Better Trilogy: TDK or Captain America?

[DACrowe]

TDKT ages like fine wine. The second year might clearly be the best vintage, but the more the years pass, the more its collective legacy towers above all comers.

Pretty much sums up why the Cap trilogy often gets praised the way it does.

Me personally, TWS and CW don't change TFA being anything more than Ok-Decent.

Yes. I love how this thread is a referendum on TDKR, which at least for me is the second best of the six and among the top 5 superhero movies ever made, but fine. Still.. The First Avenger is clearly the weakest movie of the six and is narratively incomplete... yet it is Rises everyone wants to put onerous on.

I know fans view it as the weakest of the Nolan trilogy (I prefer it over BB myself), so they zero in on it to an intense degree.

Infinity War is a rehash of the Avengers. An alien force attacks earth to gain control of the Infinity Stones. In both, they use Infinity Stones to do so. Both have fights in New York. Both have Tony Stark go into space, where he and Pepper have a long distance phone call, after sharing one domestic scene in the first act to remind us of their stock romance. Both movies end with CGI slugfest. Both films have a Hulk and the line to prove it.

 

[DACrowe]

I like Begins quite a bit, but I put Rises above it easily. Rises has it's issues, namely it could stand to be a bit longer, but I much prefer it for Bruce's character arc of finding the will to live again, better antagonist and general quality of craftsmanship on screen. Despite how large some of these movies get, going so far as planetary and universe-wide threats, I've yet to have one of them feel as epic in scale as Rises. And I appreciate that immensely.

Yep. Very David Lean-esque. I just wish it was closer to 3.5 hours, as I think that would have fleshed it out. But Gotham, more so in TDK but still, feels like a real place and that is the kind of old school "BIG" moviemaking we so rarely see now. And mob rule and kangaroo courts were more menacing than so many "and then the MacGuffin destroys the world" plot.

 

[Hammer!]

Yep. Very David Lean-esque. I just wish it was closer to 3.5 hours, as I think that would have fleshed it out. But Gotham, more so in TDK but still, feels like a real place and that is the kind of old school "BIG" moviemaking we so rarely see now. And mob rule and kangaroo courts were more menacing than so many "and then the MacGuffin destroys the world" plot.

The macguffin that threatened to destroy the city plot in Rises was so much more well thought out than the films with macguffins threatening the whole world.

Seriously 3.5 hours!? This film was waaaay overlong as it is.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Yes. I love how this thread is a referendum on TDKR, which at least for me is the second best of the six and among the top 5 superhero movies ever made, but fine. Still.. The First Avenger is clearly the weakest movie of the six and is narratively incomplete... yet it is Rises everyone wants to put onerous on.

I know fans view it as the weakest of the Nolan trilogy (I prefer it over BB myself), so they zero in on it to an intense degree.

No I zero in on it to an intense degree because I legitimately do not like the movie and view it as Nolan's weakest film in his filmography

 

[LvtLeeTDK]

No I zero in on it to an intense degree because I legitimately do not like the movie and view it as Nolan's weakest film in his filmography

It's far better than the dull, unacceptable Interstellar and maybe even Dunkirk

 

[Spider-Fan]

I loved Interstellar. Dunkirk I liked, but not my fave by any means.

 

[Erzengel]

It's far better than the dull, unacceptable Interstellar and maybe even Dunkirk

Nolan fans......triggered.

 

[LvtLeeTDK]

Are you talking about me ?

Yeah I'm a Nolan fan but that doesn't mean I have to love all of his movie. Interstellar is a "try to be smart" movie end up with a stupid execution and conclusion.

Dunkirk is a great directorial achievement. It's not a great film, it lacks heart and it's not Fury Road in terms of technical achievement to compensate for its plot and lack of character. He should have got an Oscar for directing Dunkirk but the film itself shouldn't have been in the Oscar Best Picture last year.

