Avengers 1-4 vs The Dark Knight Trilogy

[The Joker]

Okay, you know how they say that a lie is more convincing if you mix it with the truth? You notice how it's not that a lie is more convincing if you mix it with truths that you don't spell out but someone could guess at? Or that it's more convincing if you tell one story, then tell an entirely different story, but there's a common element to the stories that might be true and would make sense if it was? It's not the same thing.

Superheroes fighting supervillains is naturally less believable than serial killers, so it requires a greater level of diligence in grounding things in reality to make it seem real. It needs the "lie" mixed with the "truth", not to be technically more realistic, but to have greater verisimilitude. Batman Begins delivered on that for me, which is how it won me over on the grounded take when that wouldn't have been my first choice, and then I felt The Dark Knight was approaching it in a more standard way, while styling itself as if it were even more grounded, like it was Law and Order: Super Villains Unit. That just wasn't doing it for me. I'd prefer it to be either more convincing or more fantastical.

The Joker is not a supervillain. He has no superior fighting skills, he has no powers, he has no special physical condition of any kind that elevates him above other people or makes him unique. He is an ordinary human man in clown make up with a facial disfigurement. That doesn't need any in depth explanation to be grounded or plausible. It is perfectly plausible. His clown persona does not need any in depth explanation for him to be grounded. The movie makes it very clear he is a clever psychopath, what his beliefs and agenda is, and they give very strong hints as to why he has adopted the clown persona. He is not Ra's Al Ghul where he is the leader of an ancient ninja organization that has been balancing the injustices of the world for centuries. That needs some explaining. He is not a reputable psychiatrist who gets some kind of sick delight out of wearing a Scarecrow mask and gassing people with fear toxin. That needs some explanation.

The Joker's character doesn't need that. If you personally need that for a character to work for you, that's unfortunate. I'd hate to have that hinder my enjoyment of a movie. But what ever floats your boat.

I'm not judging his overall merits, and him thematically counterbalancing Batman doesn't have anything to do with the the narrative plausibility or groundedness. And the guy who says he does it to scare people had never even seen him in the makeup. Even if The Joker said it himself, he was shown to be an inherently unreliable narrator when he changed his story on how he got his scars. You can say he does it to scare people because he gets in their faces, but Pfeiffer's Catwoman got in someone's face in a creepy way, and she dressed up like a cat because she was pushed out of a window, got licked by a bunch of cats, and lost her mind. Maybe The Joker uses the clown makeup as a means to an end, or maybe he's making a statement, or maybe something in his past compelled him to do it. We don't know the context. Batman Begins breaks Bruce's path down piece by piece. It spells out how and why Jonathan Crane first put on the mask and how it progressed from there. For me, there's a difference between doing that to make an unlikely character type convincing and just asking me to guess why. And it's more rewarding to me from a grounded reimagining perspective.

His counterbalance of Batman has everything to do with narrative plausibility. If a character comes off as implausible, then their themes and purpose fall flat. You have to buy the character in order for their story to work. That's why the Joker works because he is a perfectly plausible character. The audience buys this psychopath and his intentions, so everything that flows from his thematically works because he as a character works and we believe in this deranged psycho clown. They're not hung up on the details of why he's chosen a clown motif. He's got a smile cut into his face. Its not difficult to make the connection.

I don't understand your Pfeiffer Catwoman analogy. She got up in someone's face one time for all of five seconds in the movie just to chastise them about being weak (which was how she used to be). How do you equate that as a similarity to the Joker's drawn out scenarios of getting in people's faces on two separate occasions to tell them a disturbing tale about his creepy appearance? The movie gives the audience plenty of food for thought on why the Joker is the way he is.

I mean, criticizing the mysterious backstory in general wasn't really my point, but I prefer the Nicholson approach to his background. Or the Phoenix approach, although that's a lot of background detail.

Apologies. I thought that was your point since you accused them of not caring because they deliberately didn't explain the clown motif.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

Sure, no one would have questioned it if they added those deaths to Joker's body count. Realism aside, though, I will say that the ending with Batman being a fugitive was my favorite thing about The Dark Knight, which makes it shame that TDKR skipped forward and didn't follow up on that.

My issue isn't really with Batman taking the blame, I agree that it set up the sequel in an interesting way and that it's a shame that they just ignored it and actually did the opposite regarding Batman's tenacity and will. My main issue regarding that was how much the hospital bombing was downplayed relative to other things The Joker did, which just can't compare.

