Tdk vs Avengers

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yeah Gaurdians of the Galaxy, Thanos, Ultron, etc all fit perfectly in Nolan-verse where even the Lazarus Pit and Bane's venom were too unrealistic.

[/end sarcasm]

Oh and Man of Steel was forgettable. Realism did not help it AT ALL.

[jmc]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Yeah Gaurdians of the Galaxy, Thanos, Ultron, etc all fit perfectly in Nolan-verse where even the Lazarus Pit and Bane's venom were too unrealistic.

[/end sarcasm]

Oh and Man of Steel was forgettable. Realism did not help it AT ALL.

Do you actually understand what the Nolan approach was? I'm genuinely asking because you seem to be under the impression that Nolan's way of thinking was entirely about 'realism'.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by jmc

Do you actually understand what the Nolan approach was? I'm genuinely asking because you seem to be under the impression that Nolan's way of thinking was entirely about 'realism'.

Plausability is what separates the Nolan-verse from the vast majority of superhero films.

What, to you, distinguishes Nolan's approach from other superhero movies?

[jmc]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Plausability is what separates the Nolan-verse from the vast majority of superhero films.

What, to you, distinguishes Nolan's approach from other superhero movies?

You didn't answer my question. Nolan's approach has always been about making the best possible movie and not being confined to the conventions the genre had instilled in the past. The plausibility or realism thing is just an aesthetics choice, it doesn't even come into play because that's just Nolan's way of thinking, whether it be Batman, Inception or The Prestige, that's just his style, not just story but the use of practical effects, his intention is to make his world's as believable as possible. Underneath that style however is a desire to give the audience something they haven't seen before and to expand beyond the conventions. Why shouldn't a superhero film strive to be more than just a colourful cape and outrageous villain? Why can't we tell a serious story? There's nothing to say that you have to do that in a realistic fashion is there? Have we not had fantastical movies in the past have serious tones? Thing is this is exactly what Marvel has started doing post Avengers. I was actually shocked at how different IM3 was, it wasn't just different from Avengers it was different from the preceding IM films. Look at Thor 2, does that look like a conventional superhero movie? They are striving to do something similar to what Nolan did, they are looking to move beyond the conventions the genre is known for, only they aesthetic choices are different.

[Cpn America]

TDK by far. Avengers was good, but VASTLY overrated!

[Victarion]

I think there's people bandying about the term "realism" without actually knowing what it means. "Realism" isn't about taking away the fantastic; that's adding a sense of plausibility and versimilitude to the film. "Realism" is where people have the kind of reaction you'd expect to a certain situation.

@Sentinel: Nolan had the advantage of being able to make his own films, without being constrained by long-running plans or a shared universe.

[MrMaooz]

The Dark Knight

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by jmc

You didn't answer my question. Nolan's approach has always been about making the best possible movie and not being confined to the conventions the genre had instilled in the past. The plausibility or realism thing is just an aesthetics choice, it doesn't even come into play because that's just Nolan's way of thinking, whether it be Batman, Inception or The Prestige, that's just his style, not just story but the use of practical effects, his intention is to make his world's as believable as possible. Underneath that style however is a desire to give the audience something they haven't seen before and to expand beyond the conventions. Why shouldn't a superhero film strive to be more than just a colourful cape and outrageous villain? Why can't we tell a serious story? There's nothing to say that you have to do that in a realistic fashion is there? Have we not had fantastical movies in the past have serious tones? Thing is this is exactly what Marvel has started doing post Avengers. I was actually shocked at how different IM3 was, it wasn't just different from Avengers it was different from the preceding IM films. Look at Thor 2, does that look like a conventional superhero movie? They are striving to do something similar to what Nolan did, they are looking to move beyond the conventions the genre is known for, only they aesthetic choices are different.

Nolan goes beyond basic style or costume choices for plausibility. The Chicago/Pittsburgh setting, the crime drama story structure, the complete avoidance of imaginative villains and fantasy concepts, etc.

I'm not sure why there's this denial that Nolan's approach embraces plausibility over imagination. It's more than obvious.

and movies like IM3, MOS, and ASM following TDK's grounded approach doesn't really help your argument. The all pale in comparison to Avengers which blows them all away in term of pure entertainment value.

