Tdk vs Avengers

[Doc Ock]

I think Iron Man, The Dark Knight, and The Avengers each had an effect in different ways. 2008 was quite a year.

 

[BLobo]

X-Men, Spider-Man and TDK are the three titles that had the biggest impact on the SH genre, in terms of redefining it, in the last 15 years or so.

The biggest game changers, in order:

Superman
Batman
X-Men
Spider-Man
TDK Trilogy

I say TDK trilogy because it actually started with Batman Begins. Even though it didn´t have the same impact as TDK, Batman Begins is the first SH to go in a totally different direction from everything we had seen until that point. It felt like an art house movie with a SH in it and it showed that a SH movie can be taken as something more than a popcorn flick. It can be deep and it can have meaning and real artistic quality.

Anything prior Batman Begins just feels like kids stuff, to be honest. And i don´t say this as a bad thing. But Batman Begins simply does a great job covering all the CB silliness with a serious theme, great character development and very good acting.

 

[Randy Savage]

I really do enjoy the Dark Knight, but I think I kind of rebel against it because it gets so much attention. That's just a personality trait of mine. Any time a movie has a lot of people saying it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, I go the other direction. It's hard for me to watch it objectively at that point.

I'm not saying this is a good or bad trait of mine, it's just something I notice about myself. I still haven't seen Avatar however many years later.

All that said, Avengers is much more fun for me. I don't have a lot of time to go out and see movies, so when I go I want to have a good time.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

The Avengers, easily.

The Avengers, while a safer film narrative wise is more tightly written and focused than TDK, which to me has always had an unwieldy and overdone third act that feels rushed. Not to mention the plot literally comes crashing down once you start to think about the logistics of it. But try and point that out to people and they essentially stick their fingers in the ears and go "LALALALLALA I CANT HEAR YOU!!!!" It's a testament to how well paced the first two acts are in that film because it keeps going at a great clip you don't stop to think about it all that much. Then the last act comes along and just feels like a rush job. Both BB and TDKR have better pacing and build up to their last act imo.

The Avengers juggles multiple arcs and characters, the action is vibrant, the humor is spot on and it is one of the few comic book movies to really feel like it came off the page. I think people are too quick to write off the Avengers as just "silly fun" just as much as they are quick to say TDK is some masterstroke in writing with zero to little flaws.

Sure, TDK may have broken more barriers, innovation does always equal "the best".

There is a lot of BS in this thread. TDK fans hinting that you may not have good taste in film if you prefer a "simpler" film like The Avengers and tote TDK as some grand masterpiece on all fronts while some Avengers fans calling TDK fans pretentious jerks.

Just like the movie you like. Like both. Hate both. Like one over the other. It doesn't matter. I like both films, I just feel as a film itself, that TDK isn't nearly as well structured and executed as many of it's fans say it is.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

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.

It's because the film is bright. Simple as that. If a movie isn't obsessed with mood and style and dark it's "a cheap made for TV look."

By the logic these people use, Spider-Man 1, 2, Iron Man etc are all TV quality as well.

 

[BLobo]

It's because the film is bright. Simple as that. If a movie isn't obsessed with mood and style and dark it's "a cheap made for TV look."

By the logic these people use, Spider-Man 1, 2, Iron Man etc are all TV quality as well.

That´s not my logic. That your personal and wrong idea of what people´s logic is.

It all comes down to what type of movie you enjoy to watch. It´s as simple as that. You find a movie good when it gives you what you´re looking for.

Personally, i like to feel intrigued by a story. I like being on the edge and not knowing what´s gonna happen next. I like to have my attention completly grabbed by all the events of the story. I like to watch masterful performances and feel that i´m watching something that i haven´t already watched 100 times before. I like to feel the movies has substance. That it´s more than just fireworks and "pretty things" happening.

The Avengers didn´t offer me that, that´s why i prefer TDK. Now let´s pretend that what i really enjoy in movies is action, special effects simple plots. Then i would probably prefer The Avengers over TDK. It´s all about what you´re looking for.

