Tdk vs Avengers

[Senator Pleasury]

that guy that hooks up with catwoman said that she divorced him and moved to ohio

Sure, but the interrogation must have happened that very night.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Sure, but the interrogation must have happened that very night.

oh yeah, missed that part of your post. i dunno about that but i would assume gordon just made her say that batman killed dent

 

[Squaremaster316]

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.

The concept of Batman was that of a MORTAL man who must acquire skills to combat crime and fight against the evil that took his parents and prevent others from experiencing what he did as a child. One of the most unique fact about Batman is that he does not possess superpowers and must compensate without them

There is no way in hell any mortal man could acquire the skills possessed by the comic version (extreme knowledge in virtually every science known to man, mastering "127" different styles of martial arts, and just being an overall extreme Gary Stu). You'd have to be Sylar from heroes or Duncan MacLeod with hundreds of years of history to accumulate those kind of skills.

Nolan's Batman is a less-than-perfect man in a heightened reality. Comic Batman is a ridiculously prefect demi-god who is able to casually dispose of super-powered beings on a daily basis.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The concept of Batman was that of a MORTAL man who must acquire skills to combat crime and fight against the evil that took his parents and prevent others from experiencing what he did as a child. One of the most unique fact about Batman is that he does not possess superpowers and must compensate without them

There is no way in hell any mortal man could acquire the skills possessed by the comic version (extreme knowledge in virtually every science known to man, mastering "127" different styles of martial arts, and just being an overall extreme Gary Stu). You'd have to be Sylar from heroes or Duncan MacLeod with hundreds of years of history to accumulate those kind of skills.

Nolan's Batman is a less-than-perfect man in a heightened reality. Comic Batman is a ridiculously prefect demi-god who is able to casually dispose of super-powered beings on a daily basis.

I disagree. If the comic's premise of batman was to make a genius human with no superpowers, that's what christian bale was and that's wat I thought he was too.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I want to say something on this topic. Firstly, I think there are 3 true "masterpieces" within the CBM genre: Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, and The Avengers. All 3 films are entirely different, but I think all are amazing pieces of art.

People keep labeling Avengers as a "popcorn" film in here, and this is a term I truly hate. The Dark Knight is a movie about a man in a batsuit fighting a clown. Yes, it has much deeper themes than that and it is a genius piece of work, but it is STILL a popcorn film. However, it tries to be a more artsy popcorn film. This is perfectly fine, but the Avengers way isn't somehow a lesser art form. Do I hear people complaining that Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark are just "fun popcorn" movies? People would say BLASPHEMY to hearing that, but guess what, THEY ARE! Raiders isn't a deep movie about the human condition. It is a fun movie about a guy on an adventure to stop Nazis from recovering an ancient artifact. It doesn't try to make you feel feelings you didn't know you had, but it is STILL widely regarded as one of the best films ever. Avengers is made with the same intent a film like Raiders of the Lost Ark was: be very good, entertaining fun. There is nothing wrong with that, and not attempting to convey a deeper message as hard as The Dark Knight does doesn't make Avengers a lesser piece of art.

Simply, I feel they're just 2 different types of action films, and they're masterpieces in their own right. I grew up an Avengers fan more so than a Batman one (though I still love Batman), so my natural preference it towards Avengers. But, that doesn't mean I look down upon The Dark Knight either. Both films are brilliant. I have enough love in my heart for them both.

 

[flickchick85]

^^^^I agree with every word of that (minus the Spidey 2 part. Great movie though.). I love both films so much. I kinda hate that they're always pitted against each other even though I understand why.

 

[jmc]

Ok, so I re-watched Avengers for the first time since 2012 the other day. Now let me preface this by saying this film is soooooooo much fun, and in actual fact I can't not like this movie. That said, it really only comes together in the last 50 mins, nothing of much interest happens in the build up, and in fact some of what happens is just down right silly and flat out boring. The thing with Avengers is I can more or less fast forward to the good parts of the film and not lose anything with the experience. that is the difference between that film and TDK. But that inner nerd in me also doesn't mind and through it all is actually screaming 'Get 'em Cap, smash 'em Hulk!' etc, basically just letting that inner 8 year old in me loose. I honestly can't take anyone seriously who calls it a masterpiece because at its core there's nothing all that amazing about the film, it's not deep, it's not thought provoking, the story hasn't got much going for it, the characters are fine but nothing special, it's just a well executed spectacle and is without doubt one of the most enjoyable films ever. Those who hate the term 'popcorn film' really need to get over that label, because the film epitomises exactly what a popcorn film should be - pure fun.

