Better Trilogy: TDK or Captain America?

[Mjölnir]

I mean you no disrespect but what you have said shows that you misunderstand what a trilogy is.

The title has nothing to do with it, at all - if it did, original Star Wars would not be a trilogy - and it's probably one of the most famous film trilogies of all time.

It's more about being a complete story in 3 parts.

Captain America and Iron Man appear in other films together and those other films affect the story of Civil War.

For example, the stuff that happens in Age of Ultron is super important for Civil War - in fact most of the stuff in Civil War wouldn't have happened if Age of Ultron hadn't happened ( because all of Zemo's actions relate to what the Avengers did in Sokovia).

Nolan's trilogy has 3 parts a beginning, a middle and an ending. It does not rely on any other stories and is complete within itself.

By those terms Cap's movies are not really a trilogy. Cap's movies are still awesome but they are not a trilogy.

Personally, I think the whole thread is misconceived and a better comparison would be between Iron Man's film series and Cap's film series (or Thor's films after Ragnarok comes out) because neither of them are really trilogies. That is my opinion, I know plenty will disagree but that is how I see it.

And most importantly, this does not diminish the Cap films in any way - they are fantastic.

A trilogy definitely doesn't have to be about a story that's told in three parts. Look at the movies Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Oldboy and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance. They have no narrative connection to each other at all, they just share themes, yet they are viewed as a trilogy. The literal definition of the word "trilogy" also easily leaves room for versions like the one I just mentioned.

 

[hafizbat]

There's also something to be said for an upward trend, which only Cap's trilogy has managed to do.

 

[DACrowe]

Yeah, I do hate this opinion

After Apocalypse, the First Class trilogy shouldn't even be in the discussion for best superhero trilogy. It's no different from the Riami Spider-Man movies, with 2 good/great movies marred by a pathetic threequel. Same goes for the original Singer X-Men movies, for that matter.

The TDKT and Cap trilogy are in a league of their own.

Well in that case, we have to take Cap out of the discussion because I thought Apocalypse was at least on par if not better than The First Avenger.

So Batman wins by default.

 

[hafizbat]

Well in that case, we have to take Cap out of the discussion because I thought Apocalypse was at least on par if not better than The First Avenger.

So Batman wins by default.

Agree to disagree then. TFA is the most underrated movie in the MCU, imo. It perfectly captured the earnest charm of Steve Rogers. Without establishing that foundation, TWS and CW aren't as strong. I'd even go as far as saying that TFA is the most "Captain America" of the three, and I'm very glad it exists. It's at worst 7/10...Not to mention I think it's much, much better to start off weak and end strong.

I also don't think Batman wins by default, because as much as I like BB and TDKR, the only phenomenal one is TDK, while a case could be made for both TWS and CW.

I thought Apocalypse was garbage on par with Spider-Man 3 or even The Last Stand. I went in strongly determined to avoid the common fanboy mentality of "It's amazing or it sucks!", but it genuinely did suck.

 

[Havok83]

Well in that case, we have to take Cap out of the discussion because I thought Apocalypse was at least on par if not better than The First Avenger.

So Batman wins by default.

TFA is definitely better than Apocalypse. I didnt care for it at first but got a new appreciation for it after seeing TWS and Agent Carter. Its a good foundation for the series

 

[DACrowe]

Agree to disagree then. TFA is the most underrated movie in the MCU, imo. It perfectly captured the earnest charm of Steve Rogers. Without establishing that foundation, TWS and CW aren't as strong. I'd even go as far as saying that TFA is the most "Captain America" of the three, and I'm very glad it exists. It's at worst 7/10...Not to mention I think it's much, much better to start off weak and end strong.

I also don't think Batman wins by default, because as much as I like BB and TDKR, the only phenomenal one is TDK, while a case could be made for both TWS and CW.

I thought Apocalypse was garbage on par with Spider-Man 3 or even The Last Stand. I went in strongly determined to avoid the common fanboy mentality of "It's amazing or it sucks!", but it genuinely did suck.

