Tdk vs Avengers

[DACrowe]

I did not write this! This is what my friend has to say on the subject, which is better than anything I could say.

"Avengers had to juggle something no movie EVER before has had to do: function as a coherent sequel to four different movies (“Thor”, “The Incredible Hulk”, “Iron Man 2” and “Captain America”). Not only that, they are four movies that before Avengers, were barely connected one with the other except for references that to be fair were really just nerd fan service.
So it's starting off on the roots of four main existing storylines (Tony's, Steve's, Bruce's and Thor's), several more existing plot threads (Cube, gamma radiation, superhero serum, Loki, the Ark Reactor, Natalie Portamn’s boss, etc.), six characters NONE OF WHICH could be a protagonist (plus a huge array of new and existing side characters).

And all starting from a scratch: Whedon hadn’t really worked on ANY of the screenplays he had to follow and tie together.

In two and a half hours it was his job to intertwine all these existing concepts and characters, move every single one of them forward in his/her arc, tie loose ends purposefully left by all the other movies (Loki’s fate in “Thor”, Bruce’s ‘control’ of Hulk, etc.), into one coherent plot. Every main character in Avengers is intimately connected to the plot with the exception of Black Widow who does play an important role, if not like the other five. Another challenge was that he had to do ALL THIS working under the pressure that the movie had to stand by itself and had to be understood by everyone who watched it, regardless whether they were familiar with the characters or not.

The most amazing thing is that he did it without anyone even NOTICING that he was doing it! Which is the best testimony to the elegance of the writing. The exposition is incredibly well hidden.

That’s just the beginning, because those were Whedon’s challenges, which he completely ****ing nailed. Add to the the fact that he managed to write it in a way that no matter who your favorite character is, you’ll get to see him/her kick a ****load of ass. I am a Hulk man and was happy. My brother is a Cap man and was happy. God knows everyone was happy with Iron Man and Thor. It’s not as easy as just having a montage of everyone displaying his powers (though he did do that); he did it through clever dialogue. Yeah a lot of haters say that it’s ‘banter’ and though there IS banter as it should be expected in a movie about a team of powerful superhéroes with incredibly clashing personalities. There are endless quotable lines in this movie, and I’m not referring to how funny it is, which it is. Because superhero movies should have a sense of humor; even Nolan learned that in “Rises”.

Also add an incredibly complex web of relationships and interconnected backstories cleverly displayed and explored. Every character clashes with every character in some way or another; some work together well, some don’t, but that’s awesome because Whedon knew these personalities and realistically wrote how they would actually interact if they were to meet.

In the end it gets ALL this **** done, and seemingly effortlessly. People dont’ often realize how hard it was to write a screenplay like this. There is A LOT going on.

Here’s the main deal. Nolan wanted to intellectualize something fundamentally silly, which is somewhat tough, I get it, and he did it ALMOST as well as it could possibly be done. Whedon had to do something a million times harder."

Eh, ensemble films have been made before. Really most of "sequel" elements were handled in throwaway lines I'd argue, save for Captain America's arc of being thawed out. His reaction to the 21st century felt heavily influenced by how he was depicted in the previous film.

The rest? Not really. How do they fix the ending of Thor? A few dropped lines, "I fell...," "Our father had to summon dark energy..." or whatever it was. Out of sight out of mind. Tony and Pepper's plot didn't really move forward, nor did Thor's relationship with Loki or his search for Jane (all pushed until the next one), etc.

Look, I like Avengers. But it is a romp. An ensemble romp. Doing that with superheroes and a $200 million budget is unique in that sense, and Whedon is the perfect man to do it, as many of his TV shows rely on ensembles and banter elements.

But I am not going to pretend making people believe a superhero can be something profound and a creature of great cinema or even the subject of a great crime drama is something incredibly challenging.

Another way to put it is other than Rises, no superhero movie has even attempted to reach for TDK's elevated approach and status in a serious way in six years. While they have all taken a cue for using the title DARK, the only one that I think has tried is Sam Mendes' approach to Bond in Skyfall, which is not quite a superhero movie. Maybe Snyder as well for MOS, but we all saw how THAT turned out...