 

[OcStat]

What's amazing about it is the work that went into it, the 6 year journey from idea to screen, all the seeds planted that eventually turned into the Avengers. It is amazing. And it is fun. And it is a great movie. Doesn't need to be any more than that.

 

[Rike]

The Dark Knight, easily.

 

[BLobo]

People keep labeling Avengers as a "popcorn" film in here, and this is a term I truly hate. The Dark Knight is a movie about a man in a batsuit fighting a clown. Yes, it has much deeper themes than that and it is a genius piece of work, but it is STILL a popcorn film.

People label The Avengers as a popcorn film because many feel that it´s nothing more than a "BOOM BOOM, BANG, BANG" movie.

The story didn´t have any interest for me. It didn´t kept me guessing or curious about what was coming next, wich is generally very important to me. First story, then explosions! It felt very generic and empty.

I did enjoy the action and the visual effects, even though after a while it got a little boring and superficial. But that´s what, to me, a Popcorn flick is. A Popcorn flick is a superficial movie. Something that looks good, sounds good, but doesn´t have much substance. Something that i might have a good time watching, but will not become crazy about it.

I don´t think there is an "official" definition of what a popcorn flick is, so you can just create your own one.

Ultimately, to me a popcorn flick is a movie that doesn´t have any impact on me. It can help me to kill some time, but that´s about it.

The Dark Knight is a well made thriller. Music, story, action, editing, acting. Everything is very well made, and i can´t possibly call "popcorn flick" to a movie with so much quality, no matter what the characters are wearing. That just doesn´t fit in my definition of popcorn flick.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

A popcorn flick is not a downgrade.

But I don't think Avengers is that great of a popcorn flick personally.

Although I loved it on first watch, after repeat viewings, it becomes quite a chore to get through.

Pacific Rim, for example, is a popcorn film that I really enjoy, more than The Avengers (mostly because I enjoy GDT's ridiculous tone over Whedon's nauseating attempts at witty dialogue.)

 

[Victarion]

Yes, that's why Pacific Rim worked more for me as a great popcorn flick. I really liked Mako Mori's backstory and all, too. But I believe that the only vapid people are those who consider other vapid for liking or not liking a particular comic film genre.

 

[weezerspider]

I want to say something on this topic. Firstly, I think there are 3 true "masterpieces" within the CBM genre: Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, and The Avengers. All 3 films are entirely different, but I think all are amazing pieces of art.

People keep labeling Avengers as a "popcorn" film in here, and this is a term I truly hate. The Dark Knight is a movie about a man in a batsuit fighting a clown. Yes, it has much deeper themes than that and it is a genius piece of work, but it is STILL a popcorn film. However, it tries to be a more artsy popcorn film. This is perfectly fine, but the Avengers way isn't somehow a lesser art form. Do I hear people complaining that Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark are just "fun popcorn" movies? People would say BLASPHEMY to hearing that, but guess what, THEY ARE! Raiders isn't a deep movie about the human condition. It is a fun movie about a guy on an adventure to stop Nazis from recovering an ancient artifact. It doesn't try to make you feel feelings you didn't know you had, but it is STILL widely regarded as one of the best films ever. Avengers is made with the same intent a film like Raiders of the Lost Ark was: be very good, entertaining fun. There is nothing wrong with that, and not attempting to convey a deeper message as hard as The Dark Knight does doesn't make Avengers a lesser piece of art.

Simply, I feel they're just 2 different types of action films, and they're masterpieces in their own right. I grew up an Avengers fan more so than a Batman one (though I still love Batman), so my natural preference it towards Avengers. But, that doesn't mean I look down upon The Dark Knight either. Both films are brilliant. I have enough love in my heart for them both.

