The Avengers Why all the cross-over hate?

@ Aztec

That 'Al Bundy' from Married with children (one of my favourite tv shows ever!) reference is the MOST BRILLIANT comparison I have ever seen!!!!!

THANK YOU so much!

It is so apt it is unbelievable!

From now on all TDK/Nolan-worshippers shall be known as 'Al Bundy'.
 
@ Cherokeesam

With respect to your statement that Nolan's TDK franchise is a crime drama and MARVEL studios makes SUPERHERO movies, WELL SAID!!!

They cannot be compared as you also rightfully said.
 
@ Cherokeesam

With respect to your statement that Nolan's TDK franchise is a crime drama and MARVEL studios makes SUPERHERO movies, WELL SAID!!!

They cannot be compared as you also rightfully said.


I agree with this completely. If you take out the names "Batman", "Joker", and "Two-Face" TDK is a crime thriller. It's really not in the same vein as the Marvel films (again I like both).

I'm glad you like my Al Bundy reference. I think it fits perfectly myself :). I would be honored to have created an internet reference. LOL.
 
Exactly. When Marvel Studios can produce a film that people seriously talk about being an Oscar contender in non-special effects categories, we'll talk about how great Marvel Studios makes comic book films. Right now, everything is going to be compared to The Dark Knight, and for most, nothing Marvel Studios has produced stacks up. The Dark Knight challenged everyone's preconceptions of not only what a superhero movie could be, but what they should be. I do love Marvel Studios' films, but, even as a Marvel/Disney shareholder, I cannot honestly say that any of the Marvel Studios films did that.

I find TDK to be a very engaging two and a half hour thrill-ride. The supposed "uber realistic movement" started along time before TDK came out. A superhero movie should, in my opinion, be a good movie that's about a superhero, which I would say BB, TDK, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America all are, in my opinion. I am fine with a gritty, neo-noir, crime drama tragedy like The Dark Knight or a good, fun time like Iron Man, so long as it works for the character in question.

The Dark Knight was better, now lets return to the crossover hate discussion.

The story, the villains, it was just everything better, i can see how you prefer iron man but tastes are different than perseption, for example, i know the tree of life is a masterpiece but id rather see iron man because its more entertaining. now lets go back to the crossover hate, i feel bad for talking about TDK in a marvel thread

joker-clap.gif


Its nice to see some common sense in this thread
icon14.gif
 
Good topic, I've read through all posts and I don't think I can add too much more to what's already been said.

However I'll say this, just the fact that this one poster above me felt the need to put his damn clapping Joker video in an Avengers thread says to me that mostly the "crossover hate" is indeed from DC fanboys, or alternatively from general audience people who don't understand the nature of the comic crossover design.

If Marvel puts Hawkeye in Thor for a few seconds they claim "Hawkeye did nothing and served no purpose to the overall story", however if they had put Hawkeye in Thor for screentime similiar to Black Widow in IM2 then they would've said "Hawkeye was just there to serve as obligitory advertising for the Avengers and distracted from the overall story" so Marvel is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The fact is that Marvel Studios is about to do something in 2012 that is a cinematic first and it scares some people, makes people nervous and they don't want to accept it as the innovative movie concept that it is. Nolan fanboys just want to cling to that Dark Knight and Nolan for dear life because that's all they've got and the general audience people should just shut up altogether and stick to reviewing the latest Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks schmaltz.

If Marvel does the same thing they'll get criticized, if they try something new and different they'll get critcized, and that's just simply because people will always try to figure out a way to bring down whoever's on top.
 
I think once The Avengers comes out, people will finally see the big picture that Marvel is painting. It will become more clear to the general audience... For sure, people will go out and rent/buy the films that are connected to The Avengers. I wouldn't be surprised if Marvel is already planning a special DVD package just for those specific people.

It's funny to me. Because I'm not a comic book reader, yet I love the connections with all the Marvel films right now. It's very different and very creative, IMO. Something that's never been done on film before.
 
i like the cross over stuff. it opens the movies up more. and since marvel studios is only making comic book movies at the moment it would make more sense for them to have a giant universe. i personally like when there are little references to other characters like in thor.
 