After The Avengers? Fox, Sony, Paramount, WB, and everyone else is saying: I can do that.

It remains to be seen if they can succeed, but most studios seem to think that approach is much easier to duplicate and is obtainable.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Eh, ensemble films have been made before. Really most of "sequel" elements were handled in throwaway lines I'd argue, save for Captain America's arc of being thawed out. His reaction to the 21st century felt heavily influenced by how he was depicted in the previous film.

The rest? Not really. How do they fix the ending of Thor? A few dropped lines, "I fell...," "Our father had to summon dark energy..." or whatever it was. Out of sight out of mind. Tony and Pepper's plot didn't really move forward, nor did Thor's relationship with Loki or his search for Jane (all pushed until the next one), etc.

Look, I like Avengers. But it is a romp. An ensemble romp. Doing that with superheroes and a $200 million budget is unique in that sense, and Whedon is the perfect man to do it, as many of his TV shows rely on ensembles and banter elements.

But I am not going to pretend making people believe a superhero can be something profound and a creature of great cinema or even the subject of a great crime drama is something incredibly challenging.

Another way to put it is other than Rises, no superhero movie has even attempted to reach for TDK's elevated approach and status in a serious way in six years. While they have all taken a cue for using the title DARK, the only one that I think has tried is Sam Mendes' approach to Bond in Skyfall, which is not quite a superhero movie. Maybe Snyder as well for MOS, but we all saw how THAT turned out...

After The Avengers? Fox, Sony, Paramount, WB, and everyone else is saying: I can do that.

It remains to be seen if they can succeed, but most studios seem to think that approach is much easier to duplicate and is obtainable.

Ya, they've been done before but not from 4 separate films with characters that have a built in fanbase. The first 3 X-Men films are essentially "Wolverine and Friends". The only good ensemble superhero film after The Avengers in First Class, which FINALLY understood the importance of the team aspect.

 

[BLobo]

Being simple in plot also does not make it hollow/cheap/dumb by default either.

Being sustained by it´s visual effects makes it hollow. The movie has no emotional value. I don´t know anybody who remembers this movie for it´s plot or character development. You´re a big fanboy, so you don´t see the picture like most people do. The movie is a festival of colors and explosions, and that´s what people remember about it. Not fanboys, but the General Audiences.

Putting the visual appeal above the story appeal makes it cheap. It´s a cheap move that big studios almost always use. "Mehhh, just throw any kind of story in there, but make sure it looks good. Our audience is not intelligent, so they don´t really need something to think about". That´s cheap.

Transformers does the same thing. Michael Bay said that the movie was being produced and they didn´t even had a story. That tells us that they don´t care about stories. They just wanna make the movie, no matter what. With Nolan, for example, it´s different. First he has a story, then he decides to make the movie. The people who make Transformers, spider-man, TA, etc, basically say: "Well, we´re gonna make this movie no matter what. Start producing it and hire someone to write a script with X number of explosions on it and X number of villains. Oh, and we need to have a girl with big boobs". That´s cheap, dude.

A film for kids.....so what? Whats your point?

My point is that i´m not a kid, so i can´t possibly watch a movie for kids and be moved by it. I enjoyed The Avengers. Make no mistake about it. I´m not saying it isn´t good. I´m just saying TDK is better and more my style. It´s easier to please kids than adults. Kids watch TA because they like fights and explosions. They don´t need a great story, thats why TA doesn´t have one. But i need.

TDK is just as plot/action driven as The Avengers. Don't kid yourself. There are just as many small character moments in Avengers as there are in TDK so don't even go there. "Ooooooo TDK has some social/political commentary Ooooooo soooo smart!!!!"

Friday the 13th: Jason takes Manhattan has as many "small character moments" as TDK. What the hell is your point? Almost all movies try to be deep and philosophical, but that doesn´t mean they achieve their goal.

Some movies just can´t create the right atmosphere in order to invoke certain types of feelings. They try, but they fail. That´s why TDK is so good. It succeeds in invoking the emotions it wants to invoke, that´s why it is perceived by MOST PEOPLE as being a more serious and well crafted movie than The Avengers.