 

[Mjölnir]

I generally prefer Nolan outside the TDKT. I think he was unusually sloppy during those films and he's been tighter when he's not been involved with Batman. He's set a pretty high technical standard for himself though, and I think he's generally struggled to match it with heart and emotional connection.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I gotta agree with Erz. Whenever one of these TDKR or whatever debates comes up, the fans of the movie are easily triggered. There's a level of condescension that comes out if you don't like the movie. For some reason before you can make any sort of criticism, people seemingly have to say things like "Though it is a masterpiece of filmmaking and clearly one of the best CBMs ever, it doesn't work for me." I don't play that game. I don't think TDKR is a great film. I have a lot of issues with it and I think the script was very sloppy. If you disagree, that's great. It doesn't change my opinion.

 

[LvtLeeTDK]

Or we can say he's getting better at directing and technical aspect, while worse at writing and emotional connection. His early works are incredibly written: The Prestige, Memento, Inception, The Dark Knight, Begins., with Inception being the perfect combination of directing and writing. They made me care about the character. Rises is alright, Interstellar is awful written and Dunkirk's screenplay is basically non-existant. I couldn't give a damn about those astronauts in Interstellar or those poor soldiers in Dunkirk.

oh and Spider, I'm not triggered, it's just a normal debate with you. If you dont think Rises are better than those 2, that's fine.

 

[Boom]

The Dark Knight Trilogy.

 

[Erzengel]

I gotta agree with Erz. Whenever one of these TDKR or whatever debates comes up, the fans of the movie are easily triggered. There's a level of condescension that comes out if you don't like the movie. For some reason before you can make any sort of criticism, people seemingly have to say things like "Though it is a masterpiece of filmmaking and clearly one of the best CBMs ever, it doesn't work for me." I don't play that game. I don't think TDKR is a great film. I have a lot of issues with it and I think the script was very sloppy. If you disagree, that's great. It doesn't change my opinion.

Don't go on and on about how like CW had no real stakes, and then gloss over say Blake "knowing" Bruce was Batman because he had a look in his eyes, or that 95% of the police squad were for months imprisoned underground and then okay to fight, etc.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Or we can say he's getting better at directing and technical aspect, while worse at writing and emotional connection. His early works are incredibly written: The Prestige, Memento, Inception, The Dark Knight, Begins., with Inception being the perfect combination of directing and writing. They made me care about the character. Rises is alright, Interstellar is awful written and Dunkirk's screenplay is basically non-existant. I couldn't give a damn about those astronauts in Interstellar or those poor soldiers in Dunkirk.

oh and Spider, I'm not triggered, it's just a normal debate with you. If you dont think Rises are better than those 2, that's fine.

I am not specifically saying you were triggered in this instance. I am saying in general this is what ends up happening with fans of the movie (even in recent pages of this very thread). It makes debating things about the movie somewhat irritating.

While I disagree on Interstellar, I do agree with you on Dunkirk to an extent. Dunkirk is technically marvelous, but I didn't find myself caring about the soldiers nearly as much as I should have. I think that comes down to I didn't connect with them, like you stated. But despite that, I do enjoy Dunkirk overall. But I would agree it's not at the top of the pack. For me, Inception is king.

Don't go on and on about how like CW had no real stakes, and then gloss over say Blake "knowing" Bruce was Batman because he had a look in his eyes, or that 95% of the police squad were for months imprisoned underground and then okay to fight, etc.

Or the fact Batman was cured by a prison swing. Or that the Talia twist fell flat for me (predictable and came too late in the movie). Blake as a whole I hated in the movie. I can't wait for him to put on the cowl and immediately get thrashed by the next Batman villain to pop up in Gotham

There is a lot I don't like about the movie, LOL!

 

[Mjölnir]

Or we can say he's getting better at directing and technical aspect, while worse at writing and emotional connection. His early works are incredibly written: The Prestige, Memento, Inception, The Dark Knight, Begins., with Inception being the perfect combination of directing and writing. They made me care about the character. Rises is alright, Interstellar is awful written and Dunkirk's screenplay is basically non-existant. I couldn't give a damn about those astronauts in Interstellar or those poor soldiers in Dunkirk.

oh and Spider, I'm not triggered, it's just a normal debate with you. If you dont think Rises are better than those 2, that's fine.