Why, exactly? Didn't you just read the whole diatribe above that TDK was NOT nominated for anything beyond special effects categories, except for Heath's Supporting Actor nod?

What I was saying is that there were esteemed critics who said that The Dark Knight should be nominated for Best Picture, something that I haven't heard said about any of Marvel Studios films. And Heath Ledger won Best Supporting Actor, so it did win at least one Oscar in a non-technical category.

No, not everything in CBMs is being compared to TDK, nor should it.
Batman is *not* a superhero ---he's a costumed vigilante. Anyone who reads comics understands the difference. Nolan does....that's why he wiped all the glitz and sheen and cheese off the story and made it strictly a crime drama with guys in funny suits.

Marvel, on the other hand, is in the business of making SUPERHERO movies. That's a genre that WB hasn't figured out yet, even with Superman and Green Lantern. SUPERHERO movies are a horse of an entirely different color than Nolan's uber-realist costumed vigilante manifesto.

So no, Marvel's movies are *not* comparable. They're two entirely different genres. It's like trying to compare Lord of the Rings to The Godfather Saga....it's fantasy vs. realism.

From my experience, everything is compared to The Dark Knight, just as they were compared to Spider-Man 2 prior to that, because it is considered to be the best.

Your definition of "superhero" is inconsistent. If not having powers makes Batman not a "superhero" but a "costumed vigilante", then Iron Man is not a superhero, and neither is Green Lantern.
 
I absolutely love the Al Bundy post about the 4 touchdowns in 1 game. That was pretty freaking awesome.

Honestly when I go see a film about superheros I dont really need to go into it saying "man I hope this gets nominated for an Oscar!" and Ive seen and loved DC and Marvel movies alike.

They equally are great in their own ways, you just get these left and right wing radicals who couldnt even say the word agreement. Im sick and tired of the Marvel vs. DC bs. In the end ITS ALL how YOU feel about a movie. Whether people agree with you or not, it is what it is.

DC has put out these past couple Batman movies which are awesome. Marvel has come out with TIH IM IM2 THor Cap which are awesome as well, IN THERE OWN FRIGGIN WAY.

Stop comparing movies for the sake of trying to prove whos D*%* is bigger for the love of god.......and honestly and Im being completely unbiased in this, whenever I tend to see these comparisons 90% of the time DC fans bringing up TDK, we get it...it was a good movie.....carry on with your life.

Edit: Also I love all the DC fanboys coming into Marvel threads and expecting everyone to see there point of view, that TDK is the greatest Superhero movie to date..........I cant even imagen these people have this little common sense....which only means they're here to start arguments......how typical
 
Last edited:
What I was saying is that there were esteemed critics who said that The Dark Knight should be nominated for Best Picture, something that I haven't heard said about any of Marvel Studios films. And Heath Ledger won Best Supporting Actor, so it did win at least one Oscar in a non-technical category.

So what if Heath Ledger won an Oscar? Sure, he deserves it, but I'd take Marvel Studio's streak of good superhero movies than just TDK. Besides, Oscar may be the Holy Grail for films and actors, but it alone does not dictate what is the best, since it is essentially a popularity contest. I'm still trying to figure out why movies like Shakespeare in Love and Crash win Best Picture, actually.

From my experience, everything is compared to The Dark Knight, just as they were compared to Spider-Man 2 prior to that, because it is considered to be the best.

I've been a lurker of SHH since it was known as the Spider-man Hype, and later joined the forum in 2002. I don't remember the kind of crazy devotion that this forum had with Spider-man 2 like they do with TDK. SM2 was a good movie and alot of people like it, but when it comes to TDK many people (usually DC fans and Batman diehards) put it on such a high pedestal it is ridiculous.
 