Raiders and Star Was took B-level material and raised it to significance...which actually is more like what Nolan did with Batman and the superhero genre than anything The Avengers did. Raiders and Star Wars are both beautifully shot, both took old school editing styles and adapted them from a serialized style to a more cinematic style and were both huge game changers in Special Effects. One, Star Wars, heavily relied on it and brought it to the forefront of film for really the first time. The other, Raiders, used it extensively when needed to great success for it's time (the climax), but also relied on real stunt work and has some of the greatest stunt work captured on film. Star Wars and Raiders aren't only extremely entertaining films without many flaws, they are historically significant and extremely well-mad and ground breaking from a technical film making stand point. The Avengers is fine technically, but it has nothing extraordinary from a film making standpoint. It's cinematography is vanilla, its SE are good, but nothing special from other blockbusters and it's editing is rather dull. It's extremely entertaining and lacks many flaws, but it's not a technically extraordinary film like Raiders or Star Wars. It's technically sound and that's fine. There is more to artistic film making than dark deep stories or whatever. Raiders, Star Wars, Jurassic Park...those films have entertainment based plots, but technically extraordinary film making, mostly due to the director. The Avengers has an entertainment based plot and is technically sound. Big difference.

 

[BatLobster]

Have to side with weezerspider on that one. As a movie, the only thing revolutionary Avengers did was put multiple superheroes from pre-existing movies together. Which is very impressive from a marketing/corporate strategy standpoint, but it's not the first film to deal with superhero teams (X-Men, Fantastic Four, TMNT, The Incredibles, etc.). And I would agree, it's technically sound but it doesn't feel as classically cinematic, while pushing technical boundaries like the aforementioned movies do. TDK does, and that's the big difference. The IMAX photography alone is something that had never been attempted before and has had a big influence on other directors making large scale films. The Avengers to me feels more like a really cool, high budget episode of a TV show than it does a movie.

I've been pretty harsh on The Avengers since it came out, mostly because I went in with the baggage of all the hype I was hearing and I just didn't get it at all. Truth be told, it's perfectly fine and does exactly what it sets out to do. I don't think it's a bad movie by any stretch. But personally it's not even in my top 10 superhero movies. Possibly not even the top 20. I realize I'm probably in a pretty extreme minority on that however.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Have to side with weezerspider on that one. As a movie, the only thing revolutionary Avengers did was put multiple superheroes from pre-existing movies together. Which is very impressive from a marketing/corporate strategy standpoint, but it's not the first film to deal with superhero teams (X-Men, Fantastic Four, TMNT, The Incredibles, etc.). And I would agree, it's technically sound but it doesn't feel as classically cinematic, while pushing technical boundaries like the aforementioned movies do. TDK does, and that's the big difference. The IMAX photography alone is something that had never been attempted before and has had a big influence on other directors making large scale films. The Avengers to me feels more like a really cool, high budget episode of a TV show than it does a movie.

I've been pretty harsh on The Avengers since it came out, mostly because I went in with the baggage of all the hype I was hearing and I just didn't get it at all. Truth be told, it's perfectly fine and does exactly what it sets out to do. I don't think it's a bad movie by any stretch. But personally it's not even in my top 10 superhero movies. Possibly not even the top 20. I realize I'm probably in a pretty extreme minority on that however.

I agree. Avengers was all kinds of fun, and it took some serious risks by having all of them together. But it didn't break any ground in tone or storytelling as some others have done.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

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.

 

[BLobo]

Btw, why is this thread TDK vs Avengers instead of TDKR, since they both came out in the same here?

I think TDKR has the same advantages over Avengers than TDK: Better story, better acting, better cinematography, better music.

 

[jmc]

Have to side with weezerspider on that one. As a movie, the only thing revolutionary Avengers did was put multiple superheroes from pre-existing movies together. Which is very impressive from a marketing/corporate strategy standpoint, but it's not the first film to deal with superhero teams (X-Men, Fantastic Four, TMNT, The Incredibles, etc.). And I would agree, it's technically sound but it doesn't feel as classically cinematic, while pushing technical boundaries like the aforementioned movies do. TDK does, and that's the big difference. The IMAX photography alone is something that had never been attempted before and has had a big influence on other directors making large scale films. The Avengers to me feels more like a really cool, high budget episode of a TV show than it does a movie.

I've been pretty harsh on The Avengers since it came out, mostly because I went in with the baggage of all the hype I was hearing and I just didn't get it at all. Truth be told, it's perfectly fine and does exactly what it sets out to do. I don't think it's a bad movie by any stretch. But personally it's not even in my top 10 superhero movies. Possibly not even the top 20. I realize I'm probably in a pretty extreme minority on that however.

I think the novelty factor was a huge part as to why Avengers was so great. Normally I would probably point out the problems I have with the film a lot more because there really isn't much going for it, but I just can't do it because that inner child in my just screams 'all these superheroes together is freaking awesome!', so I give it a pass. Avengers 2 is going to be interesting for me, frankly Whedon has to deliver more than what he did in the first film.

