Tdk vs Avengers

[Human Torch]

This isn't really a fair competition. The Avengers isn't as good as any of the Dark Knight Trilogy. Nor Batman 89 for that matter.

 

[Thoix]

This isn't really a fair competition. The Avengers isn't as good as any of the Dark Knight Trilogy. Nor Batman 89 for that matter.

The Avengers is a good popcorn film, but not much more.

I agree. It would be more fair for the best of TDKT to go up against the best of the MCU, Iron Man.

 

[Son of Coul]

The Avengers is more tightly written and richer in character (especially arc-wise), making it way more satisfying for me personally. Both have great casts and direction, but the tone of Avengers is more up my alley and as good as TDK is, it commits the unfortunate movie sin of its protagonist possibly being the least interesting character in his own movie.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I agree. It would be more fair for the best of TDKT to go up against the best of the MCU, Iron Man.

I agree with you about this too. Although I would still pick the TDKT over it, Iron Man is the best MCU film.

 

[Victarion]

I agree with both of Kahran's points; TA is a good popcorn flick, but I don't rewatch it near as much as I do TDKT (or the Hellboy films; wanted to add this before I get hit with "Nolanite!").

I disagree with Son of Coul on TDK "committing the unfortunate movie sin.." Joker is entertaining to watch, but the film is still focused on Bruce. While there may have been more scenes of Joker and various supporting characters, it works with Bruce's character in the film. He is the ultimate schemer: scheming to get with Rachel, scheming to set Dent up as a legitimate hero in Gotham. Everything you see in Joker's actions and that of the supporting characters is a response to the progression of Bruce's character from angry child to angry child who wants to cling to one of the last figures from his childhood.

 

[ares834]

I enjoy both, but TDK is the best comic book film yet.

 

[flickchick85]

These are my two absolute favorite CBM's of all-time, and I gave them both the exact same score (9.5/10), each for entirely different merits.

Ultimately, I had to go with Avengers in this poll, simply because even though TDK's been out far longer, TA has gotten more re-watches from me since its release.

 

[NosfeRomas]

The Avengers is more tightly written and richer in character (especially arc-wise).

I can't even express with words how much i disagree with that. I sincerely believe you are wrong. There are no character arcs in the Avengers. The character arcs took place in their solo films (Thor went through an arc, Iron Man in IM1 and 2 pseudo arcs in 2 and 3, Cap stayed the same but the world around him changed and Hulk was just The Hulk) Nobody learned a lesson, nobody changed. Them being bitter and throwing words at each other is hardly character delevopment let alone a character arc.

Not to take anything away from the Avengers. I'm not saying that as a bad thing because the movie didn't need character arcs. We got hours of character development from their solo flicks. The Avengers was just teaming up to kick arse and thats why is super awesome and super effective.


In TDK you have 2 major character arcs of Bruce and Harvey and 2 medium ones of Gordon and Rachel. Bruce changed, Harvey changed, Gordon was forced to abandon his beliefs in order to bring justice in Gotham and Rachel made a ballsy choice picking Harvey, she actually did something and she ended up dead.

My 2 cents.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I love The Dark Knight, but Avengers takes it easily for me.

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are both great, but I put them around the same level as Spider-Man and Iron Man, which is below Avengers.

 

[terry78]

Like I said, Avengers to me wins because it feels like the book brought to life. No watering down or grounding anything. I know for some fans they prefer the latter, but hey.

 

[Human Torch]

Like I said, Avengers to me wins because it feels like the book brought to life. No watering down or grounding anything. I know for some fans they prefer the latter, but hey.

My feeling exactly.

 

[Son of Coul]

I can't even express with words how much i disagree with that. I sincerely believe you are wrong. There are no character arcs in the Avengers. The character arcs took place in their solo films (Thor went through an arc, Iron Man in IM1 and 2 pseudo arcs in 2 and 3, Cap stayed the same but the world around him changed and Hulk was just The Hulk) Nobody learned a lesson, nobody changed. Them being bitter and throwing words at each other is hardly character delevopment let alone a character arc.

Not to take anything away from the Avengers. I'm not saying that as a bad thing because the movie didn't need character arcs. We got hours of character development from their solo flicks. The Avengers was just teaming up to kick arse and thats why is super awesome and super effective.

Well the whole team learning to cast their differences aside and come together is an arc that's plain as day, and follows a pretty standard, but effectively played structure. The development isn't them bickering; it's what their saying and why they're saying it.

Everybody has a clear, understandable motivation in every conflict and if that's not character development, you can pretty much write off plenty of other movies like Twelve Angry Men that do the same.