What really kills me about this whole TDK debate is that just by creating an Avengers topic about "crossover hate" (which has nothing to do with The Dark Knight) no less than 10 posts into it someone brings up that damn movie, and then after they themselves introduce that movie into the discussion by comparison they turn right around and say "well those two movies can't be compared because The Dark Knight isn't a superhero movie it's a crime drama thriller and Marvel only does superhero movies".

So if TDK is a "crime drama thriller" and not a superhero movie why the hell do these people keep trying to introduce that movie into every comicbook movie discussion when by their own claim they're saying that it's not a comicbook movie?

Which by the way is a bunch of nonsense anyway, The Dark Knight is a comicbook adaptation or a superhero movie anyway you slice it, you can go to BoxOffice Mojo and they've got that movie categorized by genre as comicbook adaptation and superhero not "crime drama thriller". 'Heat' is crime drama, 'The Departed' is crime drama, 'Carlito's Way', 'Goodfellas' 'Casino' are all crime dramas,

'The Dark Knight' is a superhero or comicbook adaptation movie, period. Stop trying to make that damn movie something that it's not.
 
Last edited:
So if TDK is a "crime drama thriller" and not a superhero movie why the hell do these people keep trying to introduce that movie into every comicbook movie discussion when by their own claim they're saying that it's not a comicbook movie?.

Because people who purportedly hate TDK are just as likely, if not more likely, to bring it up on SHH these days. I don't know why either.
 
So what if Heath Ledger won an Oscar? Sure, he deserves it, but I'd take Marvel Studio's streak of good superhero movies than just TDK. Besides, Oscar may be the Holy Grail for films and actors, but it alone does not dictate what is the best, since it is essentially a popularity contest. I'm still trying to figure out why movies like Shakespeare in Love and Crash win Best Picture, actually.



I've been a lurker of SHH since it was known as the Spider-man Hype, and later joined the forum in 2002. I don't remember the kind of crazy devotion that this forum had with Spider-man 2 like they do with TDK. SM2 was a good movie and alot of people like it, but when it comes to TDK many people (usually DC fans and Batman diehards) put it on such a high pedestal it is ridiculous.

The thing about the Oscars is that, for me at least, I once thought that I would never see even serious discussion of a superhero film potentially being nominated for an Oscar in a non-technical category.

What really kills me about this whole TDK debate is that just by creating an Avengers topic about "crossover hate" (which has nothing to do with The Dark Knight) no less than 10 posts into it someone brings up that damn movie, and then after they themselves introduce that movie into the discussion by comparison they turn right around and say "well those two movies can't be compared because The Dark Knight isn't a superhero movie it's a crime drama thriller and Marvel only does superhero movies".

So if TDK is a "crime drama thriller" and not a superhero movie why the hell do these people keep trying to introduce that movie into every comicbook movie discussion when by their own claim they're saying that it's not a comicbook movie?

Which by the way is a bunch of nonsense anyway, The Dark Knight is a comicbook adaptation or a superhero movie anyway you slice it, you can go to BoxOffice Mojo and they've got that movie categorized by genre as comicbook adaptation and superhero not "crime drama thriller". 'Heat' is crime drama, 'The Departed' is crime drama, 'Carlito's Way', 'Goodfellas' 'Casino' are all crime dramas,

'The Dark Knight' is a superhero or comicbook adaptation movie, period. Stop trying to make that damn movie something that it's not.

Agreed. The Dark Knight is a superhero film, even if it is an unconventional one.

Because people who purportedly hate TDK are just as likely, if not more likely, to bring it up on SHH these days. I don't know why either.

Probably because it's so well known and popular.
 
What really kills me about this whole TDK debate is that just by creating an Avengers topic about "crossover hate" (which has nothing to do with The Dark Knight) no less than 10 posts into it someone brings up that damn movie...

This. 'Nuff said.

Also, I love the crossovers. They add something unique to the cinematic experience that hasn't been done before. Decades from now, film students will look back on Marvel's series of movies as the first example of a new way to approach a multi-movie series. :awesome:
 
Look everyone it's Al Bundy #1!