And to me, Spider-Man 1, 2 and Iron Man are in the exact same category as The Avengers. Spider-Man 1 and 2 are a little better storywise. Iron Man´s only appeal for me is RDJ´s performance. Other than that, i fail to see what this movie has to offer.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

That´s not my logic. That your personal and wrong idea of what people´s logic is.

It all comes down to what type of movie you enjoy to watch. It´s as simple as that. You find a movie good when it gives you what you´re looking for.

Personally, i like to feel intrigued by a story. I like being on the edge and not knowing what´s gonna happen next. I like to have my attention completly grabbed by all the events of the story. I like to watch masterful performances and feel that i´m watching something that i haven´t already watched 100 times before. I like to feel the movies has substance. That it´s more than just fireworks and "pretty things" happening.

The Avengers didn´t offer me that, that´s why i prefer TDK. Now let´s pretend that what i really enjoy in movies is action, special effects simple plots. Then i would probably prefer The Avengers over TDK. It´s all about what you´re looking for.

And to me, Spider-Man 1, 2 and Iron Man are in the exact same category as The Avengers. Spider-Man 1 and 2 are a little better storywise. Iron Man´s only appeal for me is RDJ´s performance. Other than that, i fail to see what this movie has to offer.

Oh boy, here it is, the typical "Avengers was a more simple story so therefore it's a weaker film for dumber people" argument. You seem to forget TDK is essentially 2.5 hours of cliffhanger/pay-off/cliffhanger-pay-off with arguably as much action as The Avengers. TDK is far more ruthlessly paced than The Avengers.

 

[BLobo]

Oh boy, here it is, the typical "Avengers was a more simple story so therefore it's a weaker film for dumber people"

That´s your own words, boy. Nobody in this thread is saying that. You just can´t deal with the fact that most people think TDK is a superior movie in every aspect, so you make up stupid reasons to justify that preference.

You seem to forget TDK is essentially 2.5 hours of cliffhanger/pay-off/cliffhanger-pay-off with arguably as much action as The Avengers. TDK is far more ruthlessly paced than The Avengers.

TDK and The Avengers have almost the same runtime.

 

[Randy Savage]

The Avengers, easily.

The Avengers, while a safer film narrative wise is more tightly written and focused than TDK, which to me has always had an unwieldy and overdone third act that feels rushed. Not to mention the plot literally comes crashing down once you start to think about the logistics of it. But try and point that out to people and they essentially stick their fingers in the ears and go "LALALALLALA I CANT HEAR YOU!!!!" It's a testament to how well paced the first two acts are in that film because it keeps going at a great clip you don't stop to think about it all that much. Then the last act comes along and just feels like a rush job. Both BB and TDKR have better pacing and build up to their last act imo.

The Avengers juggles multiple arcs and characters, the action is vibrant, the humor is spot on and it is one of the few comic book movies to really feel like it came off the page. I think people are too quick to write off the Avengers as just "silly fun" just as much as they are quick to say TDK is some masterstroke in writing with zero to little flaws.

Sure, TDK may have broken more barriers, innovation does always equal "the best".

There is a lot of BS in this thread. TDK fans hinting that you may not have good taste in film if you prefer a "simpler" film like The Avengers and tote TDK as some grand masterpiece on all fronts while some Avengers fans calling TDK fans pretentious jerks.

Just like the movie you like. Like both. Hate both. Like one over the other. It doesn't matter. I like both films, I just feel as a film itself, that TDK isn't nearly as well structured and executed as many of it's fans say it is.

I think you framed that very well.

For me, the Nolan movies were kind of flashy and new at first. Now that he's done a few, his style is very evident and it's become boring to me personally. Others like it. That's fine. I just wish Batman would cheer up. That's why I liked Dark Knight Rises better, because he actually does cheer up and get on with his life. Stop being a loser in tights who punches mob guys and go marry a hot lady.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

That´s your own words, boy. Nobody in this thread is saying that. You just can´t deal with the fact that most people think TDK is a superior movie in every aspect, so you make up stupid reasons to justify that preference.