 

[Awest66]

I agree that it set up the sequel in an interesting way and that it's a shame that they just ignored it and actually did the opposite regarding Batman's tenacity and will.

Preserving Harvey Dent's reputation by taking the blame needs to have an impact on Gotham beyond just making Batman a fugitive vigilante again.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

Preserving Harvey Dent's reputation by taking the blame needs to have an impact on Gotham beyond just making Batman a fugitive vigilante again.

That's besides the point I made but if we take the word of the film, ignoring my issues with it, the impact was to not have people freak out and potentially descend into chaos. Whatever long lasting effects his death has it doesn't have to be made so the Batman setup ends up the opposite of what we were left off with. Especially given that the police were so incompetent in TDK that it's an extra long stretch that they could eradicate all organized crime.

 

[Boom]

I see we are still obsessed with doing "everything vs TDK" polls.

 

[Awest66]

Whatever long lasting effects his death has it doesn't have to be made so the Batman setup ends up the opposite of what we were left off with

I'm not saying the next movie needed to have Batman retired, I'm saying that whatever Bruce's situation is, Gotham cannot be the exact same crime ridden hellhole from before.

Especially given that the police were so incompetent in TDK that it's an extra long stretch that they could eradicate all organized crime.

They were well on their way in the beginning of The Dark Knight, It's why they turned to the Joker in the first place.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

I'm not saying the next movie needed to have Batman retired, I'm saying that whatever Bruce's situation is, Gotham cannot be the exact same crime ridden hellhole from before.

But Batman being retired and having lost his spark was the specific thing on which I was commenting.

They were well on their way in the beginning of The Dark Knight, It's why they turned to the Joker in the first place.

A case of what they say not being the same as what they show. Many of The Joker's actions relied entirely on that the police being completely incompetent.

 

[Awest66]

But Batman being retired and having lost his spark was the specific thing on which I was commenting.

Did you want to see more of Batman being a fugitive vigilante? Because we already got quite a bit of that in Batman Begins.

. Many of The Joker's actions relied entirely on that the police being completely incompetent.

Like what?

 

[Fincher]

Did you want to see more of Batman being a fugitive vigilante? Because we already got quite a bit of that in Batman Begins.

I wanted them to take it further, step up their game, maybe have a supervillain who was tasked with bringing him in and used unconventional methods to do so.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

Did you want to see more of Batman being a fugitive vigilante? Because we already got quite a bit of that in Batman Begins.

Yes, much rather than having him be retired. Especially after what the ending of TDK said.

Like what?

Several of The Joker's plans set him up to be arrested fairly easily and even when they did get him in custody they actually decided to put a single person inside the cell with the unrestrained prisoner.

 

[Awest66]

Yes, much rather than having him be retired. Especially after what the ending of TDK said.

The more I think about it, Bruce retiring as Batman honestly makes a lot of sense given the ending of The Dark Knight. He doesn't take the blame because he's excited at the idea of being chased by the cops or because he all of a sudden wants to be a fugitive again. He does it to ensure the work they put in to save Gotham won't be for nothing, Helping gotham is more important to him than the act of being Batman.

Bruce said that Batman is whatever Gotham needs him to be so therefore it makes perfect sense that he won't be whatever Gotham doesn't need him to be.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

The more I think about it, Bruce retiring as Batman honestly makes a lot of sense given the ending of The Dark Knight. He doesn't take the blame because he's excited at the idea of being chased by the cops or because he all of a sudden wants to be a fugitive again. He does it to ensure the work they put in to save Gotham won't be for nothing, Helping gotham is more important to him than the act of being Batman.

Bruce said that Batman is whatever Gotham needs him to be so therefore it makes perfect sense that he won't be whatever Gotham doesn't need him to be.

Batman is obsessed with fighting crime and he's probably mentally ill given how scarred he still seems to be by something that happened in his childhood that it gets to run his life. That's not a person you'd expect to see retire at all but the ridiculous part is that he does it twice in one film. It takes so much power out of the ending of him finally actually laying down the mantle and trying to live a "normal" life if he already retired before. That he seems a bit happier with the thief that he barely knew isn't enough to outweigh that. So while I'm not sure I think the "happy ever after" ending suits the character all that well I still think it would have worked better if he had kept going, like he said, and learned something during this film that could make him think of retiring.

 

[Fosterson]

Sorry for coming in a little late, but I couldn't resist!

The ironic thing is that in my opinion, Age of Ultron feels way more like the movie you're trying to paint Rises as.

