Tdk vs Avengers

[jmc]

So we've had this one giant narrative over the last 50 years have we?

 

[GremlinZilla89]

So we've had this one giant narrative over the last 50 years have we?

I'll concede Casino Royale onward can be considered a different continuity but other than that yes. Each film is a new sequential adventure. Is it really this hard to grasp? So every time he met Blofeld it was for the first time? So in For Your Eyes Only when he kills Blofeld and visits his dead wifes grave that has nothing to do with OHMSS when they SHOW his damn marriage and Blofeld KILLING his wife? So when Felix shows up it's for the first time every time even though they have a history together? So when JAWS shows up in Moonraker it's not after TSWLM?

 

[weezerspider]

Regarding The Avengers having a lot of characters and all that ****: Are you guys insane!?!?!?!? Have you seen any of Robert Altman's films? PTA's work in the 1990's? Martin Scorsese's work in Goodfellas and Casino? Multiple characters, ahem, ensamble films have been done a thousand times. As someone mentioned, The horror pictures of the '30s and '40s introduced many of their monsters in solo films and brought them together in cross-overs. Cross-overs themselves aren't entirely new either, whether it be Godzilla vs King Kong, Freddy Vs Jason, Alien Vs Predator.....Neither of those aspects (ensemble or crossover) are very 'groundbreaking'. Let's get that out of the way.

Besides, The Dark Knight deals with three primary characters who have full character arcs (Batman, Dent, Gordon) and two other prominent characters( Joker and Rachel). The Dark Knight tied up loose ends on one villain, Scarecrow, brought in Batman's biggest, Joker, introduced us to one of Batman's most famous mob villains, Maroni, and gave us an origin of one of his other big villains, Two Face, all while being a self contained story, without any need to see the prequel or sequel. Furthermore, it develops a perfect 'young Batman' story and character arc, showing a Batman who has all the belief in himself and the optimism that he can change the world, only to be brutally smacked in the face by Joker and Rachel's death, teaching him the much more pessimistic reality. All of that is much harder, as a storyteller, than throwing six guys in a room and letting them argue for half an hour and then giving them an army to fight.

 

[jmc]

I'll concede Casino Royale onward can be considered a different continuity but other than that yes. Each film is a new sequential adventure. Is it really this hard to grasp? So every time he met Blofeld it was for the first time? So in For Your Eyes Only when he kills Blofeld and visits his dead wifes grave that has nothing to do with OHMSS when they SHOW his damn marriage and Blofeld KILLING his wife? So when Felix shows up it's for the first time every time even though they have a history together? So when JAWS shows up in Moonraker it's not after TSWLM?

Do you understand the difference between sequels and episodes?

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Regarding The Avengers having a lot of characters and all that ****: Are you guys insane!?!?!?!? Have you seen any of Robert Altman's films? PTA's work in the 1990's? Martin Scorsese's work in Goodfellas and Casino? Multiple characters, ahem, ensamble films have been done a thousand times. As someone mentioned, The horror pictures of the '30s and '40s introduced many of their monsters in solo films and brought them together in cross-overs. Cross-overs themselves aren't entirely new either, whether it be Godzilla vs King Kong, Freddy Vs Jason, Alien Vs Predator.....Neither of those aspects (ensemble or crossover) are very 'groundbreaking'. Let's get that out of the way.

Besides, The Dark Knight deals with three primary characters who have full character arcs (Batman, Dent, Gordon) and two other prominent characters( Joker and Rachel). The Dark Knight tied up loose ends on one villain, Scarecrow, brought in Batman's biggest, Joker, introduced us to one of Batman's most famous mob villains, Maroni, and gave us an origin of one of his other big villains, Two Face, all while being a self contained story, without any need to see the prequel or sequel. Furthermore, it develops a perfect 'young Batman' story and character arc, showing a Batman who has all the belief in himself and the optimism that he can change the world, only to be brutally smacked in the face by Joker and Rachel's death, teaching him the much more pessimistic reality. All of that is much harder, as a storyteller, than throwing six guys in a room and letting them argue for half an hour and then giving them an army to fight.

And did you not see my post when I said I know they aren't anything new. I know this but the circumstances are different. Goodfellas didn't have a built in audience of people expecting Scorsese to integrate their favorite gangsters into a narrative. Scorsese didn't have a previous film about Tommy, Jimmy, Henry and Karen to work off of. Same thing with Altman. These characters in those films aren't pop culture icons with decades of printed history. Nobody was gonna ***** if Altman didn't give so and so as much screentime as whosawhats because it's one contained narrative.