Yeah, that's not funny at all. Not to mention, are you gonna start calling every poster that comes in here Al Bundy #2, 3, 4, etc just because they think TDK is a better movie than anything Marvel's put out so far?

That'll really support your argument :woot:

Good topic, I've read through all posts and I don't think I can add too much more to what's already been said.

However I'll say this, just the fact that this one poster above me felt the need to put his damn clapping Joker video in an Avengers thread says to me that mostly the "crossover hate" is indeed from DC fanboys, or alternatively from general audience people who don't understand the nature of the comic crossover design.

If Marvel puts Hawkeye in Thor for a few seconds they claim "Hawkeye did nothing and served no purpose to the overall story", however if they had put Hawkeye in Thor for screentime similiar to Black Widow in IM2 then they would've said "Hawkeye was just there to serve as obligitory advertising for the Avengers and distracted from the overall story" so Marvel is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The fact is that Marvel Studios is about to do something in 2012 that is a cinematic first and it scares some people, makes people nervous and they don't want to accept it as the innovative movie concept that it is. Nolan fanboys just want to cling to that Dark Knight and Nolan for dear life because that's all they've got and the general audience people should just shut up altogether and stick to reviewing the latest Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks schmaltz.

If Marvel does the same thing they'll get criticized, if they try something new and different they'll get critcized, and that's just simply because people will always try to figure out a way to bring down whoever's on top.

Do you even bother to read through the posts in a thread before you post a reply?

For the third time, I don't like DC.

All the comic books that I own are Marvel comics.

What I do like is great movies. The Dark Knight was a great movie. While I enjoyed all of Marvel's movies, they're far from great.

That's the root of this discussion.

Bashing Nolan and TDK only reduces the weight of your argument because you're technically advocating that the best in the genre [arguably] isn't the best just because when compared to Marvel's films it comes out on top.

I understand "the nature of the comic crossover design" and while it may be fun to see all these heroes share the same universe cinematically, its diminished the quality of each of their individual ventures. That's a general consensus too, not just my own opinion.

What really kills me about this whole TDK debate is that just by creating an Avengers topic about "crossover hate" (which has nothing to do with The Dark Knight) no less than 10 posts into it someone brings up that damn movie, and then after they themselves introduce that movie into the discussion by comparison they turn right around and say "well those two movies can't be compared because The Dark Knight isn't a superhero movie it's a crime drama thriller and Marvel only does superhero movies".

So if TDK is a "crime drama thriller" and not a superhero movie why the hell do these people keep trying to introduce that movie into every comicbook movie discussion when by their own claim they're saying that it's not a comicbook movie?

Which by the way is a bunch of nonsense anyway, The Dark Knight is a comicbook adaptation or a superhero movie anyway you slice it, you can go to BoxOffice Mojo and they've got that movie categorized by genre as comicbook adaptation and superhero not "crime drama thriller". 'Heat' is crime drama, 'The Departed' is crime drama, 'Carlito's Way', 'Goodfellas' 'Casino' are all crime dramas,

'The Dark Knight' is a superhero or comicbook adaptation movie, period. Stop trying to make that damn movie something that it's not.

Read the post below. Some of the people here advocating against TDK are actually trying to use the escape route of "Its not a superhero movie, so it shouldn't be compared to Marvel's films".

With respect to your statement that Nolan's TDK franchise is a crime drama and MARVEL studios makes SUPERHERO movies, WELL SAID!!!

They cannot be compared as you also rightfully said.

From my experience, everything is compared to The Dark Knight, just as they were compared to Spider-Man 2 prior to that, because it is considered to be the best.

Your definition of "superhero" is inconsistent. If not having powers makes Batman not a "superhero" but a "costumed vigilante", then Iron Man is not a superhero, and neither is Green Lantern.

Exactly
icon14.gif


This whole "You can't compare Marvel's movies to TDK because Batman isn't a superhero" argument is crap. And if I just remove TDK from the equation, X2, SM2 and X-Men First Class are still superior to the Marvel Studios movies. What's the excuse for that?