I'm in a slightly unusual position here in that I'm actually a big fan of both TDKR and AoU, although I do recognise their flaws.

To me it has substantially bigger problems like the extremely half-assed "redemption" of Scarlet Witch,

I didn't really see much of a problem with this. It's fairly simple: Ultron lied to her and Pietro so that he could use their powers to his advantage. Wanda was never portrayed as evil anyway, simply angry and wanting revenge on Tony for making the weapons that killed her family.

I also love Clint's pep talk.

the dull as dishwater version of Quicksilver,

Yeah, the Russian accent wasn't great. But I still enjoyed Pietro overall and appreciated the visuals that his powers allowed.

the Awkward Hulk/Black Widow romance,

I'm not the biggest fan of this relationship, but I still found it a heck of a lot more convincing than Bruce's sudden infatuation with Miranda, a chick he knew for like 2 days at most before being separated from her for months. But when he returns to Gotham, she's the first thing he asks Gordon about. I mean, she's just some chick he banged that one time, but we're supposed to think that he's passionately in love with her or whatever. It just doesn't work.

I had a similar issue with Bruce falling in love with Selina - to such an extent that she's the only person he allows to be privy to the knowledge that he survived. Not only does he barely know her, but practically the only meaningful interaction they had prior to this was her leading him into a trap, which resulted in his back being broken and Gotham being terrorised for months while he was imprisoned in a dungeon halfway around the world. Why would Bruce suddenly want to spend the rest of his life with her, and even give her the pearl necklace his mom was wearing the night she was murdered? I know Anne Hathaway is hot, but to say this is contrived is an understatement.

If we're going to criticise movies like Thor for having the hero fall in love too quickly, then I don't see why TDKR should be exempted from that.

That being said, I don't think the romances are either of these two films' strongest suits.

shoving Vision into the beginning of the movies final act

I actually love the introduction to Vision. Not only was Paul Bettany instantly great, but him lifting Mjolnir was an awesome call back to the party scene earlier on.

And the conversation between him and Ultron in the forest is one of the stand-out scenes of the whole movie for me.

Ultron's complete lack of effectiveness as a villain.

I never fully understand this criticism. I mean, sure, it would have been great to see him kick a bit more ash, but he still overpowered Thor, and it took the combined might of Thor, Iron Man and Vision to seriously damage him.

And FWIW, I think James Spader did a great job playing an immature, psychologically unstable and genocidal robot.

As for TDKR, I think Bane is phenomenal. Tom Hardy did an incredible job and his portrayal is definitely one of the best CBM villain performances. Unfortunately, TDKR is let down a bit in the villain department by the revelation that Talia is the main villlain and that Bane is merely working for her. Marion Cotillard is a great actress, but she really seemed to be phoning it in with this movie and her death scene is laughably bad.

It also never really felt like a big deal when just looked at as a movie, It felt more like a filler episode of a tv show. Like what are the character arcs? who learns what in this movie? I couldn't say.

Well, we see the Avengers having to face their personal fears and problems. In Tony's case, we see the fear that drives him, namely that one day a threat will emerge which the Avengers won't be able to stop. This is his entire rationale for creating Ultron. For Steve, he accepts the fact that he never will be able to get that dance with Peggy and decides that being an Avenger is the life he must now commit to. Banner and Natasha flirt with the possibility of a normal life (which is partly why Bruce agrees with Tony on creating Ultron), only to realise the futility of that by the end of the movie.

So there are definitely character arcs there.

And in-universe, the events of AoU have a huge impact, as they lead directly both to the passing of the Sokovia Accords, as well as Zemo's vendetta against the Avengers.

Overall, then I think that AoU and TDKR are both flawed, but still really entertaining and enjoyable movies that have a lot to offer.

 

[Awest66]

I didn't really see much of a problem with this. It's fairly simple:

Still feels pretty half-assed to me, considering she mentally tortured the other Avengers (who had nothing to do with her families death) and never really apologizes or gets called out on it in any real way.

I still enjoyed Pietro overall and appreciated the visuals

It wasn't just the accent, it's that he was extremely boring, He was the superhero equivalent of a bland saltine cracker.

but to say this is contrived is an understatement.

To start, Selina wasn't the only one privy to the knowledge of his survival, he left clues for Lucius, Gordon and Blake and set himself up for Alfred to see him alive and well. Keep in mind, She betrayed him for self-preservation the first time and she redeemed herself by saving him from Bane when she could have just left the city. She also helped Bruce secure the bomb from Talia, That really should count for a lot.

I actually love the introduction to Vision.