And the Universal films were during a totally different era of film where the internet didn't exist. The crossovers where gimmicks. Simple as that. Continuity wasn't as issue with those films. And like the AVP films are highly regarded....

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Do you understand the difference between sequels and episodes?

OMFG, whatever. You win. I don't care. This is pointless. Enjoy your victory of completely making up your own rules on what a sequel is. It must make it easy to live life when you can just make up your own rules for s--t to fit your needs. Have fun.

 

[weezerspider]

And did you not see my post when I said I know they aren't anything new. I know this but the circumstances are different. Goodfellas didn't have a built in audience of people expecting Scorsese to integrate their favorite gangsters into a narrative. Scorsese didn't have a previous film about Tommy, Jimmy, Henry and Karen to work off of. Same thing with Altman. These characters in those films aren't pop culture icons with decades of printed history. Nobody was gonna ***** if Altman didn't give so and so as much screentime as whosawhats because it's one contained narrative.

And the Universal films were during a totally different era of film where the internet didn't exist. The crossovers where gimmicks. Simple as that. Continuity wasn't as issue with those films. And like the AVP films are highly regarded....

And that makes it harder to make a film, how? Not to mention, Scorsese made films based on real people who probably cared how the stories were presented so, there's that.

Also, that's a pretty terrible comeback. Oh before the internet no one cared about continuity? ********. How old are you? twelve?

And Alien, Predator, Freddy. Jason, Godzilla, and King Kong WERE pop culture icons, as was Frankenstein and Co. Actually, more so than anyone in The Avengers. No character in The Avengers film except The Hulk, had much draw in GA Pop Culture previous to 2008. Comic Con is a small percent of Pop Culture.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

And that makes it harder to make a film, how? Not to mention, Scorsese made films based on real people who probably cared how the stories were presented so, there's that.

Also, that's a pretty terrible comeback. Oh before the internet no one cared about continuity? ********. How old are you? twelve?

And Alien, Predator, Freddy. Jason, Godzilla, and King Kong WERE pop culture icons, as was Frankenstein and Co. Actually, more so than anyone in The Avengers. No character in The Avengers film except The Hulk, had much draw in GA Pop Culture previous to 2008. Comic Con is a small percent of Pop Culture.

I never said it made it makes it harder. I also never said people didn't care about continuity because of the lack of internet. The hell are you talking about? Watch the goddamn movies you're trying to prove a point about. The continuity between the Universal monster films is shaky as all hell.

I also never said they weren't pop culture icons. I said they didn't have a built in fanbase over decades with years of material to pull from. The storytelling was more laxed in those films. They made money, so the studio made them. And if you watch them you'll notice the monster DO NOT get equal screentime.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I mean Christ you Nolanites are insane. There is no reasoning with you people. You people aren't willing to even entertain the fact that someone might have a good point about something that goes against your precious ****ing TDK movies. I've conceded to good points multiple times in this thread and all anybody else has done is flat out make up whatever they want and purposefully misread my posts just to make a point.

 

[jmc]

OMFG, whatever. You win. I don't care. This is pointless. Enjoy your victory of completely making up your own rules on what a sequel is. It must make it easy to live life when you can just make up your own rules for s--t to fit your needs. Have fun.

Dude, I'm not making up rules, there's a difference. A sequel usually continues a narrative or theme or arc from the previous movie more often than not requiring the previous installment to have been seen in order to understand the story. An episode works independently of any previous story in a series. There may be elements brought over from the previous story but more often than not they are self contained narratives that usually have their own themes and unique story and require little knowledge of past installments. This is why no one considers the James Bond films to be sequels of one and other (there are a couple of notable exceptions admittedly), it's a serialized film franchise, which is more long the lines of what Marvel is doing.

 

[weezerspider]

And did you not see my post when I said I know they aren't anything new. I know this but the circumstances are different. Goodfellas didn't have a built in audience of people expecting Scorsese to integrate their favorite gangsters into a narrative. Scorsese didn't have a previous film about Tommy, Jimmy, Henry and Karen to work off of. Same thing with Altman. These characters in those films aren't pop culture icons with decades of printed history. Nobody was gonna ***** if Altman didn't give so and so as much screentime as whosawhats because it's one contained narrative.

And the Universal films were during a totally different era of film where the internet didn't exist. The crossovers where gimmicks. Simple as that. Continuity wasn't as issue with those films. And like the AVP films are highly regarded....

I never said it made it makes it harder. I also never said people didn't care about continuity because of the lack of internet. The hell are you talking about? Watch the goddamn movies you're trying to prove a point about. The continuity between the Universal monster films is shaky as all hell.