Of course, The Avengers tries to be deep and make it´s social commentary, But guess what? Nobody remembers the movie for it. And you know why? Because the movie fails at it. I can make the worst Slasher movie on earth and throw some social commentary in there with some sad moments. But do you think anyone will give a damn about it? No! Do you know why? Because the whole movie is about slashing people, and the audience perceives that as it´s main attraction.

It´s not about what elements you put in a movie. It´s about how you combine those elements. Do you think that because two meals are made only from beans and tomatoes they will taste the same? Lol.

"Most people watch and forget" Um, where did you pull this from? Your ass?

Actually, from absolutely everyone i know. And your experience might be different, and i accept that. But the fact is that the majority prefered TDK. Not that the majority is always right. But if we´re gonna talk about the impact of these movies on people, we gotta take into account how many people prefer one and how many people prefer the other.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Ya, they've been done before but not from 4 separate films with characters that have a built in fanbase. The first 3 X-Men films are essentially "Wolverine and Friends". The only good ensemble superhero film after The Avengers in First Class, which FINALLY understood the importance of the team aspect.

It was done with the Universal monster films of the 30s and 40s. Same thing. Give Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, and the Wolfman solo origin films and then come the ensembles.

Toho did the same thing with their Kaiju films.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Being sustained by it´s visual effects makes it hollow. The movie has no emotional value. I don´t know anybody who remembers this movie for it´s plot or character development. You´re a big fanboy, so you don´t see the picture like most people do. The movie is a festival of colors and explosions, and that´s what people remember about it. Not fanboys, but the General Audiences.

Putting the visual appeal above the story appeal makes it cheap. It´s a cheap move that big studios almost always use. "Mehhh, just throw any kind of story in there, but make sure it looks good. Our audience is not intelligent, so they don´t really need something to think about". That´s cheap.

Transformers does the same thing. Michael Bay said that the movie was being produced and they didn´t even had a story. That tells us that they don´t care about stories. They just wanna make the movie, no matter what. With Nolan, for example, it´s different. First he has a story, then he decides to make the movie. The people who make Transformers, spider-man, TA, etc, basically say: "Well, we´re gonna make this movie no matter what. Start producing it and hire someone to write a script with X number of explosions on it and X number of villains. Oh, and we need to have a girl with big boobs". That´s cheap, dude.



My point is that i´m not a kid, so i can´t possibly watch a movie for kids and be moved by it. I enjoyed The Avengers. Make no mistake about it. I´m not saying it isn´t good. I´m just saying TDK is better and more my style. It´s easier to please kids than adults. Kids watch TA because they like fights and explosions. They don´t need a great story, thats why TA doesn´t have one. But i need.




Friday the 13th: Jason takes Manhattan has as many "small character moments" as TDK. What the hell is your point? Almost all movies try to be deep and philosophical, but that doesn´t mean they achieve their goal.

Some movies just can´t create the right atmosphere in order to invoke certain types of feelings. They try, but they fail. That´s why TDK is so good. It succeeds in invoking the emotions it wants to invoke, that´s why it is perceived by MOST PEOPLE as being a more serious and well crafted movie than The Avengers.

Of course, The Avengers tries to be deep and make it´s social commentary, But guess what? Nobody remembers the movie for it. And you know why? Because the movie fails at it. I can make the worst Slasher movie on earth and throw some social commentary in there with some sad moments. But do you think anyone will give a damn about it? No! Do you know why? Because the whole movie is about slashing people, and the audience perceives that as it´s main attraction.

It´s not about what elements you put in a movie. It´s about how you combine those elements. Do you think that because two meals are made only from beans and tomatoes they will taste the same? Lol.



Actually, from absolutely everyone i know. And your experience might be different, and i accept that. But the fact is that the majority prefered TDK. Not that the majority is always right. But if we´re gonna talk about the impact of these movies on people, we gotta take into account how many people prefer one and how many people prefer the other.

This floors me. Of course it does. Tony's arc, Black Widow/Hawkeye, Thor/Loki, Bruces plight, Coulsons death...all carry emotional weight. TDK is much more dry on the emotional level imo as I didn't give a damn about Rachel's character or Bruces and Dents relationship with her. It was bone dry and lacked chemistry on both sides leaving her death absolutely "meh" to me.