TDK and The Avengers have almost the same runtime.

Not at all. I fully accept TDK is more widely received, I even said I enjoy both films. but nobody can deny there is a certain air of superiority some fans exude on these boards and the internet as a whole. I think some TDK fans over simplify Avengers and some Avengers fans generalize TDK fans a little too much and overall I think vocal Nolan/TDK fans tend to cheapen The Avengers in petty ways, like citing it's cinematography as TV quality, which borders on being flat out false and not opinion. It's not as concerned with mood so much as space. The Avengers feels like a big, wide open world and it's photography emphasizes this. It's color pallet is bright and vibrant, making the real world seems just slightly more fantastical. It's no exercise in style, but TV quality? No, people. Just no.

 

[BatLobster]

You know what, I'll admit it...I took a jab at TA's cinematography and said it felt like TV. I also hadn't watched the film in a while when I said that, that's just the impression it left on me.

I watched it on Netflix (well some of it) the other night, and there is some solid cinematography there. Some of the low angle shots that do bother me though and take me out of it. But it's a bit more cinematic than I remembered.

That said, I still think love the cinematography of TDK (and BB and TDKR) a lot more, and I find it to contain more iconic images despite the fact that it's not trying to be iconic in a "splash page" sort of way that fans tend to crave. And the IMAX alone looks simply stunning, taking the fact that it's revolutionary off the table. It's the absolute highest resolution format in the world, it's unparalleled and it shows in those sequences. That's just a fact.

But GremlinZilla is right, there's no need to talk down to people from either side. I've said many times that I respect the opinions of people who loved Avengers, it just simply isn't my cup of tea. There are reasons that I do find TDK to be the better film, but at the end of the day these are such wildly different movies, it's almost like comparing TDK to The Incredibles or something.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

The Avengers juggles multiple arcs and characters, the action is vibrant, the humor is spot on and it is one of the few comic book movies to really feel like it came off the page. I think people are too quick to write off the Avengers as just "silly fun" just as much as they are quick to say TDK is some masterstroke in writing with zero to little flaws.

Avengers juggled with the usual amounts of plots and arcs. None of the main superheroes had their respective arc developed a lot, they were all just about the Tesseract and how to get it back. Only Thor got to get something more personal with Loki (as he's the villain), but nothing new since the first Thor movie. Jane is mentioned, but even when Thor was supposed to be unable to come back to earth - so much so that he was actually sad because he couldn't see Jane again - all of a sudden he can and, yes... he does not visit Jane, as this is not his sequel and his arc cannot progress that much without interfering with the main story. Tony Stark was the same, same personality, same girlfriend, and nothing new happened to him as a character. Bruce Banner was a mystery; apparently he was in control of the Hulk, but still not much. Ruffalo's Banner was very different from Norton's but it's mentioned that Hulk was in New York so it's supposed to be the same incarnation. Captain America had his flashback at the beginning, but it's clear his "adaptation period" to the modern times got either skipped or saved for the sequel (same as the other superheroes' arcs).

Avengers was about a specific adventure for all the important characters. Their personal arcs were in a halt while they solved this specific problem. I'm not saying that was bad, but it wasn't like the movie juggled all that. It just focused on one story.