I think TDK has some writing issues that, for example, Memento didn't have despite being a much trickier concept. I agree that Dunkirk is relatively flat emotionally due to not getting a connection to anyone, but to me TDK suffers a bit from the same as I don't really care that much about anyone in the film, despite that I did so in Begins. Begins made me a real fan of Batman again, but TDK didn't keep that going for me. The Joker is engaging, but there I think it's mostly the performance and I have some issues with how he's written at a few points. I think it mostly boils down to that it's a peeve of mine when very serious and grounded films don't manage to adhere to the tone all the time, as I can accept far crazier and loose things in other films with different tones.

I may agree that Inception could be the best work Nolan has done in terms of utilizing all his skills, but Memento is probably still my favorite.

 

[Flint Marko]

I gotta agree with Erz. Whenever one of these TDKR or whatever debates comes up, the fans of the movie are easily triggered. There's a level of condescension that comes out if you don't like the movie. For some reason before you can make any sort of criticism, people seemingly have to say things like "Though it is a masterpiece of filmmaking and clearly one of the best CBMs ever, it doesn't work for me." I don't play that game. I don't think TDKR is a great film. I have a lot of issues with it and I think the script was very sloppy. If you disagree, that's great. It doesn't change my opinion.

This guy gets it.

I think TDKR is ultimately a good movie but only just so. It really does feel like Nolan was phoning it in and should have given that script another pass. It's easily his worst movie and I’d easily put every Cap movie over it, including the first, and hearing how the first Cap movie is "clearly" the weakest movie of the six is the exact attitude you're referring to here.

 

[DACrowe]

No I zero in on it to an intense degree because I legitimately do not like the movie and view it as Nolan's weakest film in his filmography

C'mon, you haven't seen Insomnia?

I consider it closer to the top, so we disagree. But The Dark Knight Rises is a beautifully produced film with a vast canvas that does something no superhero movie before it has done and only Logan has since done: offer finality to a superhero's character. Less nihilistic than Logan, it also does something remarkable that no comic book writer has genuinely attempted, because the medium does not allow true endings, it attempts to address Bruce Wayne's pain and forces him to see the Batman construct as ultimately an unhealthy form of trauma that he must outgrow. He must literally grow past his pain, and grow past superheroes.

That is a bold and daring arc, and the fact that (IMO) they nail it makes it singular from all other superhero movies, including Batman Begins which is much more formulaic. Also the visions of societal collapse of demagoguery, while not as sophisticated as TDK, continues the trend of each film facing Western civilization's fears... and a fear that has become more palpable in the six years since 2012, where it was greeted with, "Pfft, Obama's president. Don't be so melodramatic, you negative nancy Chris."

And on a technical level it features one of the all-time best comic book villains from Tom Hardy, stunning use of IMAX, character based action scenes that increase the stakes far above (IMO) movies with CGI slugfests about stopping a big bad from using a magic rock to destroy the world, and frankly the most comic book accurate version of Catwoman to date. She may not be quite as good as Pfeiffer, but Hathaway was awesome in that role and got post-Crisis Selina down pat.

I know this is all opinion, but I just don't see how it is considered weaker than a movie that stops telling its narrative halfway through to enter a 50-minute montage in a rush to set-up The Avengers.

 

[Boom]

The Dark Knight Rises starts off great, but once you get into the meat of the story the film sort of collapses under its own weight. And there's just some genuinely dumb stuff in there to boot.

I still think it's a good movie overall, but it's the weakest of the trilogy by far.

 

[Zarex]

C'mon, you haven't seen Insomnia?

Hey, lay off Insomnia! Pacino and Williams are wonderful and Al's scene with Maura Tierney in the dark/not dark hotel room was a real shocker when I first saw it.

I consider it closer to the top, so we disagree. But The Dark Knight Rises is a beautifully produced film with a vast canvas that does something no superhero movie before it has done and only Logan has since done: offer finality to a superhero's character. Less nihilistic than Logan, it also does something remarkable that no comic book writer has genuinely attempted, because the medium does not allow true endings, it attempts to address Bruce Wayne's pain and forces him to see the Batman construct as ultimately an unhealthy form of trauma that he must outgrow. He must literally grow past his pain, and grow past superheroes.

Some of us like the medium. And superheroes.