Vision really should have been saved for another movie all together. Introducing him that stage in the movie just made it impossible for me to empathize with him as a character.

I never fully understand this criticism

Ultron was honestly one of the least effective villains in the entire MCU, He failed at literally everything he tried to accomplish (Someone even made a list on a separate forum)

>He tries to access Nuclear launch codes but gets his access blocked by JARVIS and nothing is shown with his ability to be everywhere on the internet afterwards.

>He tries to drive the Avengers apart with Wanda's mind games but most of them are barely effected by them.

>He gets his new body stolen right out from under him because he can't defeat Cap one-on-one.

>He tries to crash a train but the Avengers stop him.

>He kidnaps Black Widow but doesn't kill her even though he says the Avengers need to be destroyed

>He fights the Avengers en masse but they rip through his drones like tissue and destroy him multiple times.

>He tries to kill Thor but gets his ash kicked by Vision

>He tries to kill Vision but gets his access to the Internet blocked by him

>He tries to escape but gets his ash kicked by the Hulk

>Thor and Iron Man destroy his doomsday machine easily

>Wanda rips his heart out easily

>Vision basically blinks him out of existence.

James Spader was fine but too much of his dialogue was wasted on jokes and corny humor. This all to me is way more of a let down than the revelation that Bane is working with (not for) Talia.

Well, we see the Avengers having to face their personal fears and problems.

They all felt pretty half-baked to me, especially Caps (Ultron says he can't live without a war, one hallucination, Steve says his chance for a normal life went up in smoke when he went into the ice and that's it basically)

Making a sequel to The Dark Knight and the Avengers were tall orders but I definitely think Nolan pulled ahead in this regard.

 

[Awest66]

Batman is obsessed with fighting crime and he's probably mentally ill given how scarred he still seems to be by something that happened in his childhood that it gets to run his life.

That's not really the Batman we see in The Dark Knight or bad place even Batman Begins. In TDK, Bruce repeatedly mentions that he's gonna give up being Batman and let Harvey Dent be the hero Gotham needs and if the Joker hadn't shown up, He probably would've made good on his declaration.

It takes so much power out of the ending of him finally actually laying down the mantle and trying to live a "normal" life if he already retired before.

I do not agree with this at all. Bruce's retirement in the beginning of Rises is not a vacation, He's basically just counting the days until his death and clinging to the notion that he'll be needed as Batman again one day. It's at the end of Rises where he finally moves on and is ready to start living again.

If he kept going, What exactly would he do as Batman in the beginning considering Gotham is so clean they joke about how they'll eventually be chasing down overdue library books?

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

That's not really the Batman we see in The Dark Knight or bad place even Batman Begins. In TDK, Bruce repeatedly mentions that he's gonna give up being Batman and let Harvey Dent be the hero Gotham needs and if the Joker hadn't shown up, He probably would've made good on his declaration.

And the rest of TDK is basically a lesson that it's not possible. He will always be needed and he is the one strong enough to be the hero Gotham needs.

I do not agree with this at all. Bruce's retirement in the beginning of Rises is not a vacation, He's basically just counting the days until his death and clinging to the notion that he'll be needed as Batman again one day. It's at the end of Rises where he finally moves on and is ready to start living again.

If he kept going, What exactly would he do as Batman in the beginning considering Gotham is so clean they joke about how they'll eventually be chasing down overdue library books?

I didn't say they were the same thing, but having retired once makes another retirement more ordinary, even if they aren't for the same reasons. Not what I would call efficient storytelling around a thing that's inconceivable for Batman in most stories. He doesn't tend to be a roses and sunshine, happy ever after character.

Batman would do whatever the new Batman has to do. They didn't leave us with the idea that Gotham is clean forever, they left us with a new person taking up the mantle, which indicates that it will be needed.

I will also say that the question is a bit nonsensical to me. Everything they write can be changed, so if they write a different Batman they of course also write a different Gotham. It's like when people argue about how a character behaves in a certain scene and some defend it by saying that the character had to because of the circumstances, but the contrary point is of course that they shouldn't have written the circumstances so that the character had to act that way. Therefor you need to think of writing on a deeper level than one single superficial choice.

 

[Spider-Fan]

On the topic of Batman still being needed and handing it off to Blake, they do nothing to make me feel like he is a proper successor. At the climax of the film, all he does is yell across a bridge basically. He doesn't show evidence of Bruce's training, etc. What, am I to think he should be Batman now because he saw Bruce walk in with a hot chicken once and saw a look in his eye that said "Yeah....I'm Batman?" It is crap.

