Daredevil's 3 Seasons Equal Or Surpass TDK Trilogy And Feige Had Nothing To Do With It... Discuss.

[The Joker]

I think you can still have a definitive version of something that's been done more than once. You'll find many who still call Reeve the definitive Superman, and that character has certainly been done plenty of times. You can also do it by reinventing a character, like RDJ did. His version wasn't like the comics, but he did it so well that he actually changed the comics. There's no easy road to saying what becomes definitive.

You'll find many who call Bale the definitive version, too. Plenty of weighty polls out there that show it e.g.;

Poll: Who is the Best Movie Batman? << Rotten Tomatoes – Movie and TV News

How Terrible Are Your Superhero Movie Opinions?

Poll: Who’s Your Favorite Batman Actor?

In fact I'd love to see another poll with hundreds of thousands of votes that shows another Batman besides Bale in the clear lead. So if being the clear favorite makes a character definitive, then Bale is the definitive Batman. Ledger is the definitive Joker. TDK is the definitive CBM etc.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

You'll find many who call Bale the definitive version, too. Plenty of weighty polls out there that show it e.g.;

Poll: Who is the Best Movie Batman? << Rotten Tomatoes – Movie and TV News

How Terrible Are Your Superhero Movie Opinions?

Poll: Who’s Your Favorite Batman Actor?

In fact I'd love to see another poll with hundreds of thousands of votes that shows another Batman besides Bale in the clear lead. So if being the clear favorite makes a character definitive, then Bale is the definitive Batman. Ledger is the definitive Joker. TDK is the definitive CBM etc.

Opinions always differ, which is perfectly fine, but don't make the mistake of mixing up two different questions. Who has been the best Batman and if there's been a definitive Batman are not at all the same issues. I do acknowledge that my more general statement on Superman invited the popular opinion aspect, even though that wasn't my real intent as popular opinion on art is pretty uninteresting.

Regarding the best I would agree with Bale thanks to Begins (with the caveat that I don't fully remember Keaton's performance, so I can't judge him fairly), but as said I still think there's room for someone to come in and even better embody all of Batman's traits. Whether anyone will do that is a different matter, just as someone could come and do a better job than someone I think is definitive.

 

[The Joker]

Opinions always differ, which is perfectly fine, but don't make the mistake of mixing up two different questions. Who has been the best Batman and if there's been a definitive Batman are not at all the same issues.

I'm confused then. Can you clarify for me how you are gauging who is best and who is definitive here? You claimed a lot of people say Reeves' Superman is definitive. Where are the stats for this? Because I can only find him ranked best in polls like those Batman ones, which you claim are asking something else. RDJ has no polls at all, since he's the only live action version of Iron Man, and has no competition for the title.

So I am curious where you're getting your information from, or is this just a personal generalization?

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

I'm confused then. Can you clarify for me how you are gauging who is best and who is definitive here? You claimed a lot of people say Reeves' Superman is definitive. Where are the stats for this? Because I can only find him ranked best in polls like those Batman ones, which you claim are asking something else. RDJ has no polls at all, since he's the only live action version of Iron Man, and has no competition for the title.

So I am curious where you're getting your information from, or is this just a personal generalization?

As I said my intent was not to make a point out of how many thinks any certain thing, I was just taking examples to show that there aren't any clear rules to it. I'm not referencing any stats since using public opinion to support ones own opinions is irrelevant and pretty sad.

The difference between being the best and being a definitive version is pretty simple. When you judge who is the best you just compare the ones that have been, but that doesn't mean that any of them are good. For example, who's been the best live action Dr. Doom? Being the a definitive version to me means that you think that someone perfectly embodied the character. I don't think many feel that either of the Dr. Doom incarnations have been a definitive version of the character.

 

[The Joker]

As I said my intent was not to make a point out of how many thinks any certain thing, I was just taking examples to show that there aren't any clear rules to it. I'm not referencing any stats since using public opinion to support ones own opinions is irrelevant and pretty sad.

The difference between being the best and being a definitive version is pretty simple. When you judge who is the best you just compare the ones that have been, but that doesn't mean that any of them are good. For example, who's been the best live action Dr. Doom? Being the a definitive version to me means that you think that someone perfectly embodied the character. I don't think many feel that either of the Dr. Doom incarnations have been a definitive version of the character.

So basically what you were saying is you think its opinionated since you believe there are no rules to say what is definitive, and therefore if we follow that belief then one person's trash could be another person's treasure in what makes a definitive version of something. When you mentioned many people thinking Reeves' Superman was definitive, I automatically assumed you were using some kind of consensus as a basis for what is definitive.