Stark had a very clear arc that tied up a problem from his solo outings that he primarily "fought for himself" and never made the sacrifice play, as pointed out by Cap. By the end, Stark does this in a scene that intentionally mirrors the one from Cap's ending sacrifice in his solo film.

Banner had the second biggest arc, going from someone who's wrangled his anger to control & bottle it to someone who realizes the right time to embrace it and accept his condition as a "terrible privilege".

The rest are less complete, but there are traces there--Cap finding a place as a leader in modern times (still mucked up by the Helicarrier sequence if you ask me, my only real complaint), Thor accepting Loki as the corrupt dickweed he is, and BW & HE don't have arcs so much as personal moments that certainly develop them as being people in the face of all the insanity going on around them.

I really have a hard time understanding how so many people can write off one of the most tightly written superhero films as "popcorn fun" (as if that's a bad thing in the first place), when everything is laid out really clearly. It's not even subtle; it's just that the "Reason You Suck Speeches" are written sharper than we usually see in these movies. The well-constructed character beats are what make this "simple popcorn fun" so satisfying in the end. As Mr. Plinkett would say, "You might not have noticed it, but your brain did."

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I can't decide lol. I can't bring myself to vote for either.

I saw them both the same amount (6) of times in theaters. They both got me more interested in comics and comic book movies than I had ever previously been. They both got me extremely excited to see where their respective series' would end up.

The Dark Knight may in some ways be a better artistic expression. What Nolan and the rest created was amazing. I've never been on the edge of my seat in quite the same way. Never gotten more goosebumps from a single film.

But Whedon made The Avengers into a piece of art as well. Not a moment of its several hours of CGI and action sequences felt out of place, nor did it take me out of the film in a way CGI so often does. It was blended so well along with its blending of humor and emotion from damn near every character.

And was The Avengers not a greater cinematic endeavor? 5 movies, 5 years in the making culminating in one great finale that was bound to spur on limitless further sequels.

But wasn't The Dark Knight not a great cinematic endeavor in itself? Turning Batman into a real person and Joker into a really, truly terrifying adversary. They made comic book movies cool, and in many ways Oscar-worthy.

Each had an all star cast. Ledger, Downey Jr, Caine, Jackson, Freeman, Hiddleston, Oldman, Ruffalo. I say again, All. Star. Cast.

10/10 a piece.

I can't decide. Nay. I won't decide. I refuse

 

[Snow Queen]

The Dark Knight. Easy choice.

 

[DACrowe]

I always knew this day would come.



And the answer is most clearly TDK. It is not only the best of the two, but by far the best the genre has had to offer. It will be remembered as a true classic long after the archetypes and special effects of the other and the many, many others out there fade. Count on it.

 

[DACrowe]

The Avengers is more tightly written and richer in character (especially arc-wise), making it way more satisfying for me personally. Both have great casts and direction, but the tone of Avengers is more up my alley and as good as TDK is, it commits the unfortunate movie sin of its protagonist possibly being the least interesting character in his own movie.

Not to pick a fight on subjectivity, but really? It is more tightly woven in narrative? The Dark Knight is an (arguably) flawless game of constant ratcheting tension that is in a perpetual state of third act climax for nearly all of its 2.5 hour running time. It is precisely written and edited. The Avengers was top heavy on scenes that felt added on for exposition or character filler set-pieces (ex: Iron Man fixing a turbine for 20 minutes, Agent Hill in a random car chase).

And I really do not think any character in The Avengers is as richly drawn as the Joker, Harvey Dent, Batman or James Gordon. I just do not see it.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Not to pick a fight on subjectivity, but really? It is more tightly woven in narrative? The Dark Knight is an (arguably) flawless game of constant ratcheting tension that is in a perpetual state of third act climax for nearly all of its 2.5 hour running time. It is precisely written and edited. The Avengers was top heavy on scenes that felt added on for exposition or character filler set-pieces (ex: Iron Man fixing a turbine for 20 minutes, Agent Hill in a random car chase).

And I really do not think any character in The Avengers is as richly drawn as the Joker, Harvey Dent, Batman or James Gordon. I just do not see it.

You find "2.5 hour... perpetual state of third act climax" to be a winning factor? I'd argue that many see the majority of The Avengers as a perpetual state of climax as well. At least from the moment Hawkeye attacks the Hellicarrier. To which many would complain is an issue in The Avengers. That is, that there is no place to take a breath.

I respect The Avengers just as much as I respect The Dark Knight. And if The Avengers were winning this poll I imagine I'd feel inclined to defend TDK. But since its not, I have this to say:

The Avengers doesn't even risk focusing on any forced or unforced love story, which is a personal plus for me. Nat/Clint is far too ambiguous and Pepper is merely a fleeting characterization for Tony Stark. Whereas The Dark Knight feels obligated to have this Rachel Dawes love triangle in order to ground Bale's Wayne and eventually make him all the more lonely. Which is fine, unless you didn't pay to see a movie about a love story.