 

[Batmannerism]

Avengers, tremendous fun, action sequences well executed. Nice timing on a few funny lines and of course Hulk rag-doll smashes Loki. I loved the Thor v Iron Man pissing contest, but otherwise the characters go nowhere, and the build-up is, as previously mentioned, not terribly exciting. All in all a good movie, still not sure why it rates so highly - there's zero character development. Pretty decent performances, and a solid villain (Loki, that is, the Chitauri, could take or leave them). Then again, I don't know why Toy Story got 100% on RT, maybe the novelty factor is not to be underestimated.

So good movie, yes, great movie, maybe ?

TDK. Fun, but also dark, scary, exhilerating. I remember reading the synopsis on RT and wondering how they'd fit it all in, but it was the fastest 2+ hours of my life. Well paced (unlike TDKR) with a killer opening.
And character development, there's tons.
Bruce (who as another poster pointed out, is not the perfect Batman of the comics) and Harvey who go on a parallel journey which leads to destruction. Kind of the "road to hell is paved with good intentions" vibe.

Now that he's become the symbol Gotham deserves, Bruce is finding out how far he'll have to go to achieve his goal of saving Gotham from organized crime, and Harvey is going down a parallel path.
Yeah, the foreshadowing's not very subtle, but it works.
Action sequences, nice, not flashy, but gritty - sure Batman's not a spinning kick throwing kung-fu demon, but he gets the job done.

Performances, well Bale's a solid Batman, Eckhart is a very likeable Dent, Freeman and Caine are magic in supporting roles, and it goes without saying that Ledger's Joker is electrifying.

I saw this film in IMAX, and wow, was it an experience.

So for me, there's no comparison, TDK all the way.

Avengers is great fun, but it's not the tale of heroism, and sacrifice that TDK is.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

The Dark Knight = Natalie Portman

The Avengers = Jennifer Lawrence

 

[NosfeRomas]

The Dark Knight = Natalie Portman

The Avengers = Jennifer Lawrence

So wrong !

The Dark Knight = Rita Heyworth

The Avengers = Merylin Monroe

 

[Randy Savage]

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.

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.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Ok, so I re-watched Avengers for the first time since 2012 the other day. Now let me preface this by saying this film is soooooooo much fun, and in actual fact I can't not like this movie. That said, it really only comes together in the last 50 mins, nothing of much interest happens in the build up, and in fact some of what happens is just down right silly and flat out boring.

Agreed.

People label The Avengers as a popcorn film because many feel that it´s nothing more than a "BOOM BOOM, BANG, BANG" movie.

The story didn´t have any interest for me. It didn´t kept me guessing or curious about what was coming next, wich is generally very important to me. First story, then explosions! It felt very generic and empty.

I did enjoy the action and the visual effects, even though after a while it got a little boring and superficial. But that´s what, to me, a Popcorn flick is. A Popcorn flick is a superficial movie. Something that looks good, sounds good, but doesn´t have much substance. Something that i might have a good time watching, but will not become crazy about it.

I don´t think there is an "official" definition of what a popcorn flick is, so you can just create your own one.

Ultimately, to me a popcorn flick is a movie that doesn´t have any impact on me. It can help me to kill some time, but that´s about it.

The Dark Knight is a well made thriller. Music, story, action, editing, acting. Everything is very well made, and i can´t possibly call "popcorn flick" to a movie with so much quality, no matter what the characters are wearing. That just doesn´t fit in my definition of popcorn flick.

I agree with that definition

I've been pretty harsh on The Avengers since it came out, mostly because I went in with the baggage of all the hype I was hearing and I just didn't get it at all. Truth be told, it's perfectly fine and does exactly what it sets out to do. I don't think it's a bad movie by any stretch. But personally it's not even in my top 10 superhero movies. Possibly not even the top 20. I realize I'm probably in a pretty extreme minority on that however.

I'm in that minority, I saw it as a fun movie full of spectacle but one that I felt no connection to. As JMC says...

I think the novelty factor was a huge part as to why Avengers was so great.

Out aside the novelty of them coming together on-screen for the first time and there's little substance to it. No theme, barely a story, no motivation for the characters doing what they do and loads of filler to get to the final act where the movie finally comes together.

 

[Randy Savage]

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.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

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.

True, but none of that is in about the actual content of the actual movie.

The Dark Knight is judged solely on the merits of the singular movie not the movie and all the movies that led into it. Avengers should be also.