And you've never been moved by a children's film? Are they some how incapable of evoking drama? Lion King, Aladdin, Bambi, Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast, most Pixar films, most Ghibli films, Charlotte's Web....etc etc etc...none of this moved you in the slightest simply because "it's for kids"?

 

[GremlinZilla89]

It was done with the Universal monster films of the 30s and 40s. Same thing. Give Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, and the Wolfman solo origin films and then come the ensembles.

Toho did the same thing with their Kaiju films.

Hardly the same thing. At face value it's similar, but those characters didn't have the the expectations of a legion of fanboys and critics predicting it's failure/triumph. It was mostly novelty and the continuity of some of those films is widely known to be, for the lack of a better word, iffy.

 

[BLobo]

This floors me. Of course it does. Tony's arc, Black Widow/Hawkeye, Thor/Loki, Bruces plight, Coulsons death...all carry emotional weight

They try to. But they just feel like cheap failed attempts. And yes, they´re failed. I felt nothing. And most people felt nothing. Like i said, that´s why nobody thinks about this movie has an emotional drama. It just doesn´t feel serious. Doesn´t feel real.

Just out of curiosity:

I saw TA with the same two girls i saw TDKR. None of them cares about Super heroes. They only watched the movies because i invited them. But they actually prefer the Marvel characters. They didn´t know much about Batman and didn´t like the movies they saw before (Burton). Well, at the end of the day, they both cried with TDKR. They also liked TA, but it didn´t move them.

Of course TA tries to move people and be emotional. But TDK trilogy simply does a better job at it. And i think even most of the people who prefer TA will agree with this. I prefer TMNT to Spider-Man 2. But Spider-Man 2 has bigger emotional value. You can´t see it because you´re just on another level of being a fanboy. You´re a mutated Fanboy or something. Or maybe a fanboy from krypton.

 

[jmc]

Are you...I mean, I really don't wanna be a dick but I think your trolling.

Of course it's a sequel. Just because a sequel can stand on it's own story wise doesn't mean it's not a sequel.

T2, Aliens, The Road Warrior, Temple of Doom, The Last Crusade, Batman Returns, Most Bond films, hell...THE DARK KNIGHT all stand on their own without being overly reliant on what came before and can tell their own story and they are sequels. The Avengers is a sequel. Plain a simple. It's a fact. It references plot points and characters points from previous films. It's a sequel. A continuation.

No, I'm not trolling. Avengers isn't a sequel just as there are 22 Bond films that aren't sequels, just as there are 6 Jack Ryan movies that aren't sequels, nor are the Indiana Jones films either. Being part of a series doesn't automatically make it a sequel. A sequel is a continuation of a particular event/arc in a previous story, each previous solo film is it's own separate entity, just like the Bond movies are, elements sometimes carry over from one film to another but at the end of the day they are episodes that are self contained. There are at best moments of story from the previous films, but they don't last long and it's not the focal point of the movie which is what happens in an episodic film series. So no, it's not a sequel, because you can remove any tidbit from the solo films they brought over and replace it with something else and the movie still works, there's nothing inherently important about who the villain is, what the Teseract is, who the Chitari are or even who the heroes are.

 

[jmc]

This floors me. Of course it does. Tony's arc, Black Widow/Hawkeye, Thor/Loki, Bruces plight, Coulsons death...all carry emotional weight. TDK is much more dry on the emotional level imo as I didn't give a damn about Rachel's character or Bruces and Dents relationship with her. It was bone dry and lacked chemistry on both sides leaving her death absolutely "meh" to me.

And you've never been moved by a children's film? Are they some how incapable of evoking drama? Lion King, Aladdin, Bambi, Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast, most Pixar films, most Ghibli films, Charlotte's Web....etc etc etc...none of this moved you in the slightest simply because "it's for kids"?

Coulson's Death? Really? That guy has been nothing more than a paper thin cut out of a character since day one - and they couldn't even kill him off.