Also, given the time line of how Bruce was back then Batman showed up and now Batman is back suddenly after Bruce is finally back out in public...how does anyone NOT realize he is Batman

 

[Herofan]

Wanda was never portrayed as evil anyway, simply angry and wanting revenge on Tony for making the weapons that killed her family.

And not giving a damn of how many people she hurt, even tormented, along the way to getting that revenge.

I'm not the biggest fan of this relationship, but I still found it a heck of a lot more convincing than Bruce's sudden infatuation with Miranda, a chick he knew for like 2 days at most before being separated from her for months. But when he returns to Gotham, she's the first thing he asks Gordon about.

LOL, she was a good example of Nolan getting a pass for his movies having too many characters, the romance may even get a pass *because* of there being so many characters that, even in a long movie, some shortcuts and rushed elements are considered acceptable,.

I had a similar issue with Bruce falling in love with Selina - to such an extent that she's the only person he allows to be privy to the knowledge that he survived. Not only does he barely know her, but practically the only meaningful interaction they had prior to this was her leading him into a trap, which resulted in his back being broken and Gotham being terrorised for months while he was imprisoned in a dungeon halfway around the world. Why would Bruce suddenly want to spend the rest of his life with her, and even give her the pearl necklace his mom was wearing the night she was murdered? I know Anne Hathaway is hot, but to say this is contrived is an understatement.

Absolutely. Bruce was portrayed as way too trusting and forgiving and Selina not justifying that amount of either trusting or affection.

Well, we see the Avengers having to face their personal fears and problems. In Tony's case, we see the fear that drives him, namely that one day a threat will emerge which the Avengers won't be able to stop. This is his entire rationale for creating Ultron.

Steve and the others seemed awfully forgiving of him for doing that despite how consequential the decision was, we realize he will go to great, dangerous lengths, he realizes that he won't stop doing so, the others while realizing it really give him a pass.

Banner and Natasha flirt with the possibility of a normal life (which is partly why Bruce agrees with Tony on creating Ultron), only to realise the futility of that by the end of the movie.

Why do they at the end regard it as futile, and/or Bruce feel that he is not able to continue with her?

 

[Herofan]

That's not really the Batman we see in The Dark Knight or bad place even Batman Begins. In TDK, Bruce repeatedly mentions that he's gonna give up being Batman and let Harvey Dent be the hero Gotham needs and if the Joker hadn't shown up, He probably would've made good on his declaration.

That was a sudden and unfortunate development in TDK and worse as continued in TDKR, we should take seriously Rachel's claim that Batman is now his true face and persona and the Joker's claim that he and Batman will fight forever. And Batman should have also seen with how the Joker and Two-Face became supervillains that he has a lot more to worry about than just organized crime.

If he kept going, What exactly would he do as Batman in the beginning considering Gotham is so clean they joke about how they'll eventually be chasing down overdue library books?[/QUOTE

Why wasn't there more street crime when although the mobs were dismantled characters also, IIRC, claim that there's more economic desperation now? Or was Selina just being petty, was the situation really that though there was more economic inequality the condition of the poor had also improved to where it wasn't really bad? And why were no more psychos inspired in or attracted to Gotham?

 

[Fosterson]

Still feels pretty half-assed to me, considering she mentally tortured the other Avengers (who had nothing to do with her families death) and never really apologizes or gets called out on it in any real way.

I can grant you that Wanda probably shouldn't have been so easily accepted into the fold by the other Avengers, although its worth remembering that she and Pietro did also save Cap and all the people on that train, showing that she was capable of good.

I'm not sure how this is that different to the situation with Selina in TDKR, given that both Wanda and Selina did morally dubious things early on only to be redeemed at the end by their decision to ally with the heroes.

It wasn't just the accent, it's that he was extremely boring, He was the superhero equivalent of a bland saltine cracker.

Just a matter of opinion, I suppose. I thought Taylor-Johnson did a solid enough job and the shot of Wanda falling to her knees after he dies always hits me right in the feels.

To start, Selina wasn't the only one privy to the knowledge of his survival, he left clues for Lucius, Gordon and Blake and set himself up for Alfred to see him alive and well.

What clues did he leave for Gordon? Nevertheless, Selina was the only one informed in short order of his survival. He let Alfred grieve for months before finally letting him know.

Keep in mind, She betrayed him for self-preservation the first time and she redeemed herself by saving him from Bane when she could have just left the city. She also helped Bruce secure the bomb from Talia, That really should count for a lot.

