elevates it; it captures why Batman has been so popular for so many decades while simultaneously making it current to the time it was made in (post-9/11 Bush Years paranoia). And is far more than the Joker. I will take its portrayal of Bruce Wayne, Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon's triumvirate any day over the Avengers cracking wise. And I loved Whedon dialogue when it is cracking wise.

Originally Posted by DACrowe

I would rather have a film that embraces the true essence of the character and its real genre (i.e. Batman is crime, Spidey is teen/young adult melodrama, X-Men is social allegory, etc.) than one that assumes because it is based on a comic book it is all about bright colors and extravagant costumes.

Don't get me wrong. Avengers worked very well for what it was. But I guarantee you that Whedon will not make that same movie again.

Originally Posted by jmc

Pretentious means something that thinks itself to be of greater importance than it actually is. It was never the film makers intention to make a movie that was trying to see itself as important, it was simply to make the best possible Batman movie they could. Just because a film asks it audience to pay attention and takes the subject matter seriously doesn't mean it thinks itself to be pretentious, how is it any different to what comic book writers do? Not every superhero comic is a continual run of splash page action scenes mixed in with some witty dialog. Some of them go pages and pages without action and are entirely dialog focused and require you to pay attention. What's the difference? One's an illustration? Because it's not as 'fun'? I don't recall every comic book story I've read to be 'fun'. If you don't like engaging storytelling and just want an easy fun ride, that's fine, but don't make out TDK is trying to be something it isn't, all it did was take a concept and do something different with it. Those who say it elevated the genre came from the people watching it, not the film makers, don't mistake the two. Not your cup of tea? Fine, but don't make out there's only one way to do superheroes, you're ignoring the very medium these characters are based on if you think that way. You say Avengers is proud to be a superhero movie - I agree, but if you think it shows off the best quality of what's in comic books you're sadly mistaken because the one thing good comic books have that Avengers doesn't is a story.

Brilliant posts are brilliant . I was going to respond saying essentially the same thing but you guys have beaten me to it.

There is no such thing as a "comic book genre" nor is there such a thing as "embracing" the comic book genre or "elevating it". Comics are a medium just like everything else. The Dark Knight is just as valid of a comic book movie as The Avengers is. To say that TDK is an invalid comic book movie just because it's not "fun" and doesn't have colorful costumes is ludicrous. People are simplifying comic books and comic book movies with statements such as those - simplifying them to just colorful men in tights fighting "the bad guys". Not only does this false generalization make any superhero films that lack the Avengers style/tone appear as invalid, but it also makes many Vertigo books and films appear as invalid comic books/comic book movies. By the same logic of TDK not being a true/proud CBM, stuff like Y: The Last Man, The Walking Dead, Hellblazer and Preacher are all invalid comics that are not "proud" of being a comic.

So many comic book fans often point fingers to the general audience and accuse them of bias towards other CBM's yet they often do the same thing. There is a pretentiousness and close-mindedness to this that makes me wonder, if the fans aren't going to accept comics for all that they are and close them all off to a genre and to a specific tone, then why should anyone from outside the medium take comics seriously at all? The apparent fans do not.

[Senator Pleasury]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

It just comes down to what you prefer.

A pretentious CBM that ”elevates” the genre based on a single iconic performance.

Or a proud CBM that exposes what makes comics appealing to every generation.

It was certainly more than that. The tone, the story, everything was of excellency.

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

I'm worried that every comic book movie is going to copy Nolan's approach like Man of Steel did.

I hope heart and imagination aren't lost in rush towards bleak realism.

Avengers was comic-y enough. I wouldn't be so afraid, and even so that's not TDK fault and even if it were, the movie's still good regardless of its possible influence on later movies.

[terry78]

Originally Posted by flickchick85

I hate all this mudslinging. It's like my two favorite kids hate each other.

Men are talking.

[jmc]

The great irony in all this is Marvel are heading more toward the Nolan Batman approach in making superhero films if Iron Man 3 is anything to go by. It's not a film that's trying to be a superhero movie, it's very much a movie that just happens to have a superhero in it, it's a film that did it absolute best to move beyond whatever Avengers did, in fact I'll go so far to say the Avengers has given Marvel the chance to make films more in line with Nolan's approach to film making. They couldn't really do that beforehand in phase one so they had to tiptoe their way making conventional superhero movies culminating in Avengers. Now that Avengers is widely successful, more than they probably imagined, they can let their hair down and start making the movies that go beyond what they did before.

[flickchick85]

Originally Posted by terry78

Men are talking.