I absolutely love the Al Bundy post about the 4 touchdowns in 1 game. That was pretty freaking awesome.

Not really :dry:

Honestly when I go see a film about superheros I dont really need to go into it saying "man I hope this gets nominated for an Oscar!" and Ive seen and loved DC and Marvel movies alike.

They equally are great in their own ways, you just get these left and right wing radicals who couldnt even say the word agreement. Im sick and tired of the Marvel vs. DC bs. In the end ITS ALL how YOU feel about a movie. Whether people agree with you or not, it is what it is.

DC has put out these past couple Batman movies which are awesome. Marvel has come out with TIH IM IM2 THor Cap which are awesome as well, IN THERE OWN FRIGGIN WAY.

Stop comparing movies for the sake of trying to prove whos D*%* is bigger for the love of god.......and honestly and Im being completely unbiased in this, whenever I tend to see these comparisons 90% of the time DC fans bringing up TDK, we get it...it was a good movie.....carry on with your life.

I love all the DC fanboys coming into Marvel threads and expecting everyone to see there point of view, that TDK is the greatest Superhero movie to date..........I cant even imagen these people have this little common sense....which only means they're here to start arguments......how typical

Since you apparently just came here to make a statement rather than reply to someone's posts - because you clearly haven't read through the thread at all, I don't like DC.

I like great movies. Apocalypse Now, The Tree of Life, There Will Be Blood, A Clockwork Orange, Naked Lunch, Dead Man, Black Swan, The Dark Knight.

My point of view is that I like great movies. If I start saying Apocalypse Now is not a great movie just because I'm mad that people keep saying its better than Weekend at Bernie's, I'm not only reducing weight in my argument but I'm fooling myself.

If you're gonna show support for Marvel's movies, try doing it objectively :cwink:

You don't think TDK's the best in the genre? Fine. You're entitled to that opinion.

But don't go around telling everyone else that opposing your sentiment makes them "DC fanboys trying to prove whos D*%* is bigger."
 
Last edited:
The poor results Warner Brothers has had with getting DC characters to the screen and getting good films aside from Batman, has nothing really to do with a lack of a DC Cinematic Universe. In fact, at this point, with WB's home run-or-miss track record, there probably far better off without one for the the time being. One of the biggest potential problems of a shared universe between series in film is reboot series within it. In order to maintain the shared universe, you cannot reboot one series without rebooting them all, or making independent universes.
For example, let's say that Nolan's Batman series was set in a DCCU, with the massive success The Dark Knight being followed up by Green Lantern, which failed. If you want both series to maintain a common universe, then you either have to dump the successful Christopher Nolan Batman series or keep the failed Green Lantern series. Make sense?
 
This. 'Nuff said.

Also, I love the crossovers. They add something unique to the cinematic experience that hasn't been done before. Decades from now, film students will look back on Marvel's series of movies as the first example of a new way to approach a multi-movie series. :awesome:

If WB ever makes a JLA movie (although I'd only believe it when I see it), I'd like to see how they do it their own way and extremely different than Marvel's approach (ie no crossover, self-contained, etc). I believe all these references, cameos, and whatnots can make the Avengers movie even better, since we have gotten some introduction out of the way, and the movie won't be bogged down by having information overload.
 
The poor results Warner Brothers has had with getting DC characters to the screen and getting good films aside from Batman, has nothing really to do with a lack of a DC Cinematic Universe. In fact, at this point, with WB's home run-or-miss track record, there probably far better off without one for the the time being. One of the biggest potential problems of a shared universe between series in film is reboot series within it. In order to maintain the shared universe, you cannot reboot one series without rebooting them all, or making independent universes.
For example, let's say that Nolan's Batman series was set in a DCCU, with the massive success The Dark Knight being followed up by Green Lantern, which failed. If you want both series to maintain a common universe, then you either have to dump the successful Christopher Nolan Batman series or keep the failed Green Lantern series. Make sense?