 

[DACrowe]

This floors me. Of course it does. Tony's arc, Black Widow/Hawkeye, Thor/Loki, Bruces plight, Coulsons death...all carry emotional weight. TDK is much more dry on the emotional level imo as I didn't give a damn about Rachel's character or Bruces and Dents relationship with her. It was bone dry and lacked chemistry on both sides leaving her death absolutely "meh" to me.

And you've never been moved by a children's film? Are they some how incapable of evoking drama? Lion King, Aladdin, Bambi, Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast, most Pixar films, most Ghibli films, Charlotte's Web....etc etc etc...none of this moved you in the slightest simply because "it's for kids"?

To each their own? While I did not exactly love the Rachel Dawes character, in 2008 I like everyone I saw the movie with (and presumably in the stunned silence packed theaters), I was shocked that it went there. And it felt real. Not in that it could really happen, but it did feel like a character was murdered. Further, it was someone who never dies in these movies: the love interest. The post-9/11 imagery afterwards of Batman in the rubble, Dent in the hospital with half his face gone, it really is quite stunningly in your face.

When Coulson died, it felt like a character beat. It really felt like ticking off a box, not unlike when Rogue is kidnapped and Xavier is put in a coma in the original X-Men. The event has a very formulaic gear turning underneath it with little weight. And lo and behold like those, it is reversed when Coulson gets his own TV show.

But to each their own.

 

[Victarion]

This floors me. Of course it does. Tony's arc, Black Widow/Hawkeye, Thor/Loki, Bruces plight, Coulsons death...all carry emotional weight. TDK is much more dry on the emotional level imo as I didn't give a damn about Rachel's character or Bruces and Dents relationship with her. It was bone dry and lacked chemistry on both sides leaving her death absolutely "meh" to me.

I felt the same way about the material from The Avengers that you reference. Art is subject to interpretation; I was more invested in Bruce's and Harvey's responses to Rachel's death than the plights, arcs, deaths of TA. Different strokes and what not.

 

[BLobo]

Even from a technical standpoint you can easily see that the emotional scenes in TDK are better executed than those in TA. Music, acting, context, story value, realism, mood...i mean, it is superior on every level.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

No, I'm not trolling. Avengers isn't a sequel just as there are 22 Bond films that aren't sequels, just as there are 6 Jack Ryan movies that aren't sequels, nor are the Indiana Jones films either. Being part of a series doesn't automatically make it a sequel. A sequel is a continuation of a particular event/arc in a previous story, each previous solo film is it's own separate entity, just like the Bond movies are, elements sometimes carry over from one film to another but at the end of the day they are episodes that are self contained. There are at best moments of story from the previous films, but they don't last long and it's not the focal point of the movie which is what happens in an episodic film series. So no, it's not a sequel, because you can remove any tidbit from the solo films they brought over and replace it with something else and the movie still works, there's nothing inherently important about who the villain is, what the Teseract is, who the Chitari are or even who the heroes are.

Dude, The Avengers is a sequel.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

They try to. But they just feel like cheap failed attempts. And yes, they´re failed. I felt nothing. And most people felt nothing. Like i said, that´s why nobody thinks about this movie has an emotional drama. It just doesn´t feel serious. Doesn´t feel real.

Just out of curiosity:

I saw TA with the same two girls i saw TDKR. None of them cares about Super heroes. They only watched the movies because i invited them. But they actually prefer the Marvel characters. They didn´t know much about Batman and didn´t like the movies they saw before (Burton). Well, at the end of the day, they both cried with TDKR. They also liked TA, but it didn´t move them.

Of course TA tries to move people and be emotional. But TDK trilogy simply does a better job at it. And i think even most of the people who prefer TA will agree with this. I prefer TMNT to Spider-Man 2. But Spider-Man 2 has bigger emotional value. You can´t see it because you´re just on another level of being a fanboy. You´re a mutated Fanboy or something. Or maybe a fanboy from krypton.

I would really like to know where you keep pulling this pure BS from.