Not all superheroes need the imagination sucked away. Even Batman could use some these days.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wooden Alligator

I think there's people bandying about the term "realism" without actually knowing what it means. "Realism" isn't about taking away the fantastic; that's adding a sense of plausibility and versimilitude to the film. "Realism" is where people have the kind of reaction you'd expect to a certain situation.

@Sentinel: Nolan had the advantage of being able to make his own films, without being constrained by long-running plans or a shared universe.

plau·si·ble /ˈplôzəbəl/

Synonyms: probable - likely - credible - believable -possible

[Spider-Aziz]

The poll has one vote that should have been in TDK's favor, but went to Avengers by mistake

The Dark Knight. Just look at my current signature to see

[metaphysician]

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.

My rule of thumb is "ignore anyone who uses the words 'elevate' or 'transcend.'" A movie should not try to escape its genre, it should try to *embody* the genre. Its code word for "Genre films are inferior trash, but I like this one, so even though its clearly a crime drama/sci-fi movie/superhero film/whatever, I am going to pretend that it isn't."

[jmc]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Nolan goes beyond basic style or costume choices for plausibility. The Chicago/Pittsburgh setting, the crime drama story structure, the complete avoidance of imaginative villains and fantasy concepts, etc.

I'm not sure why there's this denial that Nolan's approach embraces plausibility over imagination. It's more than obvious.

and movies like IM3, MOS, and ASM following TDK's grounded approach doesn't really help your argument. The all pale in comparison to Avengers which blows them all away in term of pure entertainment value.

Not all superheroes need the imagination sucked away. Even Batman could use some these days.

Did you even bother to read my post?

[jmc]

Originally Posted by metaphysician

My rule of thumb is "ignore anyone who uses the words 'elevate' or 'transcend.'" A movie should not try to escape its genre, it should try to *embody* the genre. Its code word for "Genre films are inferior trash, but I like this one, so even though its clearly a crime drama/sci-fi movie/superhero film/whatever, I am going to pretend that it isn't."

If every film stuck to the conventions of their genre then films wouldn't evolve. I honestly can't believe what some of you are writing in here. When you limit yourselves to the conventions of the genre you're not reaching the characters or the films full potential. You're sacrificing doing more for the sake of sticking to a formula. Some of you seem so hell bent on sticking to that formula for reasons that frankly perplex me. What is the 'embodiment' of the superhero genre exactly? This doesn't make any sense, none of you are making any sense or attempting to justify such a claim, you're just spewing nonsensical fanboy gibberish in an attempt to mask your dislike of a particular film.

[Squaremaster316]

Originally Posted by jmc

If every film stuck to the conventions of their genre then films wouldn't evolve. I honestly can't believe what some of you are writing in here. When you limit yourselves to the conventions of the genre you're not reaching the characters or the films full potential. You're sacrificing doing more for the sake of sticking to a formula. Some of you seem so hell bent on sticking to that formula for reasons that frankly perplex me. What is the 'embodiment' of the superhero genre exactly? This doesn't make any sense, none of you are making any sense or attempting to justify such a claim, you're just spewing nonsensical fanboy gibberish in an attempt to mask your dislike of a particular film.

[Squaremaster316]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Nolan goes beyond basic style or costume choices for plausibility. The Chicago/Pittsburgh setting, the crime drama story structure, the complete avoidance of imaginative villains and fantasy concepts, etc.

Many find Nolan's villains to be very imaginative, and the subtle alterations were genius.

Newsflash, not every comic book deals with fantastical concepts. Many of them tell stories about everyday people dealing with situations that happen to the most of us. The only difference b/w them and "novels" is that one tells the story with visuals at times while another uses only dialogue.

I'm not sure why there's this denial that Nolan's approach embraces plausibility over imagination. It's more than obvious.

Making a world revolving around Batman plausible IS imaginative.

and movies like IM3, MOS, and ASM following TDK's grounded approach doesn't really help your argument. The all pale in comparison to Avengers which blows them all away in term of pure entertainment value.

And films like Green Lantern follow Iron Man 1 as an example. Doesn't seem like that's a great alternative. There's a hell of a lot more films (comic and otherwise) that have ended up getting savaged by critics and fans that follow a tone similar to Avengers than those that follow TDK. Skyfall, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes and more followed Batman Begins/TDK's example and many regard them as superior quality pieces of film making to TA.

Not all superheroes need the imagination sucked away. Even Batman could use some these days.