Right now, Marvel has no plans to reboot any of their movies, so your point is moot. Even if Marvel is forced to recast, they have shown that (with Raffalo taking over Banner from Norton), that they have no problem doing it. As for your TDK/GL scenario, they will *never* dump Nolan's Batman movies, and if they must choose one or the other they'd probably make GL2 with a new Lantern like John Stewart, which would be qualified as both a sequel and a reboot, thus avert the problem. But since Nolan doesn't plan to make Batman 4 anyway, they'll just end up recasting a new actor for Batman, and keep GL the way it is. There will be no issue pertain to the new JLA movie if they do intend to make it.
 
I think once The Avengers comes out, people will finally see the big picture that Marvel is painting. It will become more clear to the general audience... For sure, people will go out and rent/buy the films that are connected to The Avengers. I wouldn't be surprised if Marvel is already planning a special DVD package just for those specific people.

It's funny to me. Because I'm not a comic book reader, yet I love the connections with all the Marvel films right now. It's very different and very creative, IMO. Something that's never been done on film before.

I don't think that the general audience actually has a problem with the crossover concept or the way it's being carried out. All of the dislike seems to come from some critics and a small but vocal group of CBM fans. Both groups have their own agendas. Many of the critics who whined about the set up for The Avengers made it clear that their opposition sprang from nothing more than a dislike of seeing a big studio set up a franchise. The fans who are against crossovers appear to be motivated by either ignorance of the history of the characters involved or hatred of them.

The crossover setup is something that is familiar from the very earliest days of Marvel Comics. The very first issue of The Avengers was the ultimate crossover, if you think about it, as the group included members who all had their own solo books before being teamed together. It is logical that the movie versions of these characters should evolve along a parallel path to their comic book origins.
 
Your definition of "superhero" is inconsistent. If not having powers makes Batman not a "superhero" but a "costumed vigilante", then Iron Man is not a superhero, and neither is Green Lantern.

Not at all.
Iron Man's costume and Green Lantern's ring give them *superheroic* powers, that allow them to do the fantastic, to do things that no human being could possibly do in real life (fly, throw cars, shoot flames out of their ass, whatever.) Beyond the occasional super-tech gadget on his utility belt, there's nothing in Batman's arsenal that allows him to do the impossible or improbable.

That's the difference between a superhero and a costumed vigilante --- one is rooted in the realm of fantasy/sci-fi, and one is rooted in the realist world of crime drama/ spy fiction.

Which by the way is a bunch of nonsense anyway, The Dark Knight is a comicbook adaptation or a superhero movie anyway you slice it, you can go to BoxOffice Mojo and they've got that movie categorized by genre as comicbook adaptation and superhero not "crime drama thriller". 'Heat' is crime drama, 'The Departed' is crime drama, 'Carlito's Way', 'Goodfellas' 'Casino' are all crime dramas,

'The Dark Knight' is a superhero or comicbook adaptation movie, period. Stop trying to make that damn movie something that it's not.


Boxofficemojo also lists Wanted, The Shadow, The Green Hornet, Zorro, Sheena Queen of the Jungle, Black Mask, and The Lone Ranger as superheroes, too. And then turns right around and *doesn't* list comparable titles like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, 300, V for Vendetta, Jonah Hex or Tarzan as superheroes.

The superhero genre isn't cut and dried. Just because something is a comic book adaptation does *not* make it superhero material; just because your hero wears a funny costume to fight baddies does not make him superhero material.
 
If Marvel puts Hawkeye in Thor for a few seconds they claim "Hawkeye did nothing and served no purpose to the overall story", however if they had put Hawkeye in Thor for screentime similiar to Black Widow in IM2 then they would've said "Hawkeye was just there to serve as obligitory advertising for the Avengers and distracted from the overall story" so Marvel is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Excellent point here. Well said.

Also can we not turn this into a TDK vs. Marvel thread? It ultimately has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
 
"Where you can look at a thigh
and blacken an eye!
At the nudie Bar! "

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself!. :woot:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,377
Messages
22,093,977
Members
45,889
Latest member
Starman68
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"