I know what the difference between best and definitive is, but your criteria for what each was seemed muddled and skewed for the aforementioned reasons. Regarding your Dr. Doom example, neither movie version of the character was well received quality wise, I mean they were not even seen as good characters in bad movies, so naturally nobody is going to view them as definitive. Best and definitive usually go hand in hand. If there's a definitive version of a character, then the character typically has the quality to back it up. I can't think of any version of a character that's seen as a definitive version of that character by a consensus, and not also be seen as a good movie or TV show character, too.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

So basically what you were saying is you think its opinionated since you believe there are no rules to say what is definitive, and therefore if we follow that belief then one person's trash could be another person's treasure in what makes a definitive version of something. When you mentioned many people thinking Reeves' Superman was definitive, I automatically assumed you were using some kind of consensus as a basis for what is definitive.

I know what the difference between best and definitive is, but your criteria for what each was seemed muddled and skewed for the aforementioned reasons. Regarding your Dr. Doom example, neither movie version of the character was well received quality wise, I mean they were not even seen as good characters in bad movies, so naturally nobody is going to view them as definitive. Best and definitive usually go hand in hand. If there's a definitive version of a character, then the character typically has the quality to back it up. I can't think of any version of a character that's seen as a definitive version of that character by a consensus, and not also be seen as a good movie or TV show character, too.

I know that's what you thought which is why I cleared that up in my first response to you, so I'm not sure why we're still talking about that issue several posts later. The discussion has taken a semantic turn which doesn't seem to be leading anywhere.

If one thinks there's a definitive version then that version will also be the best, but the same doesn't automatically go the other way around, which my Dr. Doom example shows. That was a response to bringing up polls on the best versions of characters.

 

[psylockolussus]

Tdk easily. The other one is a chore to get through. Not even close to being equal.

 

[The Joker]

I know that's what you thought which is why I cleared that up in my first response to you, so I'm not sure why we're still talking about that issue several posts later. The discussion has taken a semantic turn which doesn't seem to be leading anywhere.

If one thinks there's a definitive version then that version will also be the best, but the same doesn't automatically go the other way around, which my Dr. Doom example shows. That was a response to bringing up polls on the best versions of characters.

There's no semantics. Just clarifying what you were saying, and responding to your Dr. Doom analogy. Your Dr. Doom example is like asking which is the best or definitive Ghost Rider movie. You're choosing between two pieces of crap not many people like.

The polls were in response to your claim that Reeves' Superman as definitive by a consensus. Definitive by a consensus goes hand in hand with quality and popularity. You would be hard pressed to find a version of a character that is seen as definitive by any kind of consensus and doesn't have the popularity to back it up because its also seen as a quality character.

 

[jmc]

What this series really cemented for me is that grounded heroes like Batman and Daredevil make for the best stories because the threats are so personal. There's been very few MCU villains to capture that, and even less on the DC side outside of Batman.

 

[Vic Ryan]

I enjoyed Daredevil more cos i personally found Charlie Cox's Matt more interesting than Christian Bale's Bruce. Not taking anything away from TDK though. It was a great trilogy, best cbm trilogy in many folks' opinion. I'll say that Daredevil's the "Dark Knight" of comic book live action series. Character development, story progression, acting, action scenes and so on, definitely A-tier.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

There's no semantics. Just clarifying what you were saying, and responding to your Dr. Doom analogy. Your Dr. Doom example is like asking which is the best or definitive Ghost Rider movie. You're choosing between two pieces of crap not many people like.

The polls were in response to your claim that Reeves' Superman as definitive by a consensus. Definitive by a consensus goes hand in hand with quality and popularity. You would be hard pressed to find a version of a character that is seen as definitive by any kind of consensus and doesn't have the popularity to back it up because its also seen as a quality character.

There is semantics since you're continuing to harp on something I've said multiple times wasn't intended as a point but just something I said as an example to show that there are no hard lines for how to judge something. That explanation I gave several posts ago can't be misinterpreted so I have no idea why you keep on digging in that hole.

Now you take it even further by stating something false. I never said that Reeve's Superman is definitive by consensus, neither directly nor by context. On the contrary I've said that discussing consensus is something I find uninteresting and irrelevant to what I was talking about. For some odd reason you seem intent on still discussing that with me though.

My Dr. Doom example clearly shows the difference between asking for the best and asking if there's a definitive portrayal. On the question which is the best there are three options. Either of the films or to say that both are equal. On the question of whether there's been a definitive portrayal of the character on screen you have the choices of yes or no. I already stated the simple fact that the definitive version will always be seen as the best when there are multiple options, but the best isn't necessarily always a definitive version.