Your narrow definition of "imagination" seems to be as tired, stale and repetitive as Marvel is these days.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Words Avenger fans are not allowed to use:

Nolanite
Imagination
Pretentious
Genre
Elevate
Transcend

and we're told this by people more condescending than Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons...

but we're supposedly the closed minded fanboys, not them.

lol, nice spin fellas.

[Victarion]

For all your talk about Nolan eschewing imaginative villains and fantasy concepts, I just don't see it. Joker's backstory - "You wanna know how I got these scars" - and overarching goal are straight from the comics. The backstory is a direct reference to his preference for a multiple-choice origin, while his overcarhcing goal is adapted from The Killing Joke; replace Jim Gordon with TDK's Harvey Dent. I don't believe that you could look at Nolan's Two-face and honestly tell yourself that the scarring isn't a fantasy concept. A guy that badly scarred shouldn't be near as vocal as Dent was, and would likely have screamed himself raw after throwing back that shot of whiskey.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by Squaremaster316

Many find Nolan's villains to be very imaginative, and the subtle alterations were genius.

Newsflash, not every comic book deals with fantastical concepts. Many of them tell stories about everyday people dealing with situations that happen to the most of us. The only difference b/w them and "novels" is that one tells the story with visuals at times while another uses only dialogue.



Making a world revolving around Batman plausible IS imaginative.



And films like Green Lantern follow Iron Man 1 as an example. Doesn't seem like that's a great alternative. There's a hell of a lot more films (comic and otherwise) that have ended up getting savaged by critics and fans that follow a tone similar to Avengers than those that follow TDK. Skyfall, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes and more followed Batman Begins/TDK's example and many regard them as superior quality pieces of film making to TA.



Your narrow definition of "imagination" seems to be as tired, stale and repetitive as Marvel is these days.

Skyfall copied TDK. Rise of the Apes and Star Trek? Not so much outside of the prequel concept.

Did Nolan and co brainstorm to make Batman plausible? Yes.

That doesn't automatically mean the end product can be considered imaginative.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by Cpn America

TDK by far. Avengers was good, but VASTLY overrated!

So is TDK. The movie is just another Dark Knight Rises without Heath Ledger's iconic performance.

[Squaremaster316]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

So is TDK. The movie is just another Dark Knight Rises without Heath Ledger's iconic performance.

And The Avengers is just another Fantastic Four without the overhyped crossover factor.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wooden Alligator

For all your talk about Nolan eschewing imaginative villains and fantasy concepts, I just don't see it. Joker's backstory - "You wanna know how I got these scars" - and overarching goal are straight from the comics. The backstory is a direct reference to his preference for a multiple-choice origin, while his overcarhcing goal is adapted from The Killing Joke; replace Jim Gordon with TDK's Harvey Dent. I don't believe that you could look at Nolan's Two-face and honestly tell yourself that the scarring isn't a fantasy concept. A guy that badly scarred shouldn't be near as vocal as Dent was, and would likely have screamed himself raw after throwing back that shot of whiskey.

Nolan's last 'realistic' movie was Insomnia. Everything since then has delved heavily into scifi/fantasy. Even his Turn of the Century period piece gave the main protagonist a cloning machine.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by Squaremaster316

And The Avengers is just another Fantastic Four without the overhyped crossover factor.

1) The crossover factor wasn't overhyped. It paid off quite nicely.

2) I'm not saying TDK is terrible (like Fantastic Four) without Heath's Joker just not a classic.

[Squaremaster316]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

1) The crossover factor wasn't overhyped. It paid off quite nicely.

Nope, drastically overhyped. Cartoon All Stars to the Rescue gimmicky nonsense.

Ledger, Oldman, Eckhart and Bale's performances range from on par to better than any performance in TA.

[Thoix]

The more I watch the Avengers the more overrated it seems to be. I'm strongly against using the word "overrated" very often, if at all, but the Avengers is literally the second thing I have thought is truly overrated. It's good, but there a far better comic book movies. I consider Iron Man to be an excellent movie and the prime example how to make a MCU movie.

TDK easily wins in my book.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by Squaremaster316

Nope, drastically overhyped. Cartoon All Stars to the Rescue gimmicky nonsense.

Ledger, Oldman, Eckhart and Bale's performances range from on par to better than any performance in TA.

A Few Good Men has better performances than Back to the Future. That doesn't make A Few Good Men automatically better.