I also never said they weren't pop culture icons. I said they didn't have a built in fanbase over decades with years of material to pull from.

First bolded statement shows that, yes, you did say they weren't pop culture icons and the second bolded statement points out that you began your paragraph with a statement that the internet didn't exist. The remainder of the paragraph discusses how continuity didn't matter back then. Now, either you implied that continuity didn't matter before the internet, or you don't know how to structure a legitimate paragraph and argument that makes sense and is to the point.

And, if you weren't trying to imply that these factors make it harder to make a film, than why on earth are you bringing them up? If these factors don't matter, which they don't, than Whedon accomplishing these things should mean little, which it does.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Dude, I'm not making up rules, there's a difference. A sequel usually continues a narrative or theme or arc from the previous movie more often than not requiring the previous installment to have been seen in order to understand the story. An episode works independently of any previous story in a series. There may be elements brought over from the previous story but more often than not they are self contained narratives that usually have their own themes and unique story and require little knowledge of past installments. This is why no one considers the James Bond films to be sequels of one and other (there are a couple of notable exceptions admittedly), it's a serialized film franchise, which is more long the lines of what Marvel is doing.

Yes. A sequel DOES do those things. I never said otherwise. It can also WORK. ON. ITS. OWN. WHILE. STILL. BEING. A. SEQUEL.

According the dictionary.com:

a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.

The Bond films continue the NARRATIVE of the life and adventure of James Bond.


So yes. YOU ARE MAKING S--T UP.

 

[jmc]

Do you think making the letters that big is going to accomplish anything?

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Do you think making the letters that big is going to accomplish anything?

Apparently not considering you are the only person alive who will just blatantly dismiss the ****ing dictionary definition of something. Only trolls completely disregard established, publish facts.

 

[jmc]

I suggest you calm down before you get yourself an infraction for hurling insults. Lucky for you I don't give a crap to report it.

 

[BLobo]

Black Widow is a much more layered character in comparison that gets slowly revealed as the film goes on.

Black Widow is in TA to show her body. Everytime i see anyone talking about Black Widow in TA, it´s about her boobs. She was there just for the sake of it. Plus, her role and importance in the story is different from Rachel´s, so they´re really not comparable. That´s like comparing Alfred with Tony Stark.

Rachel is not the greatest character in the world, and the actress who played her could have been better. Black Widow is also not the greatest character in the world. You should compare her to Catwoman.

I didn´t care for Rachel but i cared for Bruce, so i can perfectly understand the impact of her death in his life. The movie is not about Rachel. Her last moments, Alfred reading the letter, Harvey going mad in the hospital, Bruce suffering, those were all very powerful and real moments that projected perfectly the pain felt by these characters. There is not one single moment in TA that succeeds at projecting emotion like the scenes after Rachel´s death,

You wanna talk about interesting characters? James Gordon, Harvey Dent, Alfred, Joker. All masterful performances, all great characters, all much more "layered" than your precious Black Widow, and none of them has to be HOT in order to capture the interest of the audience. TA looked like a Sex Symbol parade. The most superficial movie of the year. That´s why women rated the movie higher than men. It´s all about colors, visual effects and pretty people.

 

[DACrowe]

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.

I know what it did narratively. But as a death, he was a stock character charmingly played by a great character actor. However, he was always one-note on the page and never effected the plot in any other major way in the previous films. His death inspires the team to truly assemble. He is the Uncle Ben, Thomas Wayne, Yiri (or whatever his name was), Dr. Stanley Tucci in Cap America, etc. etc. character. The inspirational figure who always dies. Does not really get you as much as in a film where it is treated like a real, sudden, senseless murder that has no point, and actually does not make things better, but incredibly worse for everyone involved in an archetype that usually survives.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I know what it did narratively. But as a death, he was a stock character charmingly played by a great character actor. However, he was always one-note on the page and never effected the plot in any other major way in the previous films. His death inspires the team to truly assemble. He is the Uncle Ben, Thomas Wayne, Yiri (or whatever his name was), Dr. Stanley Tucci in Cap America, etc. etc. character. The inspirational figure who always dies. Does not really get you as much as in a film where it is treated like a real, sudden, senseless murder that has no point, and actually does not make things better, but incredibly worse for everyone involved in an archetype that usually survives.

I agree.

Coulson's death made me gasp, I really felt for him. But then he just spitted the cliche cool-sounding I-lol-at-death last joke and ruined the moment for me. It's the kind of thing that kept m being kicked out of the movie.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Black Widow is in TA to show her body. Everytime i see anyone talking about Black Widow in TA, it´s about her boobs.