Well don't take this wrong then, because I find TFA incredibly boring. What you call capturing the Captain America spirit, I found to be a generic and rather perfunctory superhero origin story that wasted its WWII setting in its awful montage-based pace to set up The Avengers. The Red Skull is Marvel Studios' second worst villain (Malekith still takes the cake in that regard), and it fully wastes Bucky and Steve's relationship, which majorly cripples the emotional depth of TWS and CW, and is also a major reason I prefer CW over TWS because the trilogy never once made me care about Bucky.

But I did like Chris Evans and Hayley Attwell a lot in it.

I think all three of Nolan's Batman movies are phenomenal. I can see why fans would dislike Rises since it departs the most from the comics, but Batman Begins is a pitch perfect telling of Batman's origin story and nails the essence of the character while working as a purely cinematic adventure epic (TDK then elevates that by digging into the crime drama underpinnings and adding to the topical American culture nightmares only hinted at in Begins).

Of course this is all opinion, but we still talk a lot about Begins and The Dark Knight years and years after their release. Even Rises to a lesser extent. TWS is probably the only Cap movie that will have that pull, and I say that as someone who prefers Civil War. Because unlike Civil War, The Winter Soldier is a self-contained film. Anyone can watch it and be engrossed, I prefer Civil War, but that comes with the requirement of having seen all of the Iron Man and Avengers movies before it.

 

[DACrowe]

TFA is definitely better than Apocalypse. I didnt care for it at first but got a new appreciation for it after seeing TWS and Agent Carter. Its a good foundation for the series

The First Avenger did not get better. Better filmmakers made better stories using those characters. In actuality, First Avenger probably crippled the Bucky relationship, which is unfortunate since it is kind of the heart and through-line of the whole trilogy at the end of the day.

 

[Erzengel]

I have First Class so I obviously liked it. But it's a matter of preference for me. It's a good movie BUT, it's not like we haven't had 3 previous movies with Xavier and Magneto. Granted with this movie, I think we explored deeper into their characters instead of it being the Wolverine show.

Now again, the problem with the X-Men movies is the lack of development of almost everybody else. In First Class, we are given a little more into obviously Raven and Beast but Havok, Banshee, Stone dude, Not Angel, Azazel, Emma Frost and Riptide were just kinda there. And even worst than that, it's characters I think most people aren't really huge fans of. And yes I understand, they are under constraints cause they can't use most of the Original X-Men. I think that's what keeps this movie under DOFP and X2 for me. Yes I like the Xavier, Magneto and even Raven storylines but the rest of the characters are just not my favorites.

It'd be like watching an Avengers movie but instead of Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, we have the West Coast Avengers. Or if we got a JL that was JL International minus Wonder Woman, Batman and Flash.

 

[DACrowe]

I have First Class so I obviously liked it. But it's a matter of preference for me. It's a good movie BUT, it's not like we haven't had 3 previous movies with Xavier and Magneto. Granted with this movie, I think we explored deeper into their characters instead of it being the Wolverine show.

Now again, the problem with the X-Men movies is the lack of development of almost everybody else. In First Class, we are given a little more into obviously Raven and Beast but Havok, Banshee, Stone dude, Not Angel, Azazel, Emma Frost and Riptide were just kinda there. And even worst than that, it's characters I think most people aren't really huge fans of. And yes I understand, they are under constraints cause they can't use most of the Original X-Men. I think that's what keeps this movie under DOFP and X2 for me. Yes I like the Xavier, Magneto and even Raven storylines but the rest of the characters are just not my favorites.

It'd be like watching an Avengers movie but instead of Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, we have the West Coast Avengers. Or if we got a JL that was JL International minus Wonder Woman, Batman and Flash.

I totally get that. But for me, I appreciate the 1960s setting a lot. Before that movie, fans would often speculate what a Spidey movie in the '60s or a Fantastic Four movie in the '60s would look like. It's ironic that we got an X-Men one, since the X-Men's heyday didn't come until the late '70s and then the whole of the '80s, but it actually worked in the film.

There is a tactile quality to Matthew Vaughn's use of the Cold War and Bondmania. As a Bond fan I loved it. And unlike The First Avenger, for me Vaughn embraced the period instead of using it as window dressing (which is actually something I would criticize Apocalypse for as well). I also think using the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis, while goofy, gave a real edge to the movie where it wasn't just complete alien fantasy, which is advantageous since it gave more weight to the Charles/Erik relationship, which has never been better or more fun and tense than in that movie.

Still, I do get the fair complaints that the supporting cast are all Z-listers, the lack of budget shows in some of the flying scenes, and January Jones is awful in it. Still, I actually really thought the film did a great job of building a generational divide between Charles/Erik/Moira and the "students," and there was a kind of adopted family dynamic between the kids. None of them were very well developed, but that since of community is something that is really missing in the Singer X-Men movies. He tried to incorporate it into Apocalypse, but to lesser success.

 

[Havok83]

The First Avenger did not get better. Better filmmakers made better stories using those characters. In actuality, First Avenger probably crippled the Bucky relationship, which is unfortunate since it is kind of the heart and through-line of the whole trilogy at the end of the day.

No it got better for me. I typically hate period pieces. I dont like WW2 in most forms of media whether its tv, movies or videogames. I didnt really give TFA a fair chance when I watched it initially but viewing the stuff I mentioned made me care about the characters and relationships so that I did go back to TFA with a more open mind and I quite liked it.

 

[BoredGuy]

I totally get that. But for me, I appreciate the 1960s setting a lot. Before that movie, fans would often speculate what a Spidey movie in the '60s or a Fantastic Four movie in the '60s would look like. It's ironic that we got an X-Men one, since the X-Men's heyday didn't come until the late '70s and then the whole of the '80s, but it actually worked in the film.

There is a tactile quality to Matthew Vaughn's use of the Cold War and Bondmania. As a Bond fan I loved it. And unlike The First Avenger, for me Vaughn embraced the period instead of using it as window dressing (which is actually something I would criticize Apocalypse for as well). I also think using the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis, while goofy, gave a real edge to the movie where it wasn't just complete alien fantasy, which is advantageous since it gave more weight to the Charles/Erik relationship, which has never been better or more fun and tense than in that movie.

My issue with the period settings for the X-Films is it all feels very fake to me, like someone born in the 90's once read a story about the 60's, 70's and 80's and incorporated the most cliched elements into the films. Like Xavier going all Don Johnson in Apocalypse... that really doesn't fit with who Xavier is as a character, nor is it novel or endearing in any way. Something like Cap's, or Wolverine's origins, need a period setting, but the X-movies need to forget about their "Journey through the decades" and just set the next one modern day

 

[DACrowe]

My issue with the period settings for the X-Films is it all feels very fake to me, like someone born in the 90's once read a story about the 60's, 70's and 80's and incorporated the most cliched elements into the films. Like Xavier going all Don Johnson in Apocalypse... that really doesn't fit with who Xavier is as a character, nor is it novel or endearing in any way. Something like Cap's, or Wolverine's origins, need a period setting, but the X-movies need to forget about their "Journey through the decades" and just set the next one modern day

I will disagree on FC and DOFP. I think they used their periods much better than Apocalypse or First Avenger (which does have the issues you're describing). I thought Vaughn really loves if not the 1960s, then the 1960s pop culture. That film was bleeding the vibe of Sean Connery's glorious Bondmania days, which Vaughn then transferred over to Kingsmen. I also thought while more muted than Vaughn, Singer did incorporate the sense of disappointment and despair in early 1970s youth culture in the States very well. It was called the "Me Decade" for a reason, and Charles' selfish pity party and embrace of what are essentially drugs after all his students apparently got drafted in Vietnam really used the feeling of post-Vietnam (and assassination) very well. I thought it used Nixon better than the Watchmen movie did (though to be fair that moved its setting to a dystopic 1980s), and the whole thing is about Charles eventually trying to convince his angry generation to give peace a chance and put down the gun.