So again, yes, this is all semantics on how to define something vague and subjective, which is pretty boring. It's far more interesting to listen to people's opinions and discuss what we all think, which is what we were doing before this started.

 

[The Joker]

There is semantics since you're continuing to harp on something I've said multiple times wasn't intended as a point but just something I said as an example to show that there are no hard lines for how to judge something. That explanation I gave several posts ago can't be misinterpreted so I have no idea why you keep on digging in that hole.

Now you take it even further by stating something false. I never said that Reeve's Superman is definitive by consensus, neither directly nor by context. On the contrary I've said that discussing consensus is something I find uninteresting and irrelevant to what I was talking about. For some odd reason you seem intent on still discussing that with me though.

My Dr. Doom example clearly shows the difference between asking for the best and asking if there's a definitive portrayal. On the question which is the best there are three options. Either of the films or to say that both are equal. On the question of whether there's been a definitive portrayal of the character on screen you have the choices of yes or no. I already stated the simple fact that the definitive version will always be seen as the best when there are multiple options, but the best isn't necessarily always a definitive version.

So again, yes, this is all semantics on how to define something vague and subjective, which is pretty boring. It's far more interesting to listen to people's opinions and discuss what we all think, which is what we were doing before this started.

There is no semantics. Whether it was your main point or not is irrelevant, its still a point you raised. You said many people believe Reeves' Superman is definitive. Whether you find it interesting discussing that or not is also irrelevant. Nobody's forcing you to discuss it. If you find it that uninteresting or boring then stop replying to it.

There's no difference in asking what is the best or definitive in your Dr. Doom example. You can ask the same questions for those characters as you could for any other character that's had more than one on screen interpretation. The Toby Kebbell version can be seen as best because its less flawed than McMahon's portrayal, or vice versa. The only difference between Doom and say a character like Superman is Superman has had at least one interpretation that a lot of people like. That doesn't stop anyone from seeing either version of Doom as best or definitive, or both.

Unpopular versions of characters can still be seen by some people as the best or definitive versions of said character, and they can even conjure up their own list of reasons for it. E.g.; 15 Reasons Jared Leto’s Joker Is The Best Version

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think the difference here is while Bale might be the best on-screen Batman to date, I don't think he was Ledger's Joker quality in the role or Reeve's Superman quality in the role. It is harder for me to picture better versions on film for those characters, but Bale I think could be bested more easily. With Bale, I think he is by far the best Bruce Wayne, but I do still prefer Keaton as Batman. I just found him scarier and to embody Batman in the costume more than Bale did. But Bale clearly wins the Bruce Wayne battle, which is why I would side with him overall. Reeve I think owned both Kal-El as well as Clark Kent, for example.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Daredevils 3 seasons are fantastic, and its the best live action comic book show ever, BUT The Dark Knight Trilogy is in a WHOLE other league entirely. from the direction, to the story, to even the performances, Nolans trilogy is leagues better. Don't get me wrong, all 3 seasons of Daredevil have been brilliant and i believe the story and casting have been superb, but it's no comparison for me.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

There is no semantics. Whether it was your main point or not is irrelevant, its still a point you raised. You said many people believe Reeves' Superman is definitive. Whether you find it interesting discussing that or not is also irrelevant. Nobody's forcing you to discuss it. If you find it that uninteresting or boring then stop replying to it.

There's no difference in asking what is the best or definitive in your Dr. Doom example. You can ask the same questions for those characters as you could for any other character that's had more than one on screen interpretation. The Toby Kebbell version can be seen as best because its less flawed than McMahon's portrayal, or vice versa. The only difference between Doom and say a character like Superman is Superman has had at least one interpretation that a lot of people like. That doesn't stop anyone from seeing either version of Doom as best or definitive, or both.

Unpopular versions of characters can still be seen by some people as the best or definitive versions of said character, and they can even conjure up their own list of reasons for it. E.g.; 15 Reasons Jared Leto’s Joker Is The Best Version

No, I've directly told you multiple times that it's not a point I made, just an example to make a different point. I also clearly stated that it was a mistake as it could cause the misunderstanding that you had, but you just seem to want to keep on going with that misunderstanding. I have honestly no idea how this can't have been gotten across by now. I know I can stop responding but my interest lies in finding out what's the problem. I know what I'd do if someone told me that something they wrote wasn't intended as a point, and it's not this.

Saying that the consensus is that Reeve's Superman is definitive and that many people think his version is that aren't the same statements which, given the further explanations I've given, shouldn't be able to be much more clear.

