Avengers 1-4 vs The Dark Knight Trilogy

[The Joker]

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.

But again you're just putting your own preference spin on what you deem as special. How often does Batman get forced into retirement because crime has dropped to the bare minimum, and Batman is vilified as a multiple murderer? I'd class that as a special event.

And as for rarity, rarity doesn't automatically make something special. Lets point a finger at the MCU here. Its pretty rare that Tony Stark replaces Uncle Ben in Peter Parker's eyes as the father like figure he misses and is always remembering and being inspired by. But does that make it special? No. In fact it left a sour taste in a lot of fans' mouths.

This is just a preference issue. I don't dispute what people would personally like to see.

 

[Gothamsknight]

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

That speaks to the fact that TDK trilogy is the best comic book trilogy of all time

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

But again you're just putting your own preference spin on what you deem as special. How often does Batman get forced into retirement because crime has dropped to the bare minimum, and Batman is vilified as a multiple murderer? I'd class that as a special event.

And as for rarity, rarity doesn't automatically make something special. Lets point a finger at the MCU here. Its pretty rare that Tony Stark replaces Uncle Ben in Peter Parker's eyes as the father like figure he misses and is always remembering and being inspired by. But does that make it special? No. In fact it left a sour taste in a lot of fans' mouths.

This is just a preference issue. I don't dispute what people would personally like to see.

I didn't say that isn't special, I said that the ending is less special because that special event has already happened once within the same film.

In the second paragraph I think you're mixing up what's special and what's good. I'm pointing out that semantic because we're not discussing whether it was good that Batman retired.

 

[henzINNIT]

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.

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.

I feel those panels kinda work against your point. They do show a Bruce Wayne who looks forward to hanging it all up, but they also clearly show that he is locked in a war with "crime", a nebulous enemy he'll never fully defeat. He says it's compulsive in his own words, and dismisses the notion of "saving the world" which doesn't sound like someone who thinks the battle will be won.

I'm no Batman comic expert, but based on those examples I think the idea that Batman will never retire is fairly reasonable. I don't think it was ever a case of people thinking Bruce couldn't, just that it would need to be exceptional circumstances because as long as crime exists, Batman will be there to fight it.

 

[Awest66]

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.

The difference to me is that Selina only did something like that once and really didn't take any pleasure from the act itself. Wanda on the other hand looked like she was having the time of her life making the Avengers experience their worst fears and was pretty willing to happily follow Ultron as long as she thought that he only wanted to kill the Avengers.

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).

Selina actually saved Bruces life though. All Wanda did was destroy a couple robots (She didn't even kill Ultron at the very end)

Bruce tends to fall in love very easily. That's always been a staple of him as a character in basically every version of the mythos and he always endeavors to try and see the best in people even his worst enemies. He never loses his faith in people.

Well, he was able to instantly transfer hundreds of millions of dollars into Klaue's bank account.

So nothing substantial was done with his ability to be everywhere on the internet, especially since he cuts off Klaues arm almost immediately after which causes him to order his men to kill them anyway.

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.

They were immobilized short term but barely effected afterwards when they were hanging out with Hawkeyes family.

Except he DOES defeat Cap.

Didn't really look like it to me and he still got his body stolen by the Avengers regardless.

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

So why exactly did he even bother to kidnap her in the first place then?

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?

They weren't ripped apart, It was a giant free-for-all brawl in the middle of the street with neither side having a clear advantage. It was nothing like the Avengers ripping through Ultron's drones like they were Trade Federation Battle Droids.

He was blindsided by Vision, who he didn't even know was there.

Wouldn't be that big a deal if he hadn't been losing constantly before.

but she explicitly ordered Bane to leave Bruce alive so that he would die in the explosion

Didn't really seem like an order to me considering she touched his face very intimately and called him a friend. If he was indeed "below her", She definitely didn't treat him as such.

 

[The Joker]

I feel those panels kinda work against your point. They do show a Bruce Wayne who looks forward to hanging it all up, but they also clearly show that he is locked in a war with "crime", a nebulous enemy he'll never fully defeat. He says it's compulsive in his own words, and dismisses the notion of "saving the world" which doesn't sound like someone who thinks the battle will be won.

I'm no Batman comic expert, but based on those examples I think the idea that Batman will never retire is fairly reasonable. I don't think it was ever a case of people thinking Bruce couldn't, just that it would need to be exceptional circumstances because as long as crime exists, Batman will be there to fight it.

Not at all. He dismisses Robin's label of saving the world, because he's not trying to save the world. If that was his goal he wouldn't be focused on the goings on of Gotham would he. He's committed to fighting crime, and the comics never allow him to eradicate Gotham of it, because if they did then that's that. He's got nothing left to do. Just like they will never kill his most popular villains like the movies do because again the comics are infinite and they don't want to lose those popular characters. But since you say you're no Batman comic book expert, let me assure you there has been instances where he's retired. For years. The most famous one is The Dark Knight Returns. In that particular tale he hung up the cowl for 10 years, and he did that while Gotham was in the ravages of crime. So the notion he can't or won't is a myth.

Bale's Batman was every bit as committed and obsessed with wanting to save Gotham. And he did. He won the war.

But again this is the difference between the movie universe and the comic book one. The comic book one show a Batman who wants to retire, and has retired for years, they just have never given him the circumstances to do so indefinitely and get a happy ever after because they can't permanently retire him. The movies did because they can bring an end to their story and universe. Give him closure.

I didn't say that isn't special, I said that the ending is less special because that special event has already happened once within the same film.

In the second paragraph I think you're mixing up what's special and what's good. I'm pointing out that semantic because we're not discussing whether it was good that Batman retired.

I'm well aware of what you said. I said that is your own personal spin on what you deem special. I believe circumstances and details define what is special, not how often something happens.

Apologies, I thought you were discussing whether it was good Batman retired since you were chastising that they chose to do that as the follow up to TDK's ending.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

I'm well aware of what you said. I said that is your own personal spin on what you deem special. I believe circumstances and details define what is special, not how often something happens.

Apologies, I thought you were discussing whether it was good Batman retired since you were chastising that they chose to do that as the follow up to TDK's ending.

Frequency of occurrence is part of those details. If it wasn't Batman could retire every week and it would still be special.

I said that I think it was bad writing to put in an extra retirement at the beginning, both due to the ending of TDK and the ending of TDKR, but I never said that Batman retiring is in itself a bad concept. So it's not about that Batman can't retire but that I think the writing very poorly built up that event to be impactful. But as said, I still think it's one of the lesser issues with this film.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I wasn't a fan of Batman being retired at the beginning because it set up this Batman has to get his groove back type narrative, which wasn't my favorite approach. But like you said, that is ultimately a small issue for me and I can overlook that easily. Unlike other issues I have.

 

[Schlosser85]

IMO they go different routes, with Avengers going for all out throw the kitchen sink spectacle and superhero action extravaganza, while Nolan tries to do Batman as deep, dark, serious crime drama, especially in The Dark Knight, so "which is better" is a little unfair as they're both top of the genre for what they're aiming for.

I do think Age of Ultron is weaker than any of Nolan's Batman movies though.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

IMO they go different routes, with Avengers going for all out throw the kitchen sink spectacle and superhero action extravaganza, while Nolan tries to do Batman as deep, dark, serious crime drama, especially in The Dark Knight, so "which is better" is a little unfair as they're both top of the genre for what they're aiming for.

I do think Age of Ultron is weaker than any of Nolan's Batman movies though.

If we go by that description I think The Avengers fare a lot better in the general competition of the blockbuster action genre than the TDKT does in crime movies. The crazy tone and exaggerated action of the Avengers fits their genre but with TDKT it competes with many movies that have tight scripts that actually make sense.

 

[Awest66]

I wasn't a fan of Batman being retired at the beginning because it set up this Batman has to get his groove back type narrative, which wasn't my favorite approach.

I don't think that was what Nolan was going for at all, Bruce doesn't really do any training or try to get back into shape the first time. All he does is put on a knee brace and pretend as though he never stopped being Batman.

 

[Awest66]

movies that have tight scripts that actually make sense

Exhibit A, The Dark Knight.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't think that was what Nolan was going for at all, Bruce doesn't really do any training or try to get back into shape the first time. All he does is put on a knee brace and pretend as though he never stopped being Batman.

Not true. Bane tells him that victory has defeated him, meaning Batman lost his edge. The whole point of him in the hole is to get back to being the Batman Gotham needs.

 

[Awest66]

Not true. Bane tells him that victory has defeated him, meaning Batman lost his edge. The whole point of him in the hole is to get back to being the Batman Gotham needs.

I never said it wasn't true that Batman lost his edge, just that him suiting up as Batman in the beginning of the movie wasn't the "getting back into his groove" plot point.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I never said it wasn't true that Batman lost his edge, just that him suiting up as Batman in the beginning of the movie wasn't the "getting back into his groove" plot point.

But he does need to get his groove back symbolically. So, my statement is correct. It's Rocky III.

 

[Awest66]

But he does need to get his groove back symbolically. So, my statement is correct. It's Rocky III.

Figured it'd be something along those lines once they announced Bane as the villain.

 

[The Joker]

Frequency of occurrence is part of those details. If it wasn't Batman could retire every week and it would still be special.

I said that I think it was bad writing to put in an extra retirement at the beginning, both due to the ending of TDK and the ending of TDKR, but I never said that Batman retiring is in itself a bad concept. So it's not about that Batman can't retire but that I think the writing very poorly built up that event to be impactful. But as said, I still think it's one of the lesser issues with this film.

No frequency of occurrence is part of your details of what you personally deem special. I mean obviously if you repeat the same thing on a weekly basis it gets stale fast. That goes for anything because you're telling the same tale over and over. That is not what occurred in TDKR.

I don't class two instances of retirement at the beginning and end of a movie, for different reasons and under totally different circumstances as repetitive story telling. Especially when one was inflicting grief and pain on the character, and the other was giving happiness and closure to them.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

No frequency of occurrence is part of your details of what you personally deem special. I mean obviously if you repeat the same thing on a weekly basis it gets stale fast. That goes for anything because you're telling the same tale over and over. That is not what occurred in TDKR.

I don't class two instances of retirement at the beginning and end of a movie, for different reasons and under totally different circumstances as repetitive story telling. Especially when one was inflicting grief and pain on the character, and the other was giving happiness and closure to them.

You're contradicting yourself since you admit that repeating things over and over creates problems. Ergo the only thing we're differing in is how much repetition we accept in this case.

 

[The Joker]

You're contradicting yourself since you admit that repeating things over and over creates problems. Ergo the only thing we're differing in is how much repetition we accept in this case.

That's not a contradiction. Doing something twice (and not even doing it the same way each time), and doing the same thing on a weekly basis which is doing it over and over and over, are very different levels of repetition.

 

[Spider-Fan]

That's not a contradiction. Doing something twice (and not even doing it the same way each time), and doing the same thing on a weekly basis which is doing doing it over and over and over, are very different levels of repetition.

Yes, but he is saying that the 2 times in the movie itself was repetitive enough to effect their enjoyment of the film. Which in the end is really all that matters to them. As evidenced in this thread, people just view this stuff differently. There really is no right or wrong in personal taste.

 

[The Joker]

Yes, but he is saying that the 2 times in the movie itself was repetitive enough to effect their enjoyment of the film. Which in the end is really all that matters to them. As evidenced in this thread, people just view this stuff differently. There really is no right or wrong in personal taste.

I understand what he's saying. I simply don't agree with that being the same kind of repetition as doing the same thing on a weekly basis. That was his comparison. I'm just addressing it. Not his enjoyment level.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

That's not a contradiction. Doing something twice (and not even doing it the same way each time), and doing the same thing on a weekly basis which is doing it over and over and over, are very different levels of repetition.

And that's just where we differ in our experience of it. Twice or many times are both unquestionably examples of frequency of occurrence.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

Exhibit A, The Dark Knight.

A movie that where they didn't even put effort into making the main villain intelligent but instead had to rely on plot armor all the time isn't qualified. There are lots of crime movies where the bad guys have solid plans, so we know it's certainly possible, but The Joker mainly blatantly relies on luck and illogical behavior from the opposition.

 

[Greens]

A movie that where they didn't even put effort into making the main villain intelligent but instead had to rely on plot armor all the time isn't qualified. There are lots of crime movies where the bad guys have solid plans, so we know it's certainly possible, but The Joker mainly blatantly relies on luck and illogical behavior from the opposition.

Would the movie have been more entertaining for you if Nolan had showed in detail how Joker went about preparing his actions? Nolan is in the business of entertainment. For this particular movie and this particular character Nolan's approach worked. The Dark Knight wasn't a deep character study of the Joker character like Todd's Joker was, so the character could occupy a more traditional position where he is off to the side but his presence lingers throughout the whole movie. The things he does aren't even that outrageous, especially for a comic book movie or even just an action thriller. He rigs a bunch of things with bombs. I can think of some explanations as to how he did it, and they sound painfully boring in my head and I wouldn't substitute a single scene in TDK for them.

 

[harlequinade]

Ultron alone makes me have no choice but to vote for Batman lol