The Dark Knight Rises TDKR Trailer #3 debuting in The AVENGERS (May 4) - Part 1

[Fenrir]

Did i ever say Avengers was the greatest example of writing and characterisation in the genre? I don't remember doing so? I said it had brilliant writing and characterisation, and yes, i, along with millions of other people, including various "top" critics, agree.

Well if those various "top critics" are your barometer, then why not go back and what those same critics said about the writing and characterisation in TDK that you seem to have so much of a problem with? And can I get to see your source that states millions of people liked the Avengers not because it was a well-made and extremely enjoyable summer superhero action extravaganza but because it had brilliant writing and characterisation?

How isn't it relevant? You said it didn't have good characterisation or writing, i just provided you with an example of some.

No, I just pointed out that if Avengers has such brilliant writing and characterisation, then what about all those examples of poor writing and cheesy scenes when you suddenly started going "lalalala not listening Nolan worshipper go watch something else Avengers made 200 million kthankxbye u r bias".

Do you deny that this is good writing and characterisation?

You call that an example of subtle writing?

It was certainly good writing and characterisation but I don't think anyone missed the fact that Stark was talking about himself in that scene. As a matter of fact, I find it hilarious that this is your big example of great characterisation and writing, when anyone with half the penchant for perceiving subtle hints you claim to have could have easily picked something much better.

Also, the Hulk vs Loki thing? Wasn't just for laughs. It subverted the villain monologue trope. It was also Banner/Hulk's revenge for Loki taunting him the whole film. It was also the moment where Loki, all his hubris, all his arrogance, his claim to be a God above petty mortals, was brought down to Earth with a massive bump.

There is a serious way to do that, and there is a "tounge-in-cheek" way to do that. Unfortunately in the case of the Avengers, it is done in the latter way. That stupid expression on Loki's face and the silly whine he lets out is what prevents anyone from taking that scene seriously.

Like what? His face at the dinner table with Dent? Yea i noticed it, was very good. His mourning over Rachel? Yes, very good.

He's still boring and uninteresting. Harvey Dent is the most interesting character in TDK. Along with Joker and Gordon.

Not even close. Again, goes to show how good you are at detecting subtleties, yet you are the one here decrying monologues.

 

[The Morningstar]

How was he aware? Does that mean Hawkeye was aware too?

Yea he was. Notice when he's talking to Widow about what it was like, worrying about how many people he killed. And she told him not to think about it.

 

[Oruku Saki]

Look, I liked the Avengers, but great writing doesn't include Selvig conveniently knowing how to shut down the portal. That scene made absolutely no sense. Textbook deus ex machina.

There's a deus ex machina in every movie. Cause in real life you can't ever really "fix" anything. We intentionally put in a d.e.m to make our movies come out better than our real lives.

 

[Greens]

Yea he was. Notice when he's talking to Widow about what it was like, worrying about how many people he killed. And she told him not to think about it.

Okay, but how was Selvig able to build in an emergency shutoff if he was under the control of Loki?

 

[Blue Sugar]

 

[Oruku Saki]

 

[Fenrir]

Critically acclaim doesn't hurt either. Avengers is sitting at 93% on RT with an average score of 8.1. So called "top" critics love the movie, praise the characterisation.

Going by your logic then, TDK - a film whose writing you seem to be having a lot of issues with, by virtue of its critical acclaim, must be superior then:

RT: 94%
Avg. Rating: 8.4
Metacritic Score: 82 (compared to 69 of the Avengers)

 

[batbax]

Trolololol

 

[Oruku Saki]

"Hi, I'm a Marvel"

"And I'm a DC"

 

[The Morningstar]

Well if those various "top critics" are your barometer, then why not go back and what those same critics said about the writing and characterisation in TDK that you seem to have so much of a problem with? And can I get to see your source that states millions of people liked the Avengers not because it was a well-made and extremely enjoyable summer superhero action extravaganza but because it had brilliant writing and characterisation?

Because the great writing and characterisation is what makes it an extremely enjoyable blockbuster. A film doesn't make 200 million OW on the back of fanboys and great action scenes. There is quite obviously something else there.

No, I just pointed out that if Avengers has such brilliant writing and characterisation, then what about all those examples of poor writing and cheesy scenes when you suddenly started going "lalalala not listening Nolan worshipper go watch something else Avengers made 200 million kthankxbye u r bias".

No, i have countered your points. The Cap scene was pure Cap, if you don't like it you must not like the Cap character. I also explained what was special about the Hulk vs Loki scene.

You call that an example of subtle writing?

