Tdk vs Avengers

[Randy Savage]

I'll judge Avengers solely on it's own merits and still enjoy it more than The Dark Knight any day of the week.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Avengers was the perfect culmination of 4 or 5 movies. To have a full team of superheroes in a movie after each having or appearing in solo flicks is unheard of. It was fun from start to finish.

Dark Knight was good and all, but it's a one-off. Batman is such a sad sack too. I'll take Iron Man any day over Batman and his "Rarrr my parents are dead, grrr my girlfriend is dead" nonsense.

Uhm... what is the nonsense in having dead parents? And how come this upsets you when in actuality, his parents' death is barely mentioned in TDK (if at all)? Dead parents are present in many superheroes; stories: Spider-man, Superman, etc? And Spider-man has a dead girlfriend he mourned in comics for decades. Never thought that made no sense.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I'll judge Avengers solely on it's own merits and still enjoy it more than The Dark Knight any day of the week.

Fair enough

 

[BLobo]

Have you actually watched Batman 89 lately, or is this based on nostalgia? I ask because the movie really sucks in comparison to today's flicks.

I choose Avengers.

I find Batman 89 to be more entertaining than 90% of today´s superhero movies. At least it isn´t flooded with non-stop explosions and fighting scenes that after 5 minutes lose all it´s impact due to being just too much, too repetitive, too generic and too over the top.

The problem with today´s movies is that, because it´s easy to do, they do it too much. Movies like The Avengers have no sense of timing. It´s just too much. It´s just everywhere and after a while i start asking to myself "when is this gonna stop?"

Batman at least had Nicholson, awesome atmosfere and awesome score. The Avengers had nothing of that.

What does The Avengers has besides RDJ being fun to watch? It doesn´t innovate in any particular aspect.

The plot could very well not even be there, because it´s all about the action. Nothing to offer storywise

The acting is decent but forgettable. 20 years from now i doubt anyone would be talking about any particular performance from this movie.

The soundtrack is generic and forgettable too.

The action and SE are cool, but nothing we haven´t seen already before.

The ending of the movie is dull. Compare that to the ending of TDK and TDKR. THOSE ARE *****ING ENDINGS. Those give you something to remember.

 

[Randy Savage]

Fair enough

Haha right on.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I find Batman 89 to be more entertaining than 90% of today´s superhero movies. At least it isn´t flooded with non-stop explosions and fighting scenes that after 5 minutes lose all it´s impact due to being just too much, too repetitive, too generic and too over the top.

The problem with today´s movies is that, because it´s easy to do, they do it too much. Movies like The Avengers have no sense of timing. It´s just too much. It´s just everywhere and after a while i start asking to myself "when is this gonna stop?"

Batman at least had Nicholson, awesome atmosfere and awesome score. The Avengers had nothing of that.

What does The Avengers has besides RDJ being fun to watch? It doesn´t innovate in any particular aspect.

The plot could very well not even be there, because it´s all about the action. Nothing to offer storywise

The acting is decent but forgettable. 20 years from now i doubt anyone would be talking about any particular performance from this movie.

The soundtrack is generic and forgettable too.

The action and SE are cool, but nothing we haven´t seen already before.

The ending of the movie is dull. Compare that to the ending of TDK and TDKR. THOSE ARE *****ING ENDINGS. Those give you something to remember.

 

[Randy Savage]

I loved the 1989 Batman when it debuted and I was 9. LOVED IT. I've seen it 1,000 times as a kid. Then years passed, and my wife and I saw it recently. We couldn't stop laughing at how hokey it was.

To us, Batman 1989 in a nutshell...

-Bruce broods
-Jack Nicholson says some funny stuff
-Batman kills people
-Jack Nicholson says some funny stuff
-Batman kills more people
-EPIC PRINCE SONG
-Jack Nicholson says some funny stuff
-Bruce Wayne smacks around Vickie Vale while trying to reveal his identity.
-Jack Nicholson funny stuff yadda yadda
-Batman murders more henchmen
-EPIC PRINCE SONG
-Batman threatens Joker with MURDER and then carries it out.
-FIN


I prefer Avengers over Dark Knight, but the Nolan Batman movies kick the **** out of the 1989 one.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Was very refreshing for a superhero movie to have a definitive ending like TDKR did. Pretty much all these days leads into something more instead of feeling like an end.