There is most definitely a difference between the two questions. To the question of which is best I'd answer McMahon, and to the question of whether I think we've gotten a definitive representation of the character in live action I'd say no. The first question forces me to pick at least one, while the other allows me to dismiss the alternatives altogether.

I have no idea why you're trying to tell me that people can think that unpopular characters are definitive since I've already stated that the subject is entirely subjective. It's redundant.

 

[The Joker]

No, I've directly told you multiple times that it's not a point I made, just an example to make a different point. I also clearly stated that it was a mistake as it could cause the misunderstanding that you had, but you just seem to want to keep on going with that misunderstanding. I have honestly no idea how this can't have been gotten across by now. I know I can stop responding but my interest lies in finding out what's the problem. I know what I'd do if someone told me that something they wrote wasn't intended as a point, and it's not this.

Saying that the consensus is that Reeve's Superman is definitive and that many people think his version is that aren't the same statements which, given the further explanations I've given, shouldn't be able to be much more clear.

There is most definitely a difference between the two questions. To the question of which is best I'd answer McMahon, and to the question of whether I think we've gotten a definitive representation of the character in live action I'd say no. The first question forces me to pick at least one, while the other allows me to dismiss the alternatives altogether.

I have no idea why you're trying to tell me that people can think that unpopular characters are definitive since I've already stated that the subject is entirely subjective. It's redundant.

You: "I think you can still have a definitive version of something that's been done more than once. You'll find many who still call Reeve the definitive Superman, and that character has certainly been done plenty of times." You stated you think there can be a definitive version of a character who's been done more than once, and then cited Reeves' Superman being seen as definitive by many people. This is very straight forward. There's no problem. There's no semantics. There's no complication here. It shouldn't matter if two or two thousand people see a version of a character as definitive. The poster you were addressing said he doesn't think there is a definitive version of a character who has multiple different versions. That's a valid point of view.

There is also no difference between those two questions regarding Doom, or any unpopular version of a character. You're not forced to pick one out of the two Dooms when it comes to being asked which one is best. You could say you found them both equally bad or good. You're not forced to pick one over the other, just like you're not obligated to see either of them as definitive. Again this is all rather straight forward.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

You: "I think you can still have a definitive version of something that's been done more than once. You'll find many who still call Reeve the definitive Superman, and that character has certainly been done plenty of times." You stated you think there can be a definitive version of a character who's been done more than once, and then cited Reeves' Superman being seen as definitive by many people. This is very straight forward. There's no problem. There's no semantics. There's no complication here. It shouldn't matter if two or two thousand people see a version of a character as definitive. The poster you were addressing said he doesn't think there is a definitive version of a character who has multiple different versions. That's a valid point of view.

There is also no difference between those two questions regarding Doom, or any unpopular version of a character. You're not forced to pick one out of the two Dooms when it comes to being asked which one is best. You could say you found them both equally bad or good. You're not forced to pick one over the other, just like you're not obligated to see either of them as definitive. Again this is all rather straight forward.

Of course it's a valid opinion. Why do you think I started with "I think..."? It's not because I was trying to establish a definitive fact. I've also said multiple times that the point wasn't the amount of people so that should have left the discussion a long time ago if we both were discussing with the idea of listening to what the other is saying.

I didn't say you had to pick one, I said you have to pick "at least one". That naturally means that you can have a tie and that you can't pick "no one".

 

[Detective Conan]

Sorry Mjonir Reborn but I have a really difficult time trying grasp whatever point you’re trying to make.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

Sorry Mjonir Reborn but I have a really difficult time trying grasp whatever point you’re trying to make.

The discussion of the recent page has been fairly devoid of point. I've mainly been responding to what I assume is an intentional misreading of something I said, sorting out me being misquoted a few times. and pointed out when a statement I had said was then repeated back at me as an argument. I guess the point that arose was whether the questions "which is the best portrayal" and "is there a definitive portrayal" are the same thing, to which I say no, but it has marginal connection what I was saying before.

The original point I made that then spawned the above discussion was that I think you can have a definitive portrayal even with the character having been done multiple times, and that what constitutes a definitive character portrayal is subjective and without hard rules.

 

[Detective Conan]

Your responses were pretty confusing( I wasn’t sure what you were trying to say) and I got even more confused after your awkward Doctor Doom example.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

You did a pretty confusing job clarifying what you meant and I’m still confused as what you were attempting to achieve with your awkward Doctor Doom example that came out of nowhere...

I just saw that when I made a quick edit of the final sentence before posting my last post I accidentally removed a part that should have been there. I've edited that sentence so it should make sense now.