The moments in which to me the story became truly interesting (beyond wondering if Loki could destroy earth and such), was those moments where the main characters interacted seriously. Like Tony Stark and Bruce Banner. That was good. Of course Downey Jr and Ruffalo are great actors and they knew his characters thoroughly, but their little conversation was a moment of good writing and acting.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Avengers juggled with the usual amounts of plots and arcs. None of the main superheroes had their respective arc developed a lot, they were all just about the Tesseract and how to get it back. Only Thor got to get something more personal with Loki (as he's the villain), but nothing new since the first Thor movie. Jane is mentioned, but even when Thor was supposed to be unable to come back to earth - so much so that he was actually sad because he couldn't see Jane again - all of a sudden he can and, yes... he does not visit Jane, as this is not his sequel and his arc cannot progress that much without interfering with the main story. Tony Stark was the same, same personality, same girlfriend, and nothing new happened to him as a character. Bruce Banner was a mystery; apparently he was in control of the Hulk, but still not much. Ruffalo's Banner was very different from Norton's but it's mentioned that Hulk was in New York so it's supposed to be the same incarnation. Captain America had his flashback at the beginning, but it's clear his "adaptation period" to the modern times got either skipped or saved for the sequel (same as the other superheroes' arcs).

Avengers was about a specific adventure for all the important characters. Their personal arcs were in a halt while they solved this specific problem. I'm not saying that was bad, but it wasn't like the movie juggled all that. It just focused on one story.

The moments in which to me the story became truly interesting (beyond wondering if Loki could destroy earth and such), was those moments where the main characters interacted seriously. Like Tony Stark and Bruce Banner. That was good. Of course Downey Jr and Ruffalo are great actors and they knew his characters thoroughly, but their little conversation was a moment of good writing and acting.

They all had their own movie centered arc that also bled from their intro movies. Tony's arc directly tied into the first two films...Caps was mostly in- movie oriented, Thor's was directly tied to the first with Loki and Bruce's is probably the most obvious outside of Tony's as it directly references TIH. Black Widow even gets some nuance to chew on.

And are people really still confused about Bruces control over the Hulk? I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but it's very obvious how it works. Loki's spear has the power to take over/influence peoples minds. That is why everybody decided to jump down each others throats in the helicarrier....the spear was influencing them as they were all in the same closed space as it...thus allowing them to be weak and unfocused as Hawkeye attacked. It's incredibly obvious and Whedon even gives us a clever little shot of the camera moving over the spear and turning upside down, symbolizing these characters are not were they need to be, and off balance. That is why Bruce Hulked out, not because he was never in control/had limited control, but because said control was compromised by forces he wasn't aware of.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

They all had their own movie centered arc that also bled into their intro movies. Tony's arc directly tied into the first two films...Caps was mostly in- movie oriented, Thor's was directly tied to the first with Loki and Bruce's is probably the most obvious outside of Tony's as it directly references TIH. Black Widow even gets some nuance to chew on.

I know everything happened in the same universe and that's addressed. My point is that nobody got too much further development. Avengers is, much to its own benefit, a story about a very specific situation.

And are people really still confused about Bruces control over the Hulk? I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but it's very obvious how it works. Loki's spear has the power to take over/influence peoples minds. That is why everybody decided to jump down each others throats in the helicarrier....the spear was influencing them as they were all in the same closed space as it...thus allowing them to be weak and unfocused as Hawkeye attacked. It's incredibly obvious and Whedon even gives us a clever little shot of the camera moving over the spear and turning upside down, symbolizing these characters are not were they need to be, and off balance. That is why Bruce Hulked out, not because he was never in control/had limited control, but because said control was compromised by forces he wasn't aware of.

It's not clearly explained. I mean, it's not clearly explained if he controls the Hulk even when the movie begins. Banner acts like he hated Hulk with his heart... which he should... but what's the difference if he can control it (an aspect of Hulk that's against everything the concept of the character is, IMO)? So it's not clear that he controls the Hulk when the story begins.

The movie states that he has to touch the chest of the one he's putting under his control. With Tony he fails as he has a mechanical chest. But with Banner it's just enough that he's around the cane.

But yes, I remember the scene you describe and I must say it'd have been better if the superheroes were actually arguing with each other and not just under Loki's spell.

 

[OcStat]

I very much disagree that nothing happened to Tony Stark in Avengers. His character had the most growth out of the entire team, in my opinion. The first true growth since he ate shrapnel in IM1.

X-Men, Spider-Man and TDK are the three titles that had the biggest impact on the SH genre, in terms of redefining it, in the last 15 years or so.