And Rachel is weaker as a character than any of the main players in The Avengers. She's nothing more than a goal for Bruce and Harvey to achieve. For a film soooooo great a deep characters they sure as hell dropped the ball on the one important female character. Black Widow is a much more layered character in comparison that gets slowly revealed as the film goes on.
There is no dimension to Rachel's character other than "hard nosed DA assistant." Hell, she's not even consistent between films. In BB she is distraught by the murder of the DA and has a strong (if cliched) moral center that she is constantly bandying about. In TDK she is laughing off the attempted murder of Harvey, her lover, as just another "thang" and acts horny towards him after it. i may be reading too much into it but she goes from abhorring violence and being disturbed by it to being turned on by it? The hell? You can't watch the scene after the attempt on Harveys life and not see a minor sexual projection from Rachel. It's there. It simply is. The characters don't feel one in the same and it has nothing to do with the two actresses that played her. Hell, the whole WHOLE WORLD of TDK is completely different than BB. Gone is the hyper-real Gotham of BB that is just slightly outside of reality and in comes....Chicago.

And please stop insulting me as a "mutated fanboy" and ******** like that. It's really petty and unbecoming.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Even from a technical standpoint you can easily see that the emotional scenes in TDK are better executed than those in TA. Music, acting, context, story value, realism, mood...i mean, it is superior on every level.

Again, in your opinion. I felt Bale was boring as hell in TDK and overshadowed by Ledger, Eckhart and Oldman.

 

[Elevator Man]

When Coulson died, it felt like a character beat. It really felt like ticking off a box, not unlike when Rogue is kidnapped and Xavier is put in a coma in the original X-Men. The event has a very formulaic gear turning underneath it with little weight. And lo and behold like those, it is reversed when Coulson gets his own TV show.

But to each their own.

The audience (as well as myself) I saw TA with opening day was stunned by Coulson's death and didn't expect it. I think his death added something to the film. Especially seeing the way Stark and Steve took the news. Coulson's death actually helped them put aside their differences and work as a team. It gave them the "push" they needed.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

The audience (as well as myself) I saw TA with opening day was stunned by Coulson's death and didn't expect it. I think his death added something to the film. Especially seeing the way Stark and Steve took the news. Coulson's death actually helped them put aside their differences and work as a team. It gave them the "push" they needed.

My theater gasped.

 

[jmc]

Dude, The Avengers is a sequel.

Well with a statement like that you've now convinced me.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

It fits every freaking criteria of a sequel. You are literally making up your own definition of what a sequel is just to say The Avengers isn't one.

 

[jmc]

Did you even read what I ****ing wrote?

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I'd say The Avengers is the first in it's own series (first and foremost) where the protagonist is a team of heroes.

but also a sequel to individual characters' stories.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Did you even read what I ****ing wrote?

Yes. And it's utter BS.

The Avengers is a sequel. It follows the same characters, in the same universe, with the same plot points as previous films. ITS. A. SEQUEL. Just like T2, Aliens, The Road Warrior, Wrath of Khan, The Last Crusade, Superman 2, The Harry Potter films, The Pirates of the Caribbean films, The Hammer Dracula/Frankenstein/Mummy films and *GASP* The Dark Knight. Among a s--t tone more.

A sequel is STRONGER if it can work on it's own while continuing a story for crying out loud.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I'd say The Avengers is the first in it's own series (first and foremost) where the protagonist is a team of heroes.

but also a sequel to individual characters' stories.

Thank you.

 

[jmc]

Yes. And it's utter BS.

The Avengers is a sequel. It follows the same characters, in the same universe, with the same plot points as previous films. ITS. A. SEQUEL. Just like T2, Aliens, The Road Warrior, Wrath of Khan, The Last Crusade, Superman 2, The Harry Potter films, The Pirates of the Caribbean films, The Hammer Dracula/Frankenstein/Mummy films and *GASP* The Dark Knight. Among a s--t tone more.

A sequel is STRONGER if it can work on it's own while continuing a story for crying out loud.

How many James Bond 'sequels' have we had?

 

[GremlinZilla89]

How many James Bond 'sequels' have we had?

20 something. The series has referenced past films numerous times, suggesting the films happen in a sequential order such as Blofelds numerous appearances, JAWS showing up in two films, Bonds dead wife being referenced....The Bond films are sequels. Stop trolling. I know you're trolling now.