That is SO not true.





They also talk about her posterior.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I never said it made it makes it harder. I also never said people didn't care about continuity because of the lack of internet. The hell are you talking about? Watch the goddamn movies you're trying to prove a point about. The continuity between the Universal monster films is shaky as all hell.

I also never said they weren't pop culture icons. I said they didn't have a built in fanbase over decades with years of material to pull from. The storytelling was more laxed in those films. They made money, so the studio made them. And if you watch them you'll notice the monster DO NOT get equal screentime.

Sure the continuity is better in The Avengers, and the Avengers is also a better film than any of the monster mashups. Nobody's saying that it isn't. But as a concept The Avengers isn't nearly as revolutionary as some fans like to believe.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

How many James Bond 'sequels' have we had?

I would say that there are three sets of inarguable 'true' sequels in the James Bond film franchise: Dr. No/From Russia with Love, The You Only Live Twice/On Her Majesty's Secret Service/Diamonds Are Forever Trilogy, and Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace.

From Russia with Love immediately follows Dr. No with Bond getting back together with Sylvia Trench after ditching her to go to Jamaica when he is called in to go to Istanbul to try and get a decoding machine which is a part of a trap set up by SPECTRE to get revenge on Bond for killing Dr. No in the previous film and ruining their plans to sabotage the Mercury Program.

YOLT/OHMSS/DAF has some major continuity issues, but they still build off of the previous films, no matter how much it falls apart at the end with the terrible DAF doing its best not to specifically mention what happened in the previous film, but it is still there. OHMSS is about Bond's worldwide search for Blofeld after he escaped at the end of YOLT, and DAF is about Bond hunting down Blofeld for revenge after killing his wife at the end of OHMSS with a stupid diamond smuggling/orbital death satellite plot tacked on.

QoS like From Russia with Love takes over pretty much right where the previous film ended with Bond going after Quantum and trying to get over the death of Vesper Lynd in CR. Also like DAF there is a stupid plot involving ransoming water in Bolivia that distracts from the most interesting aspects. Also like DAF it is a bad Bond film following a great one.

It can be argued that 6 of the first 7 films in the series (Goldfinger being the exception) are 'true' sequels in that there is a larger plot arc of Bond discovering SPECTRE and slowly working his way up the food chain 'til we get to the Blofeld Trilogy. The latter three films definitely occur after the first three and there is clear progression from one film to the next. I personally wouldn't consider the franchise to be truly episodic (again Goldfinger being the exception) until the Roger Moore era.

 

[craigdbfan]

Gremlin cool your jets.

 

[Human Torch]

Is there actually doubt that Avengers is a sequel?

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Black Widow is in TA to show her body. Everytime i see anyone talking about Black Widow in TA, it´s about her boobs. She was there just for the sake of it. Plus, her role and importance in the story is different from Rachel´s, so they´re really not comparable. That´s like comparing Alfred with Tony Stark.

Rachel is not the greatest character in the world, and the actress who played her could have been better. Black Widow is also not the greatest character in the world. You should compare her to Catwoman.

I didn´t care for Rachel but i cared for Bruce, so i can perfectly understand the impact of her death in his life. The movie is not about Rachel. Her last moments, Alfred reading the letter, Harvey going mad in the hospital, Bruce suffering, those were all very powerful and real moments that projected perfectly the pain felt by these characters. There is not one single moment in TA that succeeds at projecting emotion like the scenes after Rachel´s death,

You wanna talk about interesting characters? James Gordon, Harvey Dent, Alfred, Joker. All masterful performances, all great characters, all much more "layered" than your precious Black Widow, and none of them has to be HOT in order to capture the interest of the audience. TA looked like a Sex Symbol parade. The most superficial movie of the year. That´s why women rated the movie higher than men. It´s all about colors, visual effects and pretty people.

Who said anything about Black Widow being hot? I certainly did not. I like how you try to use distraction to veer the conversation to your favor instead of focusing on my points. People only talk about "Black Widows body"...ugh, no they don't. Just read any random review or any discussion about the film on the internet. People mention how well handled her character was all the time.

And again, did I say Gordon, Dent, Joker WEREN'T well handled characters? No I didn't and I agree with you that they are (except I think Two-Faces arc was rushed but everything before was good) Again, you veer off to the sidelines with something that has nothing to do with my original point. My point was that the two main female roles in the film are different because I feel one suffers from being an underwritten goal for the two protagonists and the other gets nice layers added to her as the film progresses.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Gremlin cool your jets.

Why? Why can't someone call out a troll if that person thinks troll activity is apparent?