The Dr. Doom example is just what it was spelled out to be, an example showing the difference between "best" and "definitive". That had to be established when the other poster chose to bring in general popularity polls into the conversation.

 

[Detective Conan]

Sorry sir, but Doom isn’t a good example on any level. Surely you could of thought of much better examples than a character that has been generally received so poorly when it comes to all of their film adaptions.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

This is the weirdest single page I've seen on this forum. Are you guys just messing with Mjolnir Reborn or are you actually managing to fail at getting the point? One guy is just refusing to listen and now another is making judgement on an example for nonsensical reasons.

Or is it because he said something negative about TDK before? That has caused freakouts before.

I have no idea how he has the patience with this.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

Sorry sir, but Doom isn’t a good example on any level. Surely you could of thought of much better examples than a character that has been generally received so poorly when it comes to all of their film adaptions.

First of all I'd encourage you to disagree with an actual argument instead of just with an empty disagreement. I don't know why you think it's bad but since your objection doesn't make sense I can only guess that you've not understood the point of the example. If you wrote why you think like you do to begin with we'd be further along.


To respond to the statement anyway, it's the contrary to what you say. The example is better just because the character has a general negative opinion. It increases the chance that we see it the same way, which decreases the risk of further distractions from the point, which I've had more than enough of by now.

If I am asked which portrayal of Dr. Doom is the best I have to pick one or both (either one is better than the other or they are equal). There's no valid "neither" option because the question isn't about whether it's good, it's about which is better than the other. Your suggestion would lose that last clarification.

If I'm asked if I think there's been a definitive portrayal of the Dr. Doom character on screen I could answer yes or no. Unlike for the other question a negative answer is valid here.

Ergo it's shown that the two questions don't ask for the same thing, which was the simple point of the example. There's nothing about this issue that would get helped by an example that's generally well received.

 

[Detective Conan]

This is the weirdest single page I've seen on this forum. Are you guys just messing with Mjolnir Reborn or are you actually managing to fail at getting the point? One guy is just refusing to listen and now another is making judgement on an example for nonsensical reasons.

Or is it because he said something negative about TDK before? That has caused freakouts before.

I have no idea how he has the patience with this.

lol, me and the poster he was initially replying to wasn’t sure what he was trying to say because how which got even excerbated with his Doom comparison which I wasn’t sure where he was going with it.

And the last part of your post is just laughable. I couldn’t care less about someone bad-mouthing TDK I care about whether I can understand where they’re coming from which I simplify understand didn’t with his posts.

First of all I'd encourage you to disagree with an actual argument instead of just with an empty disagreement. I don't know why you think it's bad but since your objection doesn't make sense I can only guess that you've not understood the point of the example. If you wrote why you think like you do to begin with we'd be further along.

To respond to the statement anyway, it's the contrary to what you say. The example is better just because the character has a general negative opinion. It increases the chance that we see it the same way, which decreases the risk of further distractions from the point, which I've had more than enough of by now.

If I am asked which portrayal of Dr. Doom is the best I have to pick one or both (either one is better than the other or they are equal). There's no valid "neither" option because the question isn't about whether it's good, it's about which is better than the other. Your suggestion would lose that last clarification.

If I'm asked who’s the definitive portrayal of the Dr. Doom character on screen I could answer yes or no. Unlike for the other question a negative answer is valid here.

Ergo it's shown that the two questions don't ask for the same thing, which was the simple point of the example. There's nothing about this issue that would get helped by an example that's generally well received.

First of all: bring more clarity to your posts next time so these misunderstandings don’t happen again.

Second of all: I now realize you’re not making an argument based on popularity with your Doom example(which is easy to get confused since this whole thread is about quality and comparing the quality between two different pieces of entertainment to each other, so me along with the poster you were initially arguing with had assumed that to be the case). I mean, It’s hard to imagine anyone would ever bother asking you who is the best Doctor Doom since that is a question usually asked for characters who have had popular/well-liked adaptions(i.e, Batman, Superman, and even the Hulk) there have been no adaptions of the character of any quality(which I guess is a moot point since you’re not arguing from that angle). But even then they would likely ask you who’s the least worst Doom rather than who’s the ‘best’. In theory, yes you could be ask who’s the ‘best’ Doom but when you brought up the point in relation to your response to Joker’s post replying to you about Bale’s Batman it seemed to me you were saying Bale’s Batman can’t be seen as definitive because were essentially saying being judged as ‘best’ could apply to characters who’ve been adapted poorly which caused the misunderstanding( though the way you worded it certainly didn’t help matters of course).

But anyway I’ll stop replying to you after this since I don’t want to derail the thread. I expect another response but I won’t even bother to reply.