Exactly the same can be said of Wanda redeeming herself by helping the Avengers stop Ultron.

My point is simply that Bruce should have some trust issues, ESPECIALLY given that the last two women he fell in love with rejected him (Rachel by putting him in the friendzone, and Talia by stabbing him).

Vision really should have been saved for another movie all together. Introducing him that stage in the movie just made it impossible for me to empathize with him as a character.

I disagree, but there's obviously nothing I can do to change your opinion.

Ultron was honestly one of the least effective villains in the entire MCU, He failed at literally everything he tried to accomplish (Someone even made a list on a separate forum)

>He tries to access Nuclear launch codes but gets his access blocked by JARVIS and nothing is shown with his ability to be everywhere on the internet afterwards.

Well, he was able to instantly transfer hundreds of millions of dollars into Klaue's bank account. But the thing is, Ultron isn't meant to be a cold, calculating, rational robot. He's SUPPOSED to be irrational. He's basically a new-born baby who suddenly absorbs all the information in the entire world. Without the emotional intelligence to process any of it, he sees humanity (and above all, the Avengers) as weak, corrupt, hypocritical and beyond saving. Ultron's immaturity is visible even in the way that he seeks to accomplish his goal: turning a city into a meteor. That's exactly the kind of thing a child would think of.

And so whenever you ask: "why didn't Ultron do X, Y or Z?", it has to be viewed through that lens.

>He tries to drive the Avengers apart with Wanda's mind games but most of them are barely effected by them.

Are you serious? Wanda's mind games disable the entire team long enough for Ultron to escape with the Vibranium.

Oh, and there's the part where Hulk goes on a rampage through Johannesburg.

>He gets his new body stolen right out from under him because he can't defeat Cap one-on-one.

Except he DOES defeat Cap. And don't forget that Cap is the same dude who defeated Iron Man just one movie later and who was able (with Mjolnir's help) to lay the smackdown on THANOS.

>He tries to crash a train but the Avengers stop him.

That was just a distraction to stop the Avengers from following him. It's not like it was crucial to his plan or anything.

>He kidnaps Black Widow but doesn't kill her even though he says the Avengers need to be destroyed

Well, he hardly sees her as a threat, does he?

>He fights the Avengers en masse but they rip through his drones like tissue and destroy him multiple times.

A bit like how Bane's heavily armed militia was ripped apart by a bunch of under-fed and ill-equipped cops who had been trapped underground for months, deprived even of natural sunlight?

And again, Ultron physically overpowered Thor, which is no mean feat in my book.

>He tries to kill Thor but gets his ash kicked by Vision

He was blindsided by Vision, who he didn't even know was there. Not sure that's any different to Bane being blasted by Selina.

>He tries to kill Vision but gets his access to the Internet blocked by him

Well, Vision was supposed to be Ultron's perfect form, so it would make sense for Vision to be superior. The Vibranium body Ultron builds for himself at the end of the movie isn't what he originally wanted. It's his Plan B.

>He tries to escape but gets his ash kicked by the Hulk

Only after he had already been heavily damaged. We never got to see Hulk fight Ultron while he was at full power.

>Thor and Iron Man destroy his doomsday machine easily

You could just as easily say that it was easy for Bruce to recover the bomb and fly it to a safe distance.

>Wanda rips his heart out easily

Again, that was only after he had been heavily damaged. And are you really complaining about Wanda being too powerful? The same chick who nearly killed Thanos?

James Spader was fine but too much of his dialogue was wasted on jokes and corny humor. This all to me is way more of a let down than the revelation that Bane is working with (not for) Talia.

It was definitely shown that Talia was the one in charge of the League of Shadows. Not only was she the daughter of R'as, and therefore his heir, but she explicitly ordered Bane to leave Bruce alive so that he would die in the explosion. And while I guess you could say the Bane disregarded that order by trying to shoot Bruce, that was only because he assumed that they were all about to die anyway.

 

[The Joker]

I didn't say they were the same thing, but having retired once makes another retirement more ordinary, even if they aren't for the same reasons. Not what I would call efficient storytelling around a thing that's inconceivable for Batman in most stories. He doesn't tend to be a roses and sunshine, happy ever after character.

Batman would do whatever the new Batman has to do. They didn't leave us with the idea that Gotham is clean forever, they left us with a new person taking up the mantle, which indicates that it will be needed.

