TDK vs CA: TWS

[Human Torch]

I never felt Batman took a back seat in TDK.And to be honest,I have no problem saying Bale's Batman was every bit as effective as Evans Cap.

As far as voting,(which I haven't been able to bring myself to do) it's a tough choice.On the one hand,I think TDK was a bit more fun.Cap was a bit more easier to take as a purist.I guess I'll continue to abstain.

But,frankly speaking,I'll still take the Avengers over both.It's the popular thing to see folks swoon whenever they add a little political/social/topical relevance to a "complex enough to still just barely be able to follow it" plot,but give me Loki and the Chitari invasion and I'm a much happier man.

 

[DA_Champion]

The thing is, what actually makes TDK more deep and intellectual than the likes of TWS?

This could be explained to you but you're not interested in understanding, so it's not worth it.

It's not that you don't understand -- you seem to know how to turn on your computer and how to write in complete sentences. It's that you don't want to understand, as such there's no conceivable explanation that can make you change your mind.

At some point in the future you'll relax and then you'll re-evaluate and you'll be like "oh, right, TDK is much smarter. TWS is a good action movie, but it's not actually smart". But in the meantime nobody can explain it to you, you'll have to loosen up and lose the bias yourself, then you can simply read the explanations that are widely available online.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Or in the future they will still find both movies smart and entertaining.

 

[Harley2004]

I never felt Batman took a back seat in TDK.And to be honest,I have no problem saying Bale's Batman was every bit as effective as Evans Cap.

As far as voting,(which I haven't been able to bring myself to do) it's a tough choice.On the one hand,I think TDK was a bit more fun.Cap was a bit more easier to take as a purist.I guess I'll continue to abstain.

But,frankly speaking,I'll still take the Avengers over both.It's the popular thing to see folks swoon whenever they add a little political/social/topical relevance to a "complex enough to still just barely be able to follow it" plot,but give me Loki and the Chitari invasion and I'm a much happier man.

Nameless space aliens, in a lot of what looked like video game and not a movie over Batman v Joker. To each his own, I guess. Personally, I don't think either come that close to TDK. I did like watching Capt. America take on the Winter soldier one on one, though.

 

[seishin87]

This could be explained to you but you're not interested in understanding, so it's not worth it.

It's not that you don't understand -- you seem to know how to turn on your computer and how to write in complete sentences. It's that you don't want to understand, as such there's no conceivable explanation that can make you change your mind.

At some point in the future you'll relax and then you'll re-evaluate and you'll be like "oh, right, TDK is much smarter. TWS is a good action movie, but it's not actually smart". But in the meantime nobody can explain it to you, you'll have to loosen up and lose the bias yourself, then you can simply read the explanations that are widely available online.

But how can you say such a sweeping statement like and claim everyone else is being biased? How can you say TWS in not as deep or intellectual as TDK when you admit that you're not as familiar with the overall story or mythos established in the comics of either character and also in the case of TWS you're not as invested in the story as established in the MCU entries of TFA, TA, AoS which would make certain perceived issues as not really that in the bigger context of things for someone who is more invested/interested in the overall story. For me part of why I love both TDK and TWS is that they build upon the foundation established in their previous films.

Honestly as a fan of the genre and it was Batman Begins back in 2005, that made me join the forum so can't play that Marvel vs. DC card in this case, My honest opinion when it's said and done both films will be seen as about on par with each other in terms of what they did for they stories and characters for their respective fandoms. Each film has some strengths over the other. Each film has some pros and cons. I'm a fan of Batman, been so the Batman '89 VHS I used to watch as a kid in the early '90s. It's says something about the how the character has been portrayed on screen when the two biggest, most popular entries in that film franchise are centered around the main villain. And yeah there are some moments that while TDK seemingly transcends the "comic book" genre but then we get klunky and contrived stuff like the magic fingerprint bullet that looking back now, shows that yeah story wise not everything in TDK was 100% perfect and if all else fails they rely on the same dodgy plotting that anyone of action/adventure scripting falls into from time to time, but they key is to keep the overall story moving so no one really notices. It's things like that, that if you really want to play the TDK is holier than thou untouchable, than I would say no, It's a great movie but it's still part of the same action/adventure/ superhero comic book genre that I'm a fan of which includes TWS also.

It's funny but maybe you need to loosen up and lose the bias.

 

[samsnee]

When I hear this......

My movie is better than your movie.

My movie is more fun than your movie.

My movie is more intellectual than your movie.

My movie made more money than your movie.

My movie won more awards than your movie.


I wonder....exactly what part of it did you act in, write, produce, direct, build sets, work the camera, move the lights, sew the clothes...........

It's the same as when sports fans say "We won" or "We lost". Who's we?

 

[zeroapoc]

This could be explained to you but you're not interested in understanding, so it's not worth it.

It's not that you don't understand -- you seem to know how to turn on your computer and how to write in complete sentences. It's that you don't want to understand, as such there's no conceivable explanation that can make you change your mind.

At some point in the future you'll relax and then you'll re-evaluate and you'll be like "oh, right, TDK is much smarter. TWS is a good action movie, but it's not actually smart". But in the meantime nobody can explain it to you, you'll have to loosen up and lose the bias yourself, then you can simply read the explanations that are widely available online.

How is TDK anything so much more than an action movie itself?

 

[Spider-Fan]

This could be explained to you but you're not interested in understanding, so it's not worth it.

It's not that you don't understand -- you seem to know how to turn on your computer and how to write in complete sentences. It's that you don't want to understand, as such there's no conceivable explanation that can make you change your mind.

At some point in the future you'll relax and then you'll re-evaluate and you'll be like "oh, right, TDK is much smarter. TWS is a good action movie, but it's not actually smart". But in the meantime nobody can explain it to you, you'll have to loosen up and lose the bias yourself, then you can simply read the explanations that are widely available online.

Okay guys, I will not tolerate posts like THIS! If you're going to debate which film you liked more and why, please be mature. Don't tell people who don't agree with you that they are morons. The inablility to maturely make you point speaks against you more so than the person you flame.

 

[weezerspider]

Heath Ledger had 22 minutes of screen time guys. How the hell can anyone honestly say he carried a two and a half hour film? Joker has no character arc. He doesn't change. We know next to nothing about him. As Nolan himself said, Joker is the shark in Jaws. He comes in and wreaks havoc and then leaves. He's just really badass at it.

Also how can you anyone really say Batman got 'lost' in TDK and Cap didn't in TWS? Black Widow, Falcon, Fury, Winter Soldier and the Sundance Kid had just as much screen time as Rachel, Gordon, Dent, Fox, Joker and Alfred. The films are pretty similar in there 'ensemble around the hero' technique. One film had five academy award nominees(four winners) and the other had two academy award nominees(one won as a director). Being so similar in this regard, I find this weak criticism when discussing both films. Looking at the characters, Batman's arc is directly tied to Dent's. Both have the same arc up until Rachel dies. Then Dent forks off into evil, while Batman keeps on the path of good to show he's the best of them, despite what he says to Dent. He's the hero of the story. He can take the pain and burden and continues to fight the good fight. This arc would not be as strong without Dent's arc directly tied to it, in essence, making every minute spent on Dent, directly important to the character of Batman and the viewer's interpretation of his struggle. It all comes back to Batman. Without Batman, there is no story. Joker's only goal is Batman. Without Batman, Joker probably doesn't exist. There is no story. Everything that happens in TDK ultimately comes back to Batman. Hell, that's not even true in Winter Soldier. Without Cap, Hydra still attacks Fury, who goes to someone else's house( Black Widow's, who knows) and someone else tries and stops Hyrda taking over Shield. So technically, from a thematic and plot perspective, if one character was to be lost, or non-existent to the plot, it would be Cap over Batman. Of course, I still love WS. It's a great film, but all of this talk about Batman being over-shadowed and what not shows a complete misunderstanding of Batman's arc and TDK as a whole film.

 

[Flint Marko]

Some people are beyond reasoning with.
The whole 'your movie vs my movie' thing blows my mind. Are we adults here? If we all met in real life I have a feeling we'd get along smashingly since we share the same interests. It's amazing how defensive some people can be when something they loved is challenged.
We're a special breed, us comic book fans.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Heath Ledger had 22 minutes of screen time guys. How the hell can anyone honestly say he carried a two and a half hour film? Joker has no character arc. He doesn't change. We know next to nothing about him. As Nolan himself said, Joker is the shark in Jaws. He comes in and wreaks havoc and then leaves. He's just really badass at it.

Also how can you anyone really say Batman got 'lost' in TDK and Cap didn't in TWS? Black Widow, Falcon, Fury, Winter Soldier and the Sundance Kid had just as much screen time as Rachel, Gordon, Dent, Fox, Joker and Alfred. The films are pretty similar in there 'ensemble around the hero' technique. One film had five academy award nominees(four winners) and the other had two academy award nominees(one won as a director). Being so similar in this regard, I find this weak criticism when discussing both films. Looking at the characters, Batman's arc is directly tied to Dent's. Both have the same arc up until Rachel dies. Then Dent forks off into evil, while Batman keeps on the path of good to show he's the best of them, despite what he says to Dent. He's the hero of the story. He can take the pain and burden and continues to fight the good fight. This arc would not be as strong without Dent's arc directly tied to it, in essence, making every minute spent on Dent, directly important to the character of Batman and the viewer's interpretation of his struggle. It all comes back to Batman. Without Batman, there is no story. Joker's only goal is Batman. Without Batman, Joker probably doesn't exist. There is no story. Everything that happens in TDK ultimately comes back to Batman. Hell, that's not even true in Winter Soldier. Without Cap, Hydra still attacks Fury, who goes to someone else's house( Black Widow's, who knows) and someone else tries and stops Hyrda taking over Shield. So technically, from a thematic and plot perspective, if one character was to be lost, or non-existent to the plot, it would be Cap over Batman. Of course, I still love WS. It's a great film, but all of this talk about Batman being over-shadowed and what not shows a complete misunderstanding of Batman's arc and TDK as a whole film.

I don't think it is that Joker was in it more than Batman more so than Ledger's performance overshadows Batman. I would agree that Ledger is so good in the movie, he basically outright steals it and makes Batman seem less awesome.

 

[jmc]

But that is what The Joker is meant to do, the character by its very nature is meant to hog the limelight, he's meant to steal the show, Batman always to some degree plays second fiddle to the Joker because he is so extreme.

 

[Bullseye1]

But that is what The Joker is meant to do, the character by its very nature is meant to hog the limelight, he's meant to steal the show, Batman always to some degree plays second fiddle to the Joker because he is so extreme.

That is why moreso with the general audience The Joker is their abiding memory of the film especially with the actors death. Much like the original Crow.

 

[Spider-Fan]

But that is what The Joker is meant to do, the character by its very nature is meant to hog the limelight, he's meant to steal the show, Batman always to some degree plays second fiddle to the Joker because he is so extreme.

Agreed, but I'm explaining why people feel this way. Ledger is just simply too amazing in the movie. I loved Bale's Batman, but he was never on Ledger's level in any of the Batman films. I think that is why people don't gravitate toward him in this film as much as they do in BB and TDKR. Batman is always one of the "cool" characters in all cartoons and such, but oddly in tDK (Batman's best film) he almost plays Luke Skywalker to the much more loved supporting cast (ie, Joker and Dent). It is not a role people are accustomed to with Batman.

 

[seishin87]

Heath Ledger had 22 minutes of screen time guys. How the hell can anyone honestly say he carried a two and a half hour film? Joker has no character arc. He doesn't change. We know next to nothing about him. As Nolan himself said, Joker is the shark in Jaws. He comes in and wreaks havoc and then leaves. He's just really badass at it.

Also how can you anyone really say Batman got 'lost' in TDK and Cap didn't in TWS? Black Widow, Falcon, Fury, Winter Soldier and the Sundance Kid had just as much screen time as Rachel, Gordon, Dent, Fox, Joker and Alfred. The films are pretty similar in there 'ensemble around the hero' technique. One film had five academy award nominees(four winners) and the other had two academy award nominees(one won as a director). Being so similar in this regard, I find this weak criticism when discussing both films. Looking at the characters, Batman's arc is directly tied to Dent's. Both have the same arc up until Rachel dies. Then Dent forks off into evil, while Batman keeps on the path of good to show he's the best of them, despite what he says to Dent. He's the hero of the story. He can take the pain and burden and continues to fight the good fight. This arc would not be as strong without Dent's arc directly tied to it, in essence, making every minute spent on Dent, directly important to the character of Batman and the viewer's interpretation of his struggle. It all comes back to Batman. Without Batman, there is no story. Joker's only goal is Batman. Without Batman, Joker probably doesn't exist. There is no story. Everything that happens in TDK ultimately comes back to Batman. Hell, that's not even true in Winter Soldier. Without Cap, Hydra still attacks Fury, who goes to someone else's house( Black Widow's, who knows) and someone else tries and stops Hyrda taking over Shield. So technically, from a thematic and plot perspective, if one character was to be lost, or non-existent to the plot, it would be Cap over Batman. Of course, I still love WS. It's a great film, but all of this talk about Batman being over-shadowed and what not shows a complete misunderstanding of Batman's arc and TDK as a whole film.

I can't say I'm one of the ones who would claim that Batman was completely lost to Joker in TDK, but the shark in Jaws comparison is interesting. While fleeting can still leave the impression/misconception that the character had a far larger presence than's actual there. The whole less is more thing, which is definitely the case with Joker, and even with how Winter Soldier was used in TWS. If anything perhaps from a marketing standpoint I could see a case being made of Batman getting upstaged by Joker/Ledger but at the same time there's no denying that for the general audience Ledger's Joker is a pretty big deal and probably what left the lasting impression. I mean "why so serious?" seemed to be a pretty big catch phrase at the time. Now I'm seeing the whole "hail HYDRA" popping up in all sorts of random places.

Can't say I really agree with removing Cap from TWS, or if you did it would change the story completely. More like without Cap Fury and Co. would have stood no chance as presented in the context of the story against not just HYDRA but their own Bionic Super Soldier serum enhanced operative, The Winter Soldier. Widow might have made it to Zola's Bunker but without Cap and his SHIELD her journey ends with the kaboom, not to mention if Pierce sent WS directly after Widow, in the Causeway scene if not for Cap, Widow would have been dead. Not to mention Cap doesn't bring Falcon into the mix and no one to help with the infiltration of the Helicarriers. We'd all be Hail HYDRA'ing if that was the case lol.

 

[jmc]

Agreed, but I'm explaining why people feel this way. Ledger is just simply too amazing in the movie. I loved Bale's Batman, but he was never on Ledger's level in any of the Batman films. I think that is why people don't gravitate toward him in this film as much as they do in BB and TDKR. Batman is always one of the "cool" characters in all cartoons and such, but oddly in tDK (Batman's best film) he almost plays Luke Skywalker to the much more loved supporting cast (ie, Joker and Dent). It is not a role people are accustomed to with Batman.

I kinda find it strange that any comic fan would expect Batman to ever overshadow the Joker in any story let alone film. It's par for the course with The Joker, everything about him is about upstaging the hero, perhaps more than any other villain.

 

[DA_Champion]

Joker has no character arc. He doesn't change.

The Joker had an arc in TDK. At the start of the movie he is only interested in money, in stealing from the mob, and in killing Batman. He progresses to having a specific ideology (anarchy and the corruption of Gotham), he wants Batman kept alive, and he gives up on money in the amazing scene where he burns the mountain of dollar bills.

These changes occur because he realises how much fun Batman is, in and around the interrogation scene.

He completes his arc later on when he calls the TV show and says "if that man is still alive in one hour, I will blow up a major hospital".

At first he wants to kill Harvey Dent just because it seems like the obvious thing for a criminal to do, but instead he chooses to corrupt Harvey Dent, to seduce him into a life of crime.

That was part of the appeal of the movie for me, Joker was getting crazier and crazier.

 

[samsnee]

Okay guys, I will not tolerate posts like THIS! If you're going to debate which film you liked more and why, please be mature. Don't tell people who don't agree with you that they are morons. The inablility to maturely make you point speaks against you more so than the person you flame.

Thank you. That post was so obnoxious that it wasn't even worth replying to.

 

[Tony Stark]

Its not a question of how long he was in the movie. If you take him out of the equation the movie isn't that interesting. And I stand by what I said about batman taking a back seat. Bruce/Batman was the least interesting character in that movie for me. I did like Eckhart, he's a great actor and he at least brought a character I could empathize with.

 

[DarthDorranceBane]

Am I right in the "vibes" I get from this thread that most of what the posters choose are simply out of loyalty or bias to their favorite character/preferred company without really discussing the merits of the film?

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Not really, it's only a few.

 

[Thoix]

Its not a question of how long he was in the movie. If you take him out of the equation the movie isn't that interesting. And I stand by what I said about batman taking a back seat. Bruce/Batman was the least interesting character in that movie for me. I did like Eckhart, he's a great actor and he at least brought a character I could empathize with.