And on a technical level it features one of the all-time best comic book villains from Tom Hardy, stunning use of IMAX, character based action scenes that increase the stakes far above (IMO) movies with CGI slugfests about stopping a big bad from using a magic rock to destroy the world, and frankly the most comic book accurate version of Catwoman to date. She may not be quite as good as Pfeiffer, but Hathaway was awesome in that role and got post-Crisis Selina down pat.

Well, Rises DOES have its own version of a magic rock. And I can't put Nolan's Selina on top of my rankings when he refused to commit to the ears - "Just wait until she flips those goggles!"

I know this is all opinion, but I just don't see how it is considered weaker than a movie that stops telling its narrative halfway through to enter a 50-minute montage in a rush to set-up The Avengers.

The rush to get to the fireworks factory is a problem for Cap, no doubt. But it redeems itself with a sweet love story, a great ending and an even better second ending. And I'm not even giving it credit for the amazing "Gentlemen. You're up" post credit scene. It's a terrific "old timey" superhero flick and it shouldn't surprise you that some folks like it much better than Rises.

 

[Spider-Fan]

C'mon, you haven't seen Insomnia?

I consider it closer to the top, so we disagree. But The Dark Knight Rises is a beautifully produced film with a vast canvas that does something no superhero movie before it has done and only Logan has since done: offer finality to a superhero's character. Less nihilistic than Logan, it also does something remarkable that no comic book writer has genuinely attempted, because the medium does not allow true endings, it attempts to address Bruce Wayne's pain and forces him to see the Batman construct as ultimately an unhealthy form of trauma that he must outgrow. He must literally grow past his pain, and grow past superheroes.

That is a bold and daring arc, and the fact that (IMO) they nail it makes it singular from all other superhero movies, including Batman Begins which is much more formulaic. Also the visions of societal collapse of demagoguery, while not as sophisticated as TDK, continues the trend of each film facing Western civilization's fears... and a fear that has become more palpable in the six years since 2012, where it was greeted with, "Pfft, Obama's president. Don't be so melodramatic, you negative nancy Chris."

And on a technical level it features one of the all-time best comic book villains from Tom Hardy, stunning use of IMAX, character based action scenes that increase the stakes far above (IMO) movies with CGI slugfests about stopping a big bad from using a magic rock to destroy the world, and frankly the most comic book accurate version of Catwoman to date. She may not be quite as good as Pfeiffer, but Hathaway was awesome in that role and got post-Crisis Selina down pat.

I know this is all opinion, but I just don't see how it is considered weaker than a movie that stops telling its narrative halfway through to enter a 50-minute montage in a rush to set-up The Avengers.

The prospect of an ending excited me, and I think Logan nailed it. TDKR I don't feel did. It completed his arc, certainly. But, I didn't find the execution satisfactory. The reason he became a hermit never rang true to me, either. Technically it's marvelous. It's more like TDK in that way than BB, but the story (particularly after Batman is broken) I feel collapses and makes huge mistakes. You mentioned Bane, and I loved Bane for most of the movie. But, when Talia takes the reigns as villain, the shift is sudden, it hurts the mystique previously set-up around Bane earlier in the film, and leads to Batman going after a villain who did not get enough screen time in the role of villain to earn my respect the way Bane had done. Even worse though, by doing this, they squandered the goodwill on Bane and make me reflect more poorly on those moments. Further, Batman doesn't even do anything fancy to defeat Bane. He just decided to finally punch him in the mouth this time (weak choreography there).

I respect that you felt the movie nailed it. I just have way too many issues with it, and almost all of them are story based. When I am watching a movie, the story is what I am watching first. The movie can be beautifully shot, but if I don't care about what is going on, then those technical achievements don't matter as much.

 

[DACrowe]

The macguffin that threatened to destroy the city plot in Rises was so much more well thought out than the films with macguffins threatening the whole world.

Seriously 3.5 hours!? This film was waaaay overlong as it is.

The bomb is a MacGuffin, but one that is slightly more threatening to me than glowing rocks. But that is a pick your poison, I'll admit. It is how Bane uses that bomb--to collapse an American city into a French Revolution styled Reign of Terror--that is interesting. That is the real use for it. Not just a device that needs to be stopped. But yes, its inclusion is one of the reasons TDK is so much better.