It was certainly good writing and characterisation but I don't think anyone missed the fact that Stark was talking about himself in that scene. As a matter of fact, I find it hilarious that this is your big example of great characterisation and writing, when anyone with half the penchant for perceiving subtle hints you claim to have could have easily picked something much better.

Actually, someone in this very thread missed that point. And various other people didn't realise it.

Give me an example of a more subtle piece of characterisation from TDK. Just one.

There is a serious way to do that, and there is a "tounge-in-cheek" way to do that. Unfortunately in the case of the Avengers, it is done in the latter way. That stupid expression on Loki's face and the silly whine he lets out is what prevents anyone from taking that scene seriously.

That scene had grown men and women in hysterics and cheering their asses off all 3 times i saw it... in the UK. Which is completely unheard of. It was a brilliant scene. I can't believe someone is nit picking it, i honestly can't.

To me it's like someone moaning about the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy just shoots that guy showing off with the sword.

Not even close. Again, goes to show how good you are at detecting subtleties, yet you are the one here decrying monologues.

Enlighten me oh exalted one.

 

[Oruku Saki]

ok, quick qeustion bout TDKR. Is Bruce gonna be gone most of this film; does anyone know yet how long he will be out of commission...i'm just not really looking forward to a Batman movie where Catwoman does Batman's job most of the movie until he shows back up

 

[batbax]

Have to give morningstar credit. He actually said that of one found captain America's line or dialogue in one scene a tad cheesy or not great that the superhero genre as a whole isn't for them. I've heard some ridiculous stuff on these boards, but he wins.

 

[Wedge A.]

Like the bullet scanning thing that made no sense in TDK? You don't get finger prints on bullets, you get them on casings

But Selveg mentioned that he was aware of what he was doing under Loki's control, and that he built in an emergency shut off.

There's a difference between suspension of disbelief over something like the bullet, which is admittedly faulty, and just lazy writing to conveniently defeat the enemy and close the portal. Not that I mentioned The Dark Knight, anyway.

There was absolutely no indication that the Doctor knew what he was doing beforehand. And if he was aware of what he was doing when he was under Loki's control, then why the hell was he building the portal to begin with? So if he was aware he was building the portal, doesn't that make him evil? Why wouldn't he just stop? That goes against his entire character.

I'm sorry, that was a total plot convenience and deus ex machina at its finest.

 

[The Morningstar]

Going by your logic then, TDK - a film whose writing you seem to be having a lot of issues with, by virtue of its critical acclaim, must be superior then:

RT: 94%
Avg. Rating: 8.4
Metacritic Score: 82 (compared to 69 of the Avengers)

I've said i respect TDK as a well made film. I've also said that i do not like the spoon feeding dialogue, i prefer the sharper, more concise dialogue of Mamet, Sorkin and Whedon. I've ALSO said i can understand why people do like Nolan's dialogue. I've never once said that it is objectively bad, like what you are doing with Avengers.

I mean, WTF?

 

[The Morningstar]

There's a difference between suspension of disbelief over something like the bullet, which is admittedly faulty, and just lazy writing to conveniently defeat the enemy and close the portal. Not that I mentioned The Dark Knight, anyway.

There was absolutely no indication that the Doctor knew what he was doing beforehand. And if he was aware of what he was doing when he was under Loki's control, then why the hell was he building the portal to begin with? So if he was aware he was building the portal, doesn't that make him evil? Why wouldn't he just stop? That goes against his entire character.

I'm sorry, that was a total plot convenience and deus ex machina at its finest.

There is no difference. Without the silly bullet scanning thing Bruce wouldn't have found the apartment. It was a piece of PIS (plot induced stupidity) to get the plot where it needed to go. It's the same principle, they are both deus ex machina's.

And there was a mention of him having awareness. He explicitly states it.

 

[Wedge A.]

There is no difference. Without the silly bullet scanning thing Bruce wouldn't have found the apartment. It was a piece of PIS (plot induced stupidity) to get the plot where it needed to go. It's the same principle, they are both deus ex machina's.

The bullet segment led Bruce Wayne to an apartment with police officers, where he was already too late. It had no further implications from that point on in the plot, other than showing that Wayne/Batman was always a step behind the Joker.

Selvig knowing how to close the portal was how they saved the world at the end of the movie. It resolved the plot from an instance conceived for that exact convenience, with no prior mention or reason for it occurring.

There's a big difference.

And if he had awareness, then why did he build the portal to begin with? Once again, something they fail to explain in favor of just having a convenient ending.

 

[The Morningstar]

The bullet segment led Bruce Wayne to an apartment with police officers, where he was already to late. It had no further implications from that point on in the plot, other than showing that Wayne/Batman was always a step behind the Joker.

Selvig knowing how to close the portal was how they saved the world at the end of the movie. It resolved the plot from an instance conceived for that exact convenience, with no prior mention or reason for it occurring.

There's a big difference.

He explicitly states that he had some awareness when constructing the machine for Loki. He built in a safety feature. Perhaps he still maintained some of his humanity whilst under Loki's control? Who knows? Who cares?

How did Indy know he and Marion wouldn't get zapped by the Ark at the end of Raiders? Who knows? Who cares?

 

[Fenrir]

Because the great writing and characterisation is what makes it an extremely enjoyable blockbuster. A film doesn't make 200 million OW on the back of fanboys and great action scenes. There is quite obviously something else there.

What about the films that made $2 billion (Titanic) and $2.5 billion (Avatar)? They must be better than the Avengers then, since everything according to you boils down to box office receipt? "Hey, if so many people loved then there must be something completely mindblowingly brilliant about it, no?".

No, i have countered your points. The Cap scene was pure Cap, if you don't like it you must not like the Cap character. I also explained what was special about the Hulk vs Loki scene.

Your explanations are laughable. "If you don't like that scene, then you must not like Captain America", "If you didn't like that, then you must not love superhero movies" "How could you not love that? You have no soul!".

Actually, someone in this very thread missed that point. And various other people didn't realise it.

Then perhaps they weren't paying attention. Stark saying something that is, oh I don't know, pretty much describing his introduction scene in both Avengers and Iron Man 2. Oh gawd, I didn't know how I could've missed that.

That scene had grown men and women in hysterics and cheering their asses off all 3 times i saw it... in the UK. Which is completely unheard of. It was a brilliant scene. I can't believe someone is nit picking it, i honestly can't.

Thank you for proving my point about that scene being done in a "tongue-in-cheek" rather than "serious" way.

To me it's like someone moaning about the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy just shoots that guy showing off with the sword.

I would be, if the guy with the sword was the main villain of the film who was actually quite tenacious, imposing and threatening for the first half of the film before being reduced to a complete and utter joke in the end.

Give me an example of a more subtle piece of characterisation from TDK. Just one. Enlighten me oh exalted one.

Dig up my previous posts from the TDK forum if you are so begging for a lesson. I am not here to spoonfeed infants.

 

[Fenrir]

I've said i respect TDK as a well made film. I've also said that i do not like the spoon feeding dialogue, i prefer the sharper, more concise dialogue of Mamet, Sorkin and Whedon. I've ALSO said i can understand why people do like Nolan's dialogue. I've never once said that it is objectively bad, like what you are doing with Avengers.

I mean, WTF?

Again, maybe you should read what I am posting instead of going off on pointless tangents. Just because I think there are instances of poor writing and cheesy scenes does not mean the writing and characterisations in the entire film are worthless. You seem to be the one that just can't seem to digest the fact that someone can actually dislike something about the Avengers and that is just childish. Not liking certain parts does not equal hating the film as a whole. Grow up.

 

[shauner111]

There were a lot of cheesy lines in Avengers. If Morningstar can't see them, then he's in denial. But maybe we can agree that it's there for a reason, THIS is the kind of comic book movie it's supposed to be. Fun.

The lines off the top of my head, without mentioning some of Furys and Lokis lines that were cheeseball.
Black Widow: "itll be fun.."
Stark: "You can damn well be sure we'll avenge it!"

Cmon dude the dialogue is nothing close to fantastic. That's reaching. BUT it friggin works, so whoever is complaining about the Hulk-Loki moment. You're not letting urself enjoy the movie. There are moments in these movies that just need stupid but hilarious scenes. It's about the fun in those cases. Don't be so uptight. The "itll be fun" part from Scarlet is reasonable because it didnt serve the scene that was going to follow. It could have been taken a little more seriously. Good movie, fun, but the writing is not a strength, it's the action.

 

[Wedge A.]

He explicitly states that he had some awareness when constructing the machine for Loki. He built in a safety feature. Perhaps he still maintained some of his humanity whilst under Loki's control? Who knows? Who cares?

How did Indy know he and Marion wouldn't get zapped by the Ark at the end of Raiders? Who knows? Who cares?

Considering it wrapped up the entire movie, I care a bit. And a fan as big as you, I would expect you to care as well. He explicitly states that he had awareness, yet he can't realize that he's building something that could bring out the end of the world? He knows what he's building, and knows it's potentially apocalyptic, and builds it anyway? Okay, he's under mind control. Regardless, we have no indication prior to that moment that he has retained humanity. That makes it a plot convenience. But the second you say he has the awareness to build a fail-safe, then all logic in this situation is lost. But yeah, who cares. It's still like, the best movie ever, right?

Also, Indiana Jones was a professor who knew more than enough about history, he knew what happened when the Ark was opened. There's a passage in the Bible about looking into the Ark. But if you want to get technical, there is a deleted scene in which Imam explains to Indy to never look into the Ark. Not sure how this is relevant, but there you go.

 

[TinkerTailor]

I've said i respect TDK as a well made film. I've also said that i do not like the spoon feeding dialogue, i prefer the sharper, more concise dialogue of Mamet, Sorkin and Whedon. I've ALSO said i can understand why people do like Nolan's dialogue. I've never once said that it is objectively bad, like what you are doing with Avengers.

I mean, WTF?

I like Whedon as a writer, but that's the second time you've mentioned him in the same sentence as Mamet, and it's the second time my eyes nearly jumped out of my skull with incredulity. Also, the person who said every film has a deus ex machina needs to watch more good films.

 

[Fenrir]

Wait, so if crowds of people like something, then it's "bad" writing? I think the thing your missing in your argument is "fun". People don't go to the movies to be more depressed then they already are. Apocalypse Now (depressing) Citizen Kane (depressing). From your take on the best movies It seems to me you like a movie that mirrors the human condition; how we are all hellbent, worthless ants clinging to life on the side of a giant ant hill, clawing our way over one another to reach the top. Sorry but I get enough of that from the news; don't need to see it at the movies to beat it into my head any more. (Oh, and I love Apocalypse Now and Citizen Kane, but no way are people gonna pay to watch either of those over and over again)

Let's not change the subject here. We are talking about the quality of writing and characterisation, not what kinds of films you and I like or what the general audience likes. Whether or not those films are "depressing" is irrelevant. My point was that they had great writing and characterisation and if your endless trumpeting of box office figures was valid in any way, it would have been those films at the top of the pyramid rather than what we have today.

 

[The Morningstar]

What about the films that made $2 billion (Titanic) and $2.5 billion (Avatar)? They must be better than the Avengers then, since everything according to you boils down to box office receipt? "Hey, if so many people loved then there must be something completely mindblowingly brilliant about it, no?".

As well as critical acclaim. I'm not one to use box office receipts on their own to judge a movies quality. But what box office receipts do show is that the movie resonates with people.

Your explanations are laughable. "If you don't like that scene, then you must not like Captain America", "If you didn't like that, then you must not love superhero movies" "How could you not love that? You have no soul!".

No... my explanation for the Cap scene is that it's a piece of characterisation. Cap, with his actions, not words, shows these cynical cops what it means to be an American icon. That's what Cap does. He inspires with his actions.

The Hulk scene? Yep i've explained that too.

Then perhaps they weren't paying attention. Stark saying something that is, oh I don't know, pretty much describing his introduction scene in both Avengers and Iron Man 2. Oh gawd, I didn't know how I could've missed that.

So no you are belittling the people who didn't get that? Bravo.

Thank you for proving my point about that scene being done in a "tongue-in-cheek" rather than "serious" way.

I would be, if the guy with the sword was the main villain of the film who was actually quite tenacious, imposing and threatening for the first half of the film before being reduced to a complete and utter joke in the end.And why did it need to be serious? The villain wasn't just defeated, he was utterly humiliated, and that is part of why people loved that scene.

What is wrong with the villain being humiliated? Loki was an ********. Belittling Banner throughout the movie. Telling humans they are beneath him, making them kneel. Completely verbally assaulting Black Widow, calling her a quim, of all things.

Then Hulk, the ****ing man, comes in and shows this "god" that he is puny. It was great. The fact that Loki was such a prick is part of the reason why the crowd responded so well. This arrogant, jumped up little prick who views humans as ants got what was coming to him. A utterly humilating humbling at the hands of Hulk.

Dig up my previous posts from the TDK forum if you are so begging for a lesson. I am not here to spoonfeed infants.

Spoonfed to infants? Says the guy who thinks Nolan's spoon feeding dialogue is brilliant

 

[Blue Sugar]

Love the bullet-scanning scene in TDK!

And I can love both styles of dialogue-writing, it depends on how well it is done and in which context. But yes I am especially weak for melodramatic, grand and slightly poetic writing. Nolan's style reminds me of favorites like Bergman, Kurosawa and Puzo. It touches me deeper emotionally, especially in the long run.