You can't just take a character out of the equation. That's just ridiculous and you would get an very different movie, with some focus being on different characters and perhaps a different villain. But taking the Joker out would cause far less damage than taking Batman out. Without Batman, the movie wouldn't exist. Joker wouldn't be in it, Dent wouldn't be able to take on the mob, and the mob would still control Gotham. Everything that happens in The Dark Knight happens because of Batman's mere existence, not the Joker.

It doesn't matter if you find Batman to be the least interesting character in he movie, for anyone else at least. That's your opinion and I respect that. But the fact is Batman does not take a backseat. It's his actions in the movie that allows it to exist. No Batman, no movie. No Joker, different movie.

 

[The Endless]

This could be explained to you but you're not interested in understanding, so it's not worth it.

It's not that you don't understand -- you seem to know how to turn on your computer and how to write in complete sentences. It's that you don't want to understand, as such there's no conceivable explanation that can make you change your mind.

At some point in the future you'll relax and then you'll re-evaluate and you'll be like "oh, right, TDK is much smarter. TWS is a good action movie, but it's not actually smart". But in the meantime nobody can explain it to you, you'll have to loosen up and lose the bias yourself, then you can simply read the explanations that are widely available online.

I have no bias. Explain to me, in detail, how TDK is more intellectual and deep than TWS. Go on, enlighten me.

TDK's themes are explored no deeper than the themes in TWS. It's just presented in a more serious and less pulpy tone which gives it an air of sophistication.

Joker is going to overshadow others, that is the nature of the character, sure. But for me, Batman ACTIVELY sucks in his own movie. That's my main problem with TDK. **** Harvey Dent's story arc is more interesting than Bruce's. It's a fantastic movie but for me it does Batman a disservice and there is compromises to the character to fit the story Nolan is telling.

 

[The Endless]

Heath Ledger had 22 minutes of screen time guys. How the hell can anyone honestly say he carried a two and a half hour film? Joker has no character arc. He doesn't change. We know next to nothing about him. As Nolan himself said, Joker is the shark in Jaws. He comes in and wreaks havoc and then leaves. He's just really badass at it.

Also how can you anyone really say Batman got 'lost' in TDK and Cap didn't in TWS? Black Widow, Falcon, Fury, Winter Soldier and the Sundance Kid had just as much screen time as Rachel, Gordon, Dent, Fox, Joker and Alfred. The films are pretty similar in there 'ensemble around the hero' technique. One film had five academy award nominees(four winners) and the other had two academy award nominees(one won as a director). Being so similar in this regard, I find this weak criticism when discussing both films. Looking at the characters, Batman's arc is directly tied to Dent's. Both have the same arc up until Rachel dies. Then Dent forks off into evil, while Batman keeps on the path of good to show he's the best of them, despite what he says to Dent. He's the hero of the story. He can take the pain and burden and continues to fight the good fight. This arc would not be as strong without Dent's arc directly tied to it, in essence, making every minute spent on Dent, directly important to the character of Batman and the viewer's interpretation of his struggle. It all comes back to Batman. Without Batman, there is no story. Joker's only goal is Batman. Without Batman, Joker probably doesn't exist. There is no story. Everything that happens in TDK ultimately comes back to Batman. Hell, that's not even true in Winter Soldier. Without Cap, Hydra still attacks Fury, who goes to someone else's house( Black Widow's, who knows) and someone else tries and stops Hyrda taking over Shield. So technically, from a thematic and plot perspective, if one character was to be lost, or non-existent to the plot, it would be Cap over Batman. Of course, I still love WS. It's a great film, but all of this talk about Batman being over-shadowed and what not shows a complete misunderstanding of Batman's arc and TDK as a whole film.

Obviously Batman is important thematically and story wise. But the point is... he sucks. He's lame. He isn't a bad ass. He's moping around wanting someone to take up his mantle so he can retire with the woman he loves. And when he isn't doing that he's in terribly executed action scenes.

The only cool Batman moment for me is when he drops Maroni and breaks his leg. When he flips Joker's truck is cool too. But the most memorable thing in that whole chase scene is Joker himself. He walking up the road screaming "HIT ME!" is what people remember.

 

[Snow Queen]

As much as I like Captain America: The Winter Soldier (and I did love it a lot and it's one of my favourite CBMs), I have to give this one to The Dark Knight personally.