Also, for all the talk of The Winter Soldier being reminiscent of a '70s spy thriller, DOFP actually captured the kind of cynicism and downbeat tone of those kind of movies more, which was intentional since almost all American '70s films were downbeat and cynical until Jaws and Star Wars.

....

With that said, I am in complete agreement with you on the 1980s being pure window dressing. Though I liked Miami Vice Charles, simply because McAvoy's Charles was a bit of a player in the '60s and it was a nice continuation of that side of him before he went the full "bald route." Still purely surface level, I'll agree.

With that said, screw going back to modern days. I also don't want to go the '90s. Follow up a few years later with this exact cast as they play the X-Men coming into their prime. I like these kids too much to ditch them. Use time travel if you are determined to put them in our century.

 

[lordofthenerds]

TDK. The First Avenger was good, but it keeps Captain America from being considered a "great" trilogy for me.

 

[Mad Ones]

I think TFA has gotten worse over the years, especially after its sequels. The weakest link in TDK trilogy is TDKR which I still think is a good movie. Civil War was great but I still don't think it's as good as the TDK.

 

[Squaremaster316]

I think TFA has gotten worse over the years, especially after its sequels. The weakest link in the TDK trilogy is the TDKR which I still think is a good movie. Civil War was great but I still don't think it's as good as the TDK.

Agreed. Another thing TDKR had over TFA was pure emotion. None of the scenes in Cap 1 affected me in the slightest on an emotional level, I was completely unmoved by Steve's sacrifice as I felt no connection to the character, nor his chemistry-devoid relationship with that Carter girl.

The football Stadium scene, OTOH, had me recoiling with dread for the captive audience in attendance, it was executed 10000 times better than the trailer cut portrayed it, the music, the chaos, the screams of dread, everything absolutely hit the mark 100%.

 

[The Batman]

I think all three of Nolan's Batman movies are phenomenal. I can see why fans would dislike Rises since it departs the most from the comics, but Batman Begins is a pitch perfect telling of Batman's origin story and nails the essence of the character while working as a purely cinematic adventure epic (TDK then elevates that by digging into the crime drama underpinnings and adding to the topical American culture nightmares only hinted at in Begins).

Of course this is all opinion, but we still talk a lot about Begins and The Dark Knight years and years after their release. Even Rises to a lesser extent. TWS is probably the only Cap movie that will have that pull, and I say that as someone who prefers Civil War. Because unlike Civil War, The Winter Soldier is a self-contained film. Anyone can watch it and be engrossed, I prefer Civil War, but that comes with the requirement of having seen all of the Iron Man and Avengers movies before it.

If Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises aren't phenomenal, I struggle to see how Winter Soldier and Civil War are. You summed up why BB works, but even a film like TDKR isn't leagues behind CW. What TDKR lacks in story detail, in makes up for in cinematography, a great cast, and the emotional value the film has.

Winter Soldier is a great action thriller, and Civil War is the definitive "Hero vs Hero" film, but all three Dark Knight films are distinct and remarkable in ways that TWS and CW aren't. That's why TDKT will probably continue to have a higher level of prestige and following, IMO.

 

[Flint Marko]

Even though I think it's comfortably behind it's predecessors and even a healthy amount of MCU films, Rises is undoubtedly in the upper echelon of CBM's and succeeds as the bookend of a great trilogy even more so than a stand-alone film, in my opinion. That might sound reductive, but I don't mean it to be at all. It's a good movie, but an even better end to the Bruce Wayne story I had been invested in for two prior films.

 

[StormC]

TDKR is an exercise in how forgiving you are of a messy plot if it emotionally engages you.

Which is why I think it's a better movie than say, AOU, which also has a fustercluck of a plot, but isn't able to make the emotional connection that it needs to be truly great.

 

[hafizbat]

I feel I should clarify what I meant about BB and TDKR not being phenomenal. I most definitely consider them top-notch movies that are not only some of the best CBMs, but actually the gold standard of quality CBMs should strive for. They're also two of my favorite movies on a personal level.