As far as richly drawn characters (of which TDK is most assuredly full of), I'd definitely (sort of agree) that Loki is one of the few who shines out of the pack in The Avengers. But I do appreciate those who consider "The Avengers" as a team to be a richly drawn character in itself. One with inner turmoil and one who, together, is ultimately triumphant over an insurmountable evil. And finally I'd give the descriptor of "richly drawn" to the spy of spies, Nick Fury. He is perfectly shady and despicably realistic as The Avengers' catalyst (especially after learning of Coulson's survival). But he's still very likable, as only Sammy J can be.

And to anyone who says no one in the film has a character arc: up until May 2012 I wonder if you realize Tony Stark never had a moment of self sacrifice the way Banner, Rogers and Thor had in their respective solo films. Stark finishes his very first arc in The Avengers. So watch it again if you missed that.

 

[jmc]

TDK. Better story, better direction, better cast performance, better score, cinematography, editing, more emotional investment, more depth, greater tension, and finally, better villain. On top of that the films influence is still being felt in movies 5 years after its release. Ultimately TDK is the better overall film, I think that's something most people can agree upon, but I can understand why some would prefer Avengers because it's a good film in it's own right, it's honestly the most pure superhero experience ever made on film, unashamed at what type of film it is - but at the end of the day it's very hollow underneath the surface. It's the type of movie you fast forward to get to the bits you enjoy the most. I tend not to give the film too hard a time because it's not trying to be something like TDK, it's just trying to have a good time and doesn't apologise for doing so. In a sense these are two different types of movies and really are nothing alike, one is trying to be more than a superhero film, the other is embracing being a superhero film.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

jmc says it very well. And despite his own preference does a great job describing why they are both the best of the best.


Personally I see it like this:
Best villain: Ledger > Hiddleston
Best hero: Downey Jr/Hemsworth/Ruffalo > Bale
Best plot: Joker's chaos > Loki's army
Best battles: Hulk vs Thor, Iron Man vs Thor, Chitauri vs Avengers > ... Batman vs Joker? Scarecrow? Two Face?
Best supporting cast: Alfred, Gordon, Fox, Dent > Pepper, Coulson, Hill, Fury
Best visuals: Avengers by a substantial margin (being 4 years newer)
Best writing: Nolans' epic emotion = Whedon's witty dialogue
Greatest potential: The Dark Knight Rises vs MCU Phase 2 and 3. we'll see who wins.

I know why pure comic fans choose The Avengers. I know why pure film buffs choose The Dark Knight. What I don't know, is which I prefer.

 

[jmc]

"His" .

Another thing I forgot to add is that there's more at stake in TDK then there is in Avengers. Avengers is more about the team working together as opposed to who the threat they face is, honestly it could have been Loki, Red Skull or any other character filling in the villain role and it wouldn't have mattered. Who are the Chitari? Who cares. Their role is to be the enemy. Like most other films where it's about the team having to work together, whether it be a sports movie, a heist film or one of those 'we're getting the band back together' type of films who the adversary is is never really an important part of the story and thus the stakes are never really going to be as high because you know where the journey ends - it ends with the team doing the job. TDK by contrast is all about who the adversary is and what he represents to not just the main character, or supporting cast, but the entire city in which the film take place in. You can't just replace the Joker with another villain because the Joker represents chaos and that is the backbone of the story in TDK, and a character who represents chaos means all bets are off the table. As such there's more at stake for Batman, Dent and the supporting cast because it asks a very important question of everyone including the audience - What would you do?

 

[Squaremaster316]

The Dark Knight, easily.

The Avengers has easily become one of the most overrated products in the history of any entertainment medium, mostly due to how over-exaggerated the aspect of how "Difficult" it was to pull off.

If you have the rights to the characters and a big enough budget, it's quite easy to pull off. It's no different that a ton of other ensemble films that have come and gone.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

TDK was like an episode of Law and Order with Batman thrown in. Heath Ledger's Joker is the only element that elevates it to a classic/iconic level.

The Avengers was a comic book come to life. Total geek bliss.

The Avengers wins for me.

 

[terry78]

And frankly I hope GotG follows Avengers' business model.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

And frankly I hope GotG follows Avengers' business model.

With Avengers being such a BO success, it's impossible GOTG won't be following it.

 

[Squaremaster316]

THE DARK KNIGHT > Any film any actor in the Avengers has ever been involved in.

Out of their collective filmography, only these two rival it: