TDK vs CA: TWS

[OcStat]

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.

That's if you believe Joker was telling the truth to the mob in the beginning of the film. Which I don't think he was.

 

[The Endless]

Yea i thought it was pretty clear Joker was lying to the mob. He wanted their money not just cause he wanted money, but to fund his reign of terror. It's like him telling Dent he wasn't a "schemer", that he just did things, a dog chasing a car. All a load of ******** to mess with Dent. He was the biggest schemer in the movie.

I think maybe he did initially just want to kill Batman. But then he realised it would be much more fun to play with him.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Didn't Nolan say the purpose of the Joker was that he had no arc, no backstory?

It's very clear narrative that The Joker is rogue force of nature, doing what he pleases.

 

[weezerspider]

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.

Didn't Nolan say the purpose of the Joker was that he had no arc, no backstory?

It's very clear narrative that The Joker is rogue force of nature, doing what he pleases.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty obvious, like the scar stories, his reasoning to the mob wasn't true. He was the same from the beginning as he was in the end. He just started showing his true colors. Joker having an arc actually makes the character less interesting IMO. We've seen people descend further into madness millions of times on film. I prefer the other interpretation.

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.

Captain America wanted to quit because he couldn't trust anyone. If Fury wasn't in his apartment that night, Cap may have thrown in the towel, as his conversation with Falcon implies. Batman deals with the death of the women he loves and unlike the third part of the love triangle, who goes crazy, Batman dons the mask and buries himself into Batman, beating the **** out of SWAT guys, possibly breaking ethical rules with the sonar...how is that not Batman? That's the essence of the character, burring hurt and taking it out in an obsessive force known as Batman. If Bale's Batman isn't badass, you must simply not like the character he's based on. Also, I find it's much more badass to be like "**** it, I got to save this kid' and allow your friend(Dent) to die to save an innocent kid, then to stand there and let yourself get beaten to near death by your friend to make a point. It's reality vs ideals. That may be the greatest difference between TDK and the rest of the genre. It's hero has to make real sacrifices and real decisions that aren't simply based on heroic ideals, which again fits Batman's character perfectly. At the beginning of the film, he wants those ideals and decides to retire because of them. He doesn't want to become the man that stops Joker because he knows what that man is, and he can not be that man. However, He realizes he has to abandon his ideals and get his hands dirty to save the world, a very real lesson. Again, when comparing these two films, this criticism doesn't seem very valid because Captain America spends his movie moping a lot too, whether it be because SHIELD does't do it 'his ideal way', so he's thinking about quitting, to Cap moping about possibly fighting his best friend to save the world.

 

[Victarion]

Same here; I got that Joker was fed up with the world, the legal system, or something like that, and decided to go on a last hurrah. A suicide mission if you will.

I can root for a humanized Batman, whereas the cookie cutter badass would put me to sleep.

 

[weezerspider]

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.

He's the villain, of course it does! What drives story? Conflict! Who creates Conflict? The Villain. Therefore a story with no villain has no conflict which makes the story a boring story stuck in neutral. I could literary say the same thing about HYDRA. Without HYDRA, Winter Solider is pretty boring. There is a reason most great films have great villains. Conflict drives everything. Also, Echart's whole arc is simply there for Batman's arc. You can't say Batman was lost and then say the most crucial part of his arc was interesting. That's essentially like saying " This Rom Com wasn't good. The female wasn't great, but her love interest, who her whole arc is about, was fantastic".

 

[The_Manhunter]

TWS had a weak box office? Not really considering it's a film about Captain America. Comparing Batman and Captain America's popularity is absurd.

Nobodies saying Robert Redford was the only good thing about TWS because he wasn't. He didn't completely overshadow the hero. Which is what happened with Joker and Batman. Joker didn't have a character arc. Joker didn't have any depth. No more than Pierce. They both had philosophies that they stuck to. They were static characters. The nature of the Joker and Ledger's amazing performance makes the character stand out.

Cap was the star of his own movie. Joker was the star of Batman's movie. Who denies this?

Cap was not the star of Winter Soldier, IMO. SHIELD was.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Batman wasn't lame in his own movie, he just got outshone (understandably). I do wish he had better action scenes though.

As to SHIELD being the star of Cap 2 and not Cap - Cap is in SHIELD.

 

[Shikamaru]

He's the villain, of course it does! What drives story? Conflict! Who creates Conflict? The Villain. Therefore a story with no villain has no conflict which makes the story a boring story stuck in neutral. I could literary say the same thing about HYDRA. Without HYDRA, Winter Solider is pretty boring. There is a reason most great films have great villains. Conflict drives everything. Also, Echart's whole arc is simply there for Batman's arc. You can't say Batman was lost and then say the most crucial part of his arc was interesting. That's essentially like saying " This Rom Com wasn't good. The female was great, but her love interest, who her whole arc is about, was fantastic".

This is why I don't buy the argument that Batman is only interesting because of his villains. That applies to all superheroes. None of these characters would be who they are today if it wasn't for their villains, due to the villains providing conflict.

 

[The_Manhunter]

Batman wasn't lame in his own movie, he just got outshone (understandably). I do wish he had better action scenes though.

As to SHIELD being the star of Cap 2 and not Cap - Cap is in SHIELD.

Lol true. For what it's worth I really like both movies though.

 

[Human Torch]

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.

My point was more along the lines of "Give me the fantastical,I don't care as much for the social/political claptrap in my CBM".

 

[jmc]

This is why I don't buy the argument that Batman is only interesting because of his villains. That applies to all superheroes. None of these characters would be who they are today if it wasn't for their villains, due to the villains providing conflict.

This goes for most heroes in general. The Joker has been compared to the shark in Jaws, if we take the shark out of that movie it's not very interesting because, surprise, surprise, the movie is built around the presence of that shark. The thing is without the Joker the entire story of TDK collapses, it's a page one re-write, TDK is about what people do in the face of anarky and the Joker is a representation of anarky.

 

[Shikamaru]

^ Exactly.

 

[Flint Marko]

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.

If you think the joker had an arc then I don't think we saw the same movie. That's not a knock on the film at all because, truth be told, he didn't need one. What was interesting was seeing how everyone else reacted to a character like him; he put everyone in the city of gotham through the ringer. Everyone who had to cope with his actions went through an arc, and that was what made the film compelling. He was such a singular, complete character to begin with and was clearly the same at the beginning and the end. A "rogue force of nature" as another poster put it. Not sure how you missed that.

 

[Shikamaru]

I'd argue the Joker did have a character arc (going from wanting just a one-time duel with Batman for finding him "interesting" to wanting to do this with him forever), but it's nowhere near as big as the character arcs that the other main characters went through. However, that's perfectly fine because he didn't really need a big one, for reasons already stated here.

 

[Flint Marko]

I dunno man, this might just be me but I think that may be reaching a little to call that a fully realized character arc. Seems like just a change of mind, not a fundamental shift in how the character thinks or acts.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Yeah I just took it as he changed his mind because he's nuts. I like it better that way.

 

[jmc]

The Joker is a bit unique in terms of villains because he is so unpredictable. Yes if you actually think about it his goals in the film don't make a lot of sense and are all over the place - but that exactly who the character is, he's not meant to make sense, he's meant to be unpredictable because he just wants chaos. It's true to extent he doesn't have an arc, he even says it himself more or less when he says to Dent 'I just do things'.

 

[Flint Marko]

Exactly, that's more or less my point. Not every character needs an arc for a movie to be compelling, and I think the Joker is a great example of that.

 

[Skrilla31]

Joker didn't have a character arc in TDK but that's because he wasn't MEANT to have an arc in TDK.

 

[Batmannerism]

Dudes, before I start I must say that I am primarily a DC fan, and I have
always hated Captain America.

So having said that, the fact that I liked this movie is saying a lot !
If you're a marvel fan, or a cap fan, it must have been heaven, as even I can't say much about it that's negative.

Previously I'd found Evans boring, but in this film he really came into his
own as Cap, a very credible performance. Nice !

Never been a Scarlett Johansen fan, found that she speaks in monotone for most of the film - however, by the end I was cheering for her.

SLJ another solid performance as Fury.

Personally, I don't think it's a better film than TDK. Sure CA WS beats TDK
for sheer whiz bang, but TDK is still more compelling.

Evans is a good lead, but Bale is better, and of course no one compares to Ledger's Joker. Stan's Winter soldier just didn't get enough character time to really get me invested in his story.

So, IMO TDK still reigns, but well done Marvel, well done indeed. CA TWS was a very very good film.....oh, and the new trailer for XMen DOFP, looks A-mazing, wow, I haven't been this excited about the X-men since the 1980's (and I stopped reading them regularly in 1994). Really looking forward to that !


and finally, as a Canadian, I have to say that in real life GSP would have kicked Evans' ass off the planet.

 

[DA_Champion]

But would GSP beat up Captain America?

 

[tek]

i enjoyed TWS overall probably more but Legder as the Joker towers over the totality of both films. If only he had his own film

 

[Batmannerism]

But would GSP beat up Captain America?

LOL ! In his prime GSP might have a slim chance, but Captain America is one tough dude, a total fighting machine - something that the fight choreography reflected really well.

 

[jmc]

Exactly, that's more or less my point. Not every character needs an arc for a movie to be compelling, and I think the Joker is a great example of that.

I'd actually argue that The Joker is the exception to the rule. I think the vast majority of villains do need an arc of some kind because they aren't such an absolute. Villains like The Joker are kind of rare if you think about it.