As for 3.5 hours, Rises is taking a page from movies like Doctor Zhivago and, to a lesser extent, Lawrence of Arabia. Those are long epics. If Rises had matched them, we could have spent more time in Gotham and lived in Bane's revolution better. See more what day-to-day life was like in it, develop Talia/Tate better, and chronicle Bruce's journey back to Gotham. It would have added to the scope of the movie which is already going for that kind of grandeur, but at an admittedly too brisk clip, given it had to be under 2:50 for IMAX and likely studio mandates.

 

[LvtLeeTDK]

I think the fact that Rises is the weakest of the trilogy also due to it lack of signature.

Begins really stand out because of its incredible production design, dialogue and creepyness

TDK is so outstanding because it's thrilling, thought-provoking and there are many great twist that you just cant anticipate because it's so well set up.

Rises ? I think the impressive aspect is its epicness, but that's due to the first 2 movies tbh. It has great scenes that I consider some of the best from any CBMs (the Lazarus-escaping scene, the ending scene, the final speech by Gordon) but it's also full of extremely bad and cheesy scenes (Blake realises Batman's identity through his fecking eyes)

 

[Spider-Fan]

Let me phrase what TDKR did in these terms: Imagine if [blackout]Thanos is about to complete the Gauntlet, and then Nebula gets it at the last second and then becomes the threat for the Wakanda fight. Further, Nebula declares Thanos was working for her all this time. Then Thor kills Thanos with Stormbreaker quickly and then they have to chase down Nebula. Our new villain. That would have undermined what we saw before when Thanos was getting the other stones, right? That is effectively for me what they did to Bane.[/blackout]

 

[Flint Marko]

What was the explanation for holding the city hostage for 6 months?

 

[DACrowe]

The prospect of an ending excited me, and I think Logan nailed it. TDKR I don't feel did. It completed his arc, certainly. But, I didn't find the execution satisfactory. The reason he became a hermit never rang true to me, either. Technically it's marvelous. It's more like TDK in that way than BB, but the story (particularly after Batman is broken) I feel collapses and makes huge mistakes. You mentioned Bane, and I loved Bane for most of the movie. But, when Talia takes the reigns as villain, the shift is sudden, it hurts the mystique previously set-up around Bane earlier in the film, and leads to Batman going after a villain who did not get enough screen time in the role of villain to earn my respect the way Bane had done. Even worse though, by doing this, they squandered the goodwill on Bane and make me reflect more poorly on those moments. Further, Batman doesn't even do anything fancy to defeat Bane. He just decided to finally punch him in the mouth this time (weak choreography there).

I respect that you felt the movie nailed it. I just have way too many issues with it, and almost all of them are story based. When I am watching a movie, the story is what I am watching first. The movie can be beautifully shot, but if I don't care about what is going on, then those technical achievements don't matter as much.

Agree to disagree, I suppose. The only point I'll quibble with is I actually like Bane not being the big bad at the very, very end. I know that is counterintuitive and somewhat deflating, but I think that is the point. This is never really about mano-a-mano fights like most superhero movies (including Batman Begins). As with the Joker not being the actual villain at the end, it is about Gotham, and it is about Bruce and what he is willing to do. Defeating the villain does not end the story, and Bane being this aggressive uber-alpha male, who also actually has a vulnerable and even sympathetic side, a side that is not all poetic dialogue and death threats, forces viewers to reconsider the character and the tropes of the genre.

I know some fans hate this, and worse some say it makes Bane weak because he took orders from a woman, yet it is clear they're more a partnership than a boss/henchman type of thing. It is just a little touch that makes Bane not everything you expect, and forces Bruce to work with Selina to save the day, but it is still about him, Batman's role as a symbol in Gotham, and his own relationship with his own pain. That is why the ending must outlive Bane.

That extra effort--and the Nolan love of a twist that, with the villain gone, we're still going--is what gives that ending of him sitting in a Florentine cafe extra resonance for me.

But yeah, I get neither of us are convincing each other.