^ that Prince song was pretty epic

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I loved the 1989 Batman when it debuted and I was 9. LOVED IT. I've seen it 1,000 times as a kid. Then years passed, and my wife and I saw it recently. We couldn't stop laughing at how hokey it was.

To us, Batman 1989 in a nutshell...

-Bruce broods
-Jack Nicholson says some funny stuff
-Batman kills people
-Jack Nicholson says some funny stuff
-Batman kills more people
-EPIC PRINCE SONG
-Jack Nicholson says some funny stuff
-Bruce Wayne smacks around Vickie Vale while trying to reveal his identity.
-Jack Nicholson funny stuff yadda yadda
-Batman murders more henchmen
-EPIC PRINCE SONG
-Batman threatens Joker with MURDER and then carries it out.
-FIN


I prefer Avengers over Dark Knight, but the Nolan Batman movies kick the **** out of the 1989 one.

Eh, even The Godfather could be reduced down to:

- Mob people walking around and talking.
- Mob people killing someone.
- The End.

 

[Randy Savage]

Eh, even The Godfather could be reduced down to:

- Mob people walking around and talking.
- Mob people killing someone.
- The End.

I suppose, but I doubt even the biggest fan of the 1989 flick would put it on the same level as The Godfather.

The cheesiness of the 1989 flick is great, but to try and hold it up today as a serious movie is funny to me. It's more like a series of short Joker skits than it is an actual cohesive film. That and Batman straight up murdering people for the majority of the film kind of makes it a terrible Batman film since Batman's whole thing is not killing.

It's not even like Man of Steel where he was made to look forced into killing. That is horrible as well. Superman and Batman don't kill, but I'm getting off on a tangent. Batman is killing dudes just to do it. He's not forced to kill Joker, he wants to kill Joker. He gets a lot of joy from it. Batman's smiling as he stalks Joker around the rooftop and breaks his nose before killing him.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I suppose, but I doubt even the biggest fan of the 1989 flick would put it on the same level as The Godfather.

I doubt it as well, as it was not the point I was making (if you can reduce The Godfather to a boring bullet point list, then you can do it with every movie).

The cheesiness of the 1989 flick is great, but to try and hold it up today as a serious movie is funny to me. It's more like a series of short Joker skits than it is an actual cohesive film. That and Batman straight up murdering people for the majority of the film kind of makes it a terrible Batman film since Batman's whole thing is not killing.

You can find cheesiness in pretty much every superhero movie made today, like Avengers or Raimi's spider-movies before it, Nolan being the one that keeps it to a minimum.

And Batman "straight up murdering people for the majority of the film" in B89 is just a lie. The only times he killed were at the very end of the movie, to stop the city mass poisoning. Just like Nolan's Batman killed Dent, the garbage truck driver, Talia and her driver to prevent innocent people's death.

It's not even like Man of Steel where he was made to look forced into killing. That is horrible as well. Superman and Batman don't kill, but I'm getting off on a tangent. Batman is killing dudes just to do it. He's not forced to kill Joker, he wants to kill Joker. He gets a lot of joy from it. Batman's smiling as he stalks Joker around the rooftop and breaks his nose before killing him.

Show me where Batman was smiling. I can show you Nolan's Batman saying first that "compassion is what separates us from them" and then forgetting about it as he leaves Ra's to die while cracking a smarta** remark.

Batman chose to kill when it was about saving innocent people's lives. Pretty much like Nolan's Batman.

 

[BLobo]

Superman and Batman don't kill

Is that an official rule? Created by who?

Genuine question.

 

[Randy Savage]

Is that an official rule? Created by who?

Genuine question.

I don't think it's written in stone tablets somewhere. Maybe, if you can find sacred Batman tablets let me know, but otherwise it's a trait of both characters created by many people who've written both of them. It's been a defining character trait of both characters for as long as I can remember.

 

[Doc Ock]

Have you actually watched Batman 89 lately, or is this based on nostalgia? I ask because the movie really sucks in comparison to today's flicks.

I choose Avengers.

I sure don't find it to suck, I think it really holds up. I prefer it to Nolan's trilogy.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I don't think it's written in stone tablets somewhere. Maybe, if you can find sacred Batman tablets let me know, but otherwise it's a trait of both characters created by many people who've written both of them. It's been a defining character trait of both characters for as long as I can remember.