The biggest game changers, in order:

Superman
Batman
X-Men
Spider-Man
TDK Trilogy

I say TDK trilogy because it actually started with Batman Begins. Even though it didn´t have the same impact as TDK, Batman Begins is the first SH to go in a totally different direction from everything we had seen until that point. It felt like an art house movie with a SH in it and it showed that a SH movie can be taken as something more than a popcorn flick. It can be deep and it can have meaning and real artistic quality.

Anything prior Batman Begins just feels like kids stuff, to be honest. And i don´t say this as a bad thing. But Batman Begins simply does a great job covering all the CB silliness with a serious theme, great character development and very good acting.

You can say Batman '89 is dated, but you do realize it did all those things you just listed, first... right?

 

[BLobo]

You can say Batman '89 is dated, but you do realize it did all those things you just listed, first... right?

I don´t think it did. To me it felt as superficial as most of the other SH movies. Still a popcorn flick in my eyes. But it is one of my favourite movies ever. I just can´t say it did the same stuff that TDK trilogy did. It might have attempted it...but that´s just it.

 

[weezerspider]

They all had their own movie centered arc that also bled into their intro movies. Tony's arc directly tied into the first two films...Caps was mostly in- movie oriented, Thor's was directly tied to the first with Loki and Bruce's is probably the most obvious outside of Tony's as it directly references TIH. Black Widow even gets some nuance to chew on.

And are people really still confused about Bruces control over the Hulk? I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but it's very obvious how it works. Loki's spear has the power to take over/influence peoples minds. That is why everybody decided to jump down each others throats in the helicarrier....the spear was influencing them as they were all in the same closed space as it...thus allowing them to be weak and unfocused as Hawkeye attacked. It's incredibly obvious and Whedon even gives us a clever little shot of the camera moving over the spear and turning upside down, symbolizing these characters are not were they need to be, and off balance. That is why Bruce Hulked out, not because he was never in control/had limited control, but because said control was compromised by forces he wasn't aware of.

A film should be judged on it's own, not previous or future installments.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I very much disagree that nothing happened to Tony Stark in Avengers. His character had the most growth out of the entire team, in my opinion. The first true growth since he ate shrapnel in IM1.

What was it exactly?

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

You know what, I'll admit it...I took a jab at TA's cinematography and said it felt like TV. I also hadn't watched the film in a while when I said that, that's just the impression it left on me.

I get the same vibes.

 

[OcStat]

I don´t think it did. To me it felt as superficial as most of the other SH movies. Still a popcorn flick in my eyes. But it is one of my favourite movies ever. I just can´t say it did the same stuff that TDK trilogy did. It might have attempted it...but that´s just it.

I was 2 when the movie came out, obviously didn't see it in the theatres, and wasn't around for the hype and wait before the movie was released; but even I know it pushed boundries and had artistic merit when it was released.

Just like in, say, another 20 years some filmmaker whom we can't even imagine now will take his crack at the Batman mythos and reinvent the whole thing for an era yet-to-come. And TDK will just be old. Yet it won't take away from what the movie achieved when it was released. I actually got to see Batman '89 on the big screen recently, and think I prefer it to Batman Begins. That isn't to say I don't like[/] BB, if you follow me.

What was it exactly?

Coming to terms that he isn't the center of the universe and making sacrifices for others beside himself. Besides learning to operate as one part of a larger team. If you need it laid out for you, I have to wonder if you're just trying to bait me into some forthcoming tirade.

 

[jmc]

Oh boy, here it is, the typical "Avengers was a more simple story so therefore it's a weaker film for dumber people" argument. You seem to forget TDK is essentially 2.5 hours of cliffhanger/pay-off/cliffhanger-pay-off with arguably as much action as The Avengers. TDK is far more ruthlessly paced than The Avengers.