I will also say that the question is a bit nonsensical to me. Everything they write can be changed, so if they write a different Batman they of course also write a different Gotham. It's like when people argue about how a character behaves in a certain scene and some defend it by saying that the character had to because of the circumstances, but the contrary point is of course that they shouldn't have written the circumstances so that the character had to act that way. Therefor you need to think of writing on a deeper level than one single superficial choice.

This idea that Batman wouldn't retire/move on is a myth. Bruce does not enjoy being Batman. Bruce is working toward the day where he can stop being Batman.

Even one of the most popular and infamous Batman tales, The Dark Knight Returns, had him toss in the cowl for ten whole years, and that was while Gotham was at the worst its ever been. Mask of the Phantasm had him willing to give up his crusade to fight crime simply because he found happiness with Andrea. If she had not have left him he'd never even have put the cowl on in the first place.

Its all a myth people perpetuate to hold against the movies, when its BS because the comics never portray Batman as someone who would not or could not hang up the cowl. The only difference here is the format of the comics and the format of the movies are apples and oranges. The movies are not going to go on forever. They are always going to have their own self contained universes and timelines. The comics are never going to end. That's why the Joker is never going to be executed as he should be, and continue to rack up insane body counts and continually be sent to the revolving door that is Arkham. Because if they did give him the justice he would have gotten in any logical world then one of the most popular villains in comic book history, if not the most popular, will be gone. Batman will never retire permanently because that means the end of a mega popular hero.

Nolan didn't do anything wrong to retire Batman at the end of TDKR, or to have him be forced into retirement after TDK, because it was clearly not by choice as the movie spells out because the legacy of Harvey Dent and the Dent Act made Batman surplus to requirement. These were not character traits that fly in the face of his character. You can not like that direction and wish they did something else. That's your own preference. But its not an anti-Batman like trait.

Also, given the time line of how Bruce was back then Batman showed up and now Batman is back suddenly after Bruce is finally back out in public...how does anyone NOT realize he is Batman

Not necessarily. Only if you're looking strictly at the appearances. The two appearances are a stretched maybe, but the disappearance of Batman and Wayne from the public don't line up. TDKR makes it clear Bruce Wayne still continued with his philanthropic endeavors after he retired from Batman. He started up the clean energy project, and sunk most of his fortune into that. But when it became too dangerous to bring to the public, and the whole thing fell through as a result, that's when he slumped into seclusion because he couldn't help people any more as Bruce Wayne or Batman. He basically had nothing else.

So there was no direct correlation there between Batman's disappearance and Bruce Wayne's. I think that would throw people to not make the connection.

What clues did he leave for Gordon?

He repaired the batsignal.

That was a sudden and unfortunate development in TDK and worse as continued in TDKR, we should take seriously Rachel's claim that Batman is now his true face and persona and the Joker's claim that he and Batman will fight forever. And Batman should have also seen with how the Joker and Two-Face became supervillains that he has a lot more to worry about than just organized crime.

That was neither sudden or unfortunate. Begins set the idea in motion that Batman's presence would cause escalation in the underworld. He knew that. He expected it. The only thing that threw Batman for a curve was having a criminal like the Joker, who basically shattered his perceptions of criminals. One who doesn't respond to the traditional tropes he was used to. He doesn't fear Batman, he doesn't care about normal things like money, he doesn't play by any rules, he makes the underworld fear him more than they do Batman, what he wants is not what regular criminals want. Batman is a creature of logic. Joker isn't.

What Rachel claims and what Joker claims about Batman are not meant to be taken as absolute truths. They are simply characters speaking from their own perspectives. What you're claiming is like saying we should listen to Ra's Al Ghul when he says Gotham is beyond saving and should be allowed to die.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Avengers 1 - awesome, almost a masterpiece
Avengers 2 - fxcking sucked, one of the worst movies in the MCU
Avengers 3 - awesome, almost a masterpiece
Avengers 4 - masterpiece

Batman Begins - pretty good origin
Dark Knight - masterpiece
Dark Knight Rises - disappointing conclusion

so, Avengers gets it

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

This idea that Batman wouldn't retire/move on is a myth. Bruce does not enjoy being Batman. Bruce is working toward the day where he can stop being Batman.

Even one of the most popular and infamous Batman tales, The Dark Knight Returns, had him toss in the cowl for ten whole years, and that was while Gotham was at the worst its ever been. Mask of the Phantasm had him willing to give up his crusade to fight crime simply because he found happiness with Andrea. If she had not have left him he'd never even have put the cowl on in the first place.