And both Burton and Nolan had Batman killing to protect others.

But when a Batman's enemy was about to die, only one of those Batman went and tried to save him. The other one thought he didn't have to.

 

[BLobo]

I don't think it's written in stone tablets somewhere. Maybe, if you can find sacred Batman tablets let me know, but otherwise it's a trait of both characters created by many people who've written both of them. It's been a defining character trait of both characters for as long as I can remember.

So they never kill in the comics? I was under the impression they did, once in a while.

The more they kill, the more i like them.

 

[Randy Savage]

Yeah I don't agree with any of those writing decisions. It's a cheap way out.

 

[Randy Savage]

So they never kill in the comics? I was under the impression they did, once in a while.

The more they kill, the more i like them.

I love The Punisher and Dredd, but they're different characters. What's the difference between them and Batman if all of them kill on a whim?

 

[Senator Pleasury]

So they never kill in the comics? I was under the impression they did, once in a while.

The more they kill, the more i like them.

Batman didn't have a problem with killing villains in his first years, on which Burton based B89.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I love The Punisher and Dredd, but they're different characters. What's the difference between them and Batman if all of them kill on a whim?

Other than the suit, names, personality and context?

Because if Superman doesn't kill and Batman doesn't kill... what's the difference between them?

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

The whole "they don't kill" thing is BS imo. Sure they may not have been shown to kill for most of the time but given the right situation they have and will again.

The MOS neck snap was way overblown. There was grounds to kill him and it is the second time dupes has killed Zod in a live-action movie

 

[Randy Savage]

You guys make interesting points. I'll reconsider my stance on the topic and reply if I have more to add.

 

[weezerspider]

Although I do like TDK more, how revolutionary something is =/= how good something is.

A less revolutionary movie can be better than a more revolutionary one (like 300).

The reason I don't rate The Avengers as high as TDK isn't because it isn't as revolutionary. It's because I just don't enjoy it that much.

I never stated TDK was more revolutionary than The Avengers. I said Star Was and Raiders were more revolutionary to The Avengers. That said, revolution in itself is a major artistic achievement and one who doesn't recognize that simply hasn't experience that kind of artistic risk. Citizen Kane is still the end all be all film and one of its primary reasons for being so is it took many aspects from different film-making styles and molded them into one and created a new form of visually story-telling which has set the mold for film-making for decades now. Orson Welles was a genius just by the fact that he put all of that together. Star Wars and Raiders are in the same mold, albeit on a lighter level. Star Wars literally turned Hollywood into what it is today. Without the one two punch of Jaws and Star Wars, the whole blockbuster mask marketed, merchandise saturated Hollywood that has been around since the 1980's wouldn't exist. Whether you like Star Wars or not, there's no denying the historical significance and artistic inspiration caused by it, making it a great, impactful film, despite looking like a 'popcorn' flick on the surface. A film's revolutionary aspects are a huge factor in determining it's artistic significance. As the saying goes: Art influences art. If a film has that big of an influence on filmmaking in general is to be called revolutionary, than it influenced a lot more art. That is a grand artistic achievement.

300 is certainly not revolutionary. What did it do? Shoot in front of green screens the whole film? George Lucas started that with Star Wars Episode II five years before 300 came out. Not to mention, it was really just an adaption of classic Hollywood techniques. Instead of building sets and painting visual backgrounds behind the sets like the old days, they just created it all in the computer. Slo-mo? Slo-mo's been used for years. 300 was a very very bad example to try and make a point with.

The Avengers changed it's genre. That's it. That's still a great achievement and IMO, The Avengers is one of the best film's of it's genre, but it didn't send waves down all film-making styles like Star Wars or Raiders did. The Avengers has cause Batman VS Superman, FF vs X-men(Fox claims) and The Sinister Six film. All of that is in it's own genre. Star Wars and Raiders simply aren't a legitimate comparison to The Avengers.

 

[BLobo]

The Avengers changed it's genre

TDK did. What you saw in The Avengers you were already seeing in other superhero movies. It was a little better than some other SH movies, but didn´t introduce anything new to the genre.

 

[jmc]

TDK changed genre film making in general not just superheroes, it's affects are still being felt some 6 years later.