It's a simple story that is well executed, there's nothing wrong with that. But if you're going to debate which one has the greater substance then TDK is the winner hands down. There isn't much underneath the hood of Avengers, it's a fun ride, but that's really all it is and frankly that's really all it could have been. Ultimately what Whedon and Marvel did was the right move, I was of the firm belief that Avengers should have been centred around Cap because of where First Avenger left off, however in retrospect they made the right call in essentially making Avengers it's own stand alone movie because it eliminated the need for people to have seen every solo film, regardless of how the Cap movie left off. The MCU doesn't genuinely begin until Avengers IMO

 

[Elevator Man]

What was it exactly?

Remember when Loki's spear was controlling them and Steve was telling Tony how he wouldn't "make the sacrifice play of laying down on a wire so the other guy could crawl over him". Well by the climax of the movie Tony proves Steve wrong and makes the "sacrifice play" by stopping the nuke from demolishing everyone in NYC and nearly killing himself taking it in orbit and to the aliens.

Edit:Well OcStat already explained it and better than I could I might add.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

A film should be judged on it's own, not previous or future installments.

I don't get how you got that from my post.

Edit. My bad. I mistyped that. I meant to say They all had arcs central to the Avengers AND that bled from their solo films.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I know everything happened in the same universe and that's addressed. My point is that nobody got too much further development. Avengers is, much to its own benefit, a story about a very specific situation.



It's not clearly explained. I mean, it's not clearly explained if he controls the Hulk even when the movie begins. Banner acts like he hated Hulk with his heart... which he should... but what's the difference if he can control it (an aspect of Hulk that's against everything the concept of the character is, IMO)? So it's not clear that he controls the Hulk when the story begins.

The movie states that he has to touch the chest of the one he's putting under his control. With Tony he fails as he has a mechanical chest. But with Banner it's just enough that he's around the cane.

But yes, I remember the scene you describe and I must say it'd have been better if the superheroes were actually arguing with each other and not just under Loki's spell.

I don't know what to tell you...it's plain as day.

The film does't need to tell you Bruce controls the Hulk right off the bat for you to understand that the spear caused his Hulk out of the carrier. The line of dialogue during the battle when he says he's always angry tells you right there he has had control over it, putting everything into perspective.

Does this stuff always need some kind of blatant exposition?

 

[GremlinZilla89]

It's a simple story that is well executed, there's nothing wrong with that. But if you're going to debate which one has the greater substance then TDK is the winner hands down. There isn't much underneath the hood of Avengers, it's a fun ride, but that's really all it is and frankly that's really all it could have been. Ultimately what Whedon and Marvel did was the right move, I was of the firm belief that Avengers should have been centred around Cap because of where First Avenger left off, however in retrospect they made the right call in essentially making Avengers it's own stand alone movie because it eliminated the need for people to have seen every solo film, regardless of how the Cap movie left off. The MCU doesn't genuinely begin until Avengers IMO

In your opinion TDK has greater substance.

Now like I said before, I like TDK a good deal, I just think it's overrated like I guess some here think Avengers is overrated. There is nothing wrong with this, but I can't help but feel some people tote the storytelling of TDK as something like Dickens meets comics when to me, it is just a very cleverly structured farce. The plot makes for suspenseful viewing and the pacing is breakneck but once given some thought, the very nature of of most of it crumbles to the ground. TDKR holds together a lot better overall but people will pick on smaller, more inconsequential details such as how Bruce got into Gotham and what not but those aren't points that are integral to the plot like the ones in TDK are. The point is, bothersome or not reasonable excuses can be made as to how Bruce got into Gotham where as many of the Jokers plots would require him to be omnipotent and omniscient.

Urgh, sorry for making that a TDKT rant, but it helps with my overall point about TDK as a whole. I won't deny TDK has themes and subtext, but it suffers from what the Spider-Man films suffer from. A lot of the dialogue is very on the nose about emotions and inner turmoil. All of the inner struggles and themes seem to be outwardly spoken of by the characters in expository quasi-speeches while The Avengers does all this much more naturally imo.