Its all a myth people perpetuate to hold against the movies, when its BS because the comics never portray Batman as someone who would not or could not hang up the cowl. The only difference here is the format of the comics and the format of the movies are apples and oranges. The movies are not going to go on forever. They are always going to have their own self contained universes and timelines. The comics are never going to end. That's why the Joker is never going to be executed as he should be, and continue to rack up insane body counts and continually be sent to the revolving door that is Arkham. Because if they did give him the justice he would have gotten in any logical world then one of the most popular villains in comic book history, if not the most popular, will be gone. Batman will never retire permanently because that means the end of a mega popular hero.

Nolan didn't do anything wrong to retire Batman at the end of TDKR, or to have him be forced into retirement after TDK, because it was clearly not by choice as the movie spells out because the legacy of Harvey Dent and the Dent Act made Batman surplus to requirement. These were not character traits that fly in the face of his character. You can not like that direction and wish they did something else. That's your own preference. But its not an anti-Batman like trait.

Yes, it's almost as if that was the reason I didn't say it was the case in all stories. Batman is someone often portrayed with a very unhealthy obsession about what he does and it has nothing to do with that he would enjoy it, quite the contrary in fact. I also didn't say I hold it against TDKR that he retires in the end, I said that retiring is something extremely special for the character and therefor I think it's poorly written to lessen that impact by already having had it happen before, regardless of what reason being behind it.

The beginning of TDKR also lowers the impact of his "sacrifice" at the end of TDK in my view, and as for the final retirement with Selina I think it's quite undercooked. These aren't among my larger gripes with the film though, but it's what the current conversation is about.

 

[The Joker]

Yes, it's almost as if that was the reason I didn't say it was the case in all stories. Batman is someone often portrayed with a very unhealthy obsession about what he does and it has nothing to do with that he would enjoy it, quite the contrary in fact. I also didn't say I hold it against TDKR that he retires in the end, I said that retiring is something extremely special for the character and therefor I think it's poorly written to lessen that impact by already having had it happen before, regardless of what reason being behind it.

The beginning of TDKR also lowers the impact of his "sacrifice" at the end of TDK in my view, and as for the final retirement with Selina I think it's quite undercooked. These aren't among my larger gripes with the film though, but it's what the current conversation is about.

Well of course its not the case in all stories. I mean if the comics were churning out a monthly dose of dealing with Batman retiring, it would get really old really fast. So not sure why you raised that point. But the real point is whether they deal with it in one story or a million stories, the end result is the same. Yes, Batman does have an obsession with stopping crime. So did Batman in the TDK trilogy. The only difference is they'll never have comic book Batman be able to get that closure, regardless of how much he wants it, because the comics will never end.

I don't agree with the impact of retirement being lessened either. Not in my view, because there's a world of difference between being forced into retirement because you're not needed, and while under the cloud of being a wanted criminal hated by the city, and going out as a hero saving the city, a symbol of hope and justice, and finding happiness.

But now we're just talking about preferences. I wasn't really talking about what you or anyone else wanted. I was dispelling this whole Batman would never retire myth.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

Well of course its not the case in all stories. I mean if the comics were churning out a monthly dose of dealing with Batman retiring, it would get really old really fast. So not sure why you raised that point. But the real point is whether they deal with it in one story or a million stories, the end result is the same. Yes, Batman does have an obsession with stopping crime. So did Batman in the TDK trilogy. The only difference is they'll never have comic book Batman be able to get that closure, regardless of how much he wants it, because the comics will never end.

I don't agree with the impact of retirement being lessened either. Not in my view, because there's a world of difference between being forced into retirement because you're not needed, and while under the cloud of being a wanted criminal hated by the city, and going out as a hero saving the city, a symbol of hope and justice, and finding happiness.

But now we're just talking about preferences. I wasn't really talking about what you or anyone else wanted. I was dispelling this whole Batman would never retire myth.

I raised that point to show that I didn't say that Batman would never retire, I said what I said to bring home that it would be an extremely special event. Hence it needs to be treated like one.

Batman not being needed is part of the whole issue. As I said in a previous post, when you're discussing writing you have to go through all the layers, you cannot just say that this is the situation so therefor that had to happen because the situation is just as much in the writer's hands as the effect of it. A rare event is always more special if it happens once rather than twice.

To me it's the same kind of issue that I found it dumb that they had Rey beat Kylo Ren in TFA. It doesn't matter that he was injured (we can ignore that she straight up beat him in a Force contest before), they've now already given us that victory so any time that happens again it won't be special, and that issue wouldn't even be within the same film.