What I meant to say was that TDK was the only cultural phenomenon. It took the world by storm and is going to go down as an all-time classic. BB, and to a lesser extent TDKR, had a more modest reaction, although both obviously performed excellently. Even that is arguable, especially with TDKR given how iconic Hardy's Bane has become.

I still think, regardless of quality, BB and TDKR didn't generate as much excitement as other recent CBMs like The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Deadpool, and both TWS and CW. First Class and DOFP also fit into this category of being excellent movies without lighting the world on fire. Whether that's something to factor into a discussion of which is the better trilogy, I don't know. It's just a talking point

Also, when discussing which trilogy is going to have more prestige and following in the years to come, I think it has to be considered that only one of them features Batman And as fruitful as Marvel's cinematic universe is, I can't help but feel it does diminish the lasting impact of the Cap movies as they're just a few of many (and ongoing) quality MCU films while the TDKT stands alone.

 

[Havok83]

I just find the Cap films more enjoyable. The Batman films are just a bit too serious for me and at times come across boring as a result. They are a bit too rooted in reality and lack that sense of escapism that the Cap films have. Cap's more fun and makes for a more entertaining ride if that makes sense. It helps that they actually are great films

 

[spider-neil]

I think the TDK movie is best overall (by a distance) but Captain America has the better trilogy. Each to their own but I see it like this;

My enjoyment of Batman Begins and TFA about the same 'okay' movies. Nothing special, I wasn't hyped for the sequel of either movie. So it's a tie, for me.

I was blown away by Winter Solider and TDK but I consider TDK the best superhero movie ever. So it's TDK by a distance.

But, what pushes it over the edge for me is Civil War is MILES better than TDKR. I watch back TDKR now and I actually think it's a bad movie.

So when I take that into consideration, the Captain America trilogy is the best superhero trilogy ever. It's the one superhero trilogy that got better with each installment.
What other trilogy can say that?

 

[spider-neil]

With regards to the First Class trilogy, I absolutely love FC, quite like DoFP but X:A is a disgrace so don't challenge Batman and Captain America.

 

[-JKR-]

Definitely Nolan's trilogy. Three very satisfying blockbusters (and a masterpiece amidst them), which stand on their own, while forming a cohesive and beautiful trilogy.

The first Captain America film starts nicely, but the script goes nowhere in the second half, and you (and by you I mean me) lose interest until Cap decides to sacrifice himself for the great good. Great scene, so/so film.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the only installment I truly loved. An exciting and intriguing script and story, and the Russo brothers are on a roll here. Their direction is a true tour the force, which reminded me of the dynamic visuals of John McTiernan's works.

Captain America: Civil War was a let-down for me. I always thought there was something off in the trailers, and the film itself confirmed my doubts. The script has some great ideas, and the conflict between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark is truly emotional, but I feel like there's a great film hidden in there, which was pushed aside to make space for the 'superhero rumble' (it felt more like Avengers 2.5 to me). Because of that I thought the script never really took off, and the pacing lacked most of the time. The direction felt also more run-of-the-mill when compared to The Winter Soldier: there were a couple of slicks shots and stunts, but overall it didn't reach that manic energy of the previous film. It's probably more satisfying for those who care about how the universe is built, rather than focusing more on the single films.

So, I can't really speak of the Captain America one as a great trilogy: the first one left me cold, the second made me care and got me excited, and the third let me down.

 

[Lobo]

I vote Cap, but it's extremely close for me

 

[spider-neil]

For me, Captain America is the first superhero movie ever to buck he trend of rubbish 3rd movie.

Superman 3
Batman Forever
Spider-Man 3
X3 - The Last Stand
Blade 3
TDKR (liked it at the time but in retrospect having watched this again, it's a bad movie)
Iron Man 3
X-Men:Apocalypse First Class trilogy


Civil War is actually better (or at the very least close) to the sequel in quality.
Each installment gets better.
Only the Bourne series and Toy Story has ever managed that.