Tdk vs Avengers

[Thoix]

I'm not a fan of TDK trilogy. I thought they were good movies, but horrible Batman films.

How are they horrible Batman films?

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

avengers but tdk definitely second

 

[Rorschach2012]

These are the two greatest superhero movies of all time.

 

[mkilban2]

The Dark Knight is a better movie, but The Avengers has a bigger comic book feel to it.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I loved The Avengers on my first couple viewings (9.5/10), but now that the excitement of these heroes meeting has worn off, I'm not a big fan anymore.

-Looks a TV movie
-Groan-worthy cutsey dialogue throughout ("I was having 12% of a moment")
-Plot is not compelling (Characters come together. Loki screws around. Characters arrive to save the day).
-Screen-time dedicated to plots that go nowhere (Phase 2)
-Random characterization/themes ("Humans crave subjection", blah blah, "You lie and kill in the service of liars and killers", etc)

Still has a few great lines though. ("It seems to run on some form of electricity!"). I give it a 6.5/10 now.

TDK on the other hand was great on first watch, although the pacing of the final act threw me for a loop (original grade of 8.5/10). Since then, I've grown to enjoy it even more. Nothing has gotten old. I now give it a 9/10.

 

[metaphysician]

-Looks a TV movie

Okay, seriously. There should be a moratorium against this. Either you mean "its cinematography doesn't look like a movie", in which case you should provide some actual evidence for this ( which *no one* has yet done, aside from the meaningless issue of aspect ratio ). Or you mean "it actually looks like a TV movie in production quality", in which case you are lying to yourself or everyone else.

 

[Snow Queen]

Okay, seriously. There should be a moratorium against this. Either you mean "its cinematography doesn't look like a movie", in which case you should provide some actual evidence for this ( which *no one* has yet done, aside from the meaningless issue of aspect ratio ). Or you mean "it actually looks like a TV movie in production quality", in which case you are lying to yourself or everyone else.

I've got to agree with him. It's hard to put my finger on but the look of the film screams TV movie rather than theatrical film with a huge budget like it is. Might have something to do with the cameras they used.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The Dark Knight is a better movie, but The Avengers has a bigger comic book feel to it.

im gonna have to say avengers is the better movie overall but dark knight is a close second. both of them are 2 of the best movies ever, and they just so happen to be comic book movies.

but the ending of tdk didn't make sense. whereas avengers may have been flawed from beginning to end, was a great premise from beginning to end as well, having all those superheroes coming together on screen.

 

[Victarion]

im gonna have to say avengers is the better movie overall but dark knight is a close second. both of them are 2 of the best movies ever, and they just so happen to be comic book movies.

but the ending of tdk didn't make sense. whereas avengers may have been flawed from beginning to end, was a great premise from beginning to end as well, having all those superheroes coming together on screen.

Which part(s)?

 

[Doc Ock]

I'm not a fan of TDK trilogy. I thought they were good movies, but horrible Batman films.

I pretty much have the same view, I love the movies but don't find them good Batman/comic book films minus Batman Begins. Batman Begins is like a living comic in the same way Burton's Batman films felt like that to me.

 

[Thoix]

I pretty much have the same view, I love the movies but don't find them good Batman/comic book films minus Batman Begins. Batman Begins is like a living comic in the same way Burton's Batman films felt like that to me.

As a Batman fan I do not understand how anyone can say TDKT are not good Batman films.

 

[Thoix]

I've got to agree with him. It's hard to put my finger on but the look of the film screams TV movie rather than theatrical film with a huge budget like it is. Might have something to do with the cameras they used.

That's what I think. The Avengers seemed like a very high budget TV movie because of the way it was filmed.

 

[jmc]

As a Batman fan I do not understand how anyone can say TDKT are not good Batman films.

The argument is because there isn't enough 'Batman' in the movies, which frankly is absurd. The Batman mythology is more than just the suit, or even Bruce Wayne, it encompasses all of Gotham City. I honestly don't know how any Batman fan can say with a straight face these aren't good Batman movies.

 

[jmc]

Okay, seriously. There should be a moratorium against this. Either you mean "its cinematography doesn't look like a movie", in which case you should provide some actual evidence for this ( which *no one* has yet done, aside from the meaningless issue of aspect ratio ). Or you mean "it actually looks like a TV movie in production quality", in which case you are lying to yourself or everyone else.

It's not the aspect ratio, the cinematography on the film is pretty ordinary and does make it look like an expensive TV production.

 

[metaphysician]

It's not the aspect ratio, the cinematography on the film is pretty ordinary and does make it look like an expensive TV production.

Again, stop using weasel words. Give me *specifics*. What about the cinematography makes it look like a TV movie? How was X scene shot to cause this, and if it were shot "movie like", how would that scene be different? What technique did they use or not use?

 

[jmc]

Again, stop using weasel words. Give me *specifics*. What about the cinematography makes it look like a TV movie? How was X scene shot to cause this, and if it were shot "movie like", how would that scene be different? What technique did they use or not use?

What specifics would you like? There's a complete lack of film texture and a lack of depth to the imagery in Avengers that you usually see in big budget movies. There's a softness to the imagery that is comparable to TV which probably has something to do with Whedon being comfortable with the format. Compare the video quality between Avengers and the first Iron Man movie, there's a huge difference in the cinematography. I'm not quite sure what you need to 'prove' there's a clear difference. If you can't tell the difference you might need your eyes checked.

 

[Flint Marko]

I've only seen that complaint here, I wasn't aware so many users here are cinematographers.
I don't at all understand these comments, it seems like quite the nitpick.

 

[jmc]

I've only seen that complaint here, I wasn't aware so many users here are cinematographers.
I don't at all understand these comments, it seems like quite the nitpick.

Well, this is a film forum, and those kind of details are going to be picked up.

 

[Squaremaster316]

How are they horrible Batman films?

If anything, Nolan's Batman films come closer to truly representing the 'concept' of Batman than any other interpretation in any medium to date, even the source material.

 

[Steamteck]

If anything, Nolan's Batman films come closer to truly representing the 'concept' of Batman than any other interpretation in any medium to date, even the source material.

Seriously? You are on Planet ten or something. They're decent but flawed films( see I can use than BS too) but lose much of Batman's characteristics and unique character IMO.

 

[Steamteck]

What specifics would you like? There's a complete lack of film texture and a lack of depth to the imagery in Avengers that you usually see in big budget movies. There's a softness to the imagery that is comparable to TV which probably has something to do with Whedon being comfortable with the format. Compare the video quality between Avengers and the first Iron Man movie, there's a huge difference in the cinematography. I'm not quite sure what you need to 'prove' there's a clear difference. If you can't tell the difference you might need your eyes checked.

I guess I need my eyes checked.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Which part(s)?

why didn't they just say the joker killed all those people? if joker even tried denying it it's not like anyone would buy it since he's been killing people like breathing

 

[The Joker]

Because he didn't kill them, and Gordon and Batman would never frame anyone for multiple murders, even someone as rotten as the Joker.

 

[Filmfreak]

Didn't the whole hostage situation occur after the Joker's capture? How could they frame him for something that happened afterwards when he was detained?

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Because he didn't kill them, and Gordon and Batman would never frame anyone for multiple murders, even someone as rotten as the Joker.

okay but I think that's really weak. they wouldn't further vilify the joker to save 2face's name but they would vilify batman? that does NOT make sense to me. they both realized they were trying to cover up for something horrible, so why not put it on a horrible person?

Didn't the whole hostage situation occur after the Joker's capture? How could they frame him for something that happened afterwards when he was detained?

you mean when 2face held gordon's family hostage? the killings occurred throughout that whole day. joker wasn't captured until the night.