The Avengers VS. The Dark Knight Rises....Where I stand on the matter

Hey guys. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinions. But...My question is why the heck is the Avengers regarded so highly? The more I saw it the worse it got. The villain isn't compelling in the least, the potentially-interesting aspect of the internal struggle within the Avengers to assemble as a cohesive team felt like it HAD to happen, so it just spontaneously did, instead of demonstrating how they go from hating each other to working together effectively, and it is all about senseless action sequences lacking any sort of character-based motivation behind them. I mean, I get that its a cool spectacle, and that it wasn't meant to be much more than that, but I've been reading a lot lately that people consider the Avengers to be a better movie than TDKR, which actually tries to say something important to the audience, has the components of a critically good film despite its genre, and generally is much more compelling, in my opinion.

I mean, I get that you can enjoy a movie on many levels, and not every movie has to say something to be fun. But I really believe that the TDK trilogy does both; its cerebral, as well as having some pretty sweet action pieces that are fun to watch, as well. The Avengers, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to offer the average moviegoer in regard to cerebral stimulation, and no discernible message to present, either. It's my belief that a good movie says something about society, and provides lessons that can be applied to real life. It's the movie that helps shape one's beliefs that are truly pieces of art, not just escapist entertainment. So I guess it just gets to me when people think that The Avengers was MORE than just escapist entertainment, and was a critically better movie than TDKR. What is even more irritating are the "reasons" people give to support their argument.

They cite inaccuracies in regard to the comics, plot holes they couldn't seem to ignore, and other very trivial items that, in regards to the bigger context of the movie on the whole, really don't add up to anything meaningful. I mean, I started out as a fan of Batman by reading the comics, not by watching the TDK trilogy, and I have absolutely zero issues with the inconsequential liberties Nolan took with the universe. The main reason being...they are minor details that don't really have much weight in regards to the overall message he is trying to convey. And the "plot holes" people cite (How Wayne gets from the Pit to Gotham, how his back gets fixed, etc.) are 1.) easily explained or glanced over, and 2.) mean absolutely nothing to the artistic value of the film. Also, people seem to hate on Nolan for making Batman "dark and gritty". My problem with this is twofold: 1.)I'm sorry, but anyone who cites Adam West and Schumacher as real indications of the character of Batman don't really get what the essence of the character is about. Batman storylines ARE actually pretty dark. Just read the Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum, Year One, or any other acclaimed Batman novels, and you will see my point. And 2.) Nolan's portrayal actually isn't all that "dark and gritty" at all. Cinematography-wise, the shots' composition (especially in TDKR) are quite bright, and fully lit. Tonally, yes, the themes can be pretty meloncholy, at least on a superficial level. But actually, when you really think about what the films are trying to say, they are pretty optimistic, hopeful, and inspiring...what a hero film should be.

And as to the "realism" debate, the one that says "well, for all the gritty realism Nolan touts in his films, there are some pretty big plot holes in his story", all I have to say is that I don't think the Nolan films were ever trying to be ultra realistic. They were trying to be more RELATABLE, yes, even more believable, but not really "realistic". A lot of artistic liscense was taken with his portrayal, because the idea of Batman is a pretty romantic notion at its core. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that TDKR actually says something of value about our society. It tells us the power one individual can possess in the face of external threats, the hope one can inspire in others by taking action, and the importance of convictions in the face of adversity. What does the Avengers try to say about the world we live in? I am at a loss to say. So, I'm just venting my frustration at the arguments presented for The Avengers over TDKR, because they really don't hold much weight at all. I'd like to hear some of your opinions on the matter.

This argument is so 2012 now.

The Avengers won, move on.

For me the dark knight trilogy was a waste of time. It was good but it dint need 3 movies from nolan. I would have preferred them making a batman that existed in the same universe as Superman etc. But they rather make 3 movies from 2005 till 2012 while marvel was dishing out one blockbuster after another wich then resulted in the avengers.

I liked both movies, even though they both had flaws.

Realistic superhero movie? That would be the movie where the superhero gets shot multiple times, paramedics save he life and take him to get psychologically evaluated while the police track down and arrest the shooter.

Eh. I've already said more than my fair share of the Nolan take on Batman (it's not the Dark Knight trilogy... only two of the films were 'Dark Knight' movies), so I won't say too much more on that.

But, as far as I'm concerned The Avengers was so much better than any of the Nolan Batfilms... while it's far from perfect, it's a great example of a comic book movie done right. It captured the characters, action and well, just about everything just about perfectly. Whereas - while wildly popular and somewhat successful - Nolan just made Batman darker (darker does not mean more realistic) and strayed too far from what made Batman what he is.

rodneyfaile said:

I liked both movies, even though they both had flaws.

Realistic superhero movie? That would be the movie where the superhero gets shot multiple times, paramedics save he life and take him to get psychologically evaluated while the police track down and arrest the shooter.

Click to expand...

So... Kick-Ass (more or less)?

I love both films, but if I had to pop one in JUST for entertainment's sake, it would be The Avengers. Without going into a rant, it's just a fun, action-packed popcorn movie, whereas TDKR you really do have to "watch". I do like both, but for different reasons, which is why it seems kind of pointless to compare the two.

Well, I loved Batman Begins, hated Dark Knight, never saw Dark Knight Rises, so I can't comment on which one was better. I did love the Avengers though. And to be honest, if I were a rich guy who decided to become a superhero, I would opt for an Iron Man suit over a Bat suit any day.

Tony Stark is who Bruce Wayne WOULD have been if his parents hadn't been murdered right in front of him.

There's nothing wrong with a CBM offering 'cerebral stimulation' over popcorn entertainment. The problem is that TDK did it much MUCH better than DKR! And look, I get DKR - it's a man behind the mask journey type of story to give some closure to Bruce Wayne and the entire Nolan trilogy. But the whole Tale of Two Cities revolution vibe detracted the movie too much for me from being a Batman story. And the plot twist at the end with Bane and Talia downgraded the badass villain Bane was to being some PO'd daddy issue girl's pet dog, and then how he dies was just anticlimatic as hell. Plus I'll take an epic alien invasion over a bunch of cops running towards machine gun fire any day.

Both movies had plot holes, plenty of them. And while Loki by himself was never a serious threat, Tom Hiddleston's performance was still brilliant. Tom Hardy on the other hand, I didn't find his performance that compelling, definitely nowhere near Ledger's Joker; Bane's voiceover also didn't help. The whole dark and grounded vs fun and non-grounded debate is overplayed, Nolan and Whedon just showed they can do it either way and tell great stories to the general audience (fanboys aside). I think Nolan's trilogy is one of the best cinematic trilogies of all time, despite my disappointment for the threequel. And Avengers, I've seen it probably well over 10x, still hasn't lost its appeal. DKR... I saw it 3x by now and don't think I can watch it again many more times, despite having seen BB and TDK probably as often as I've seen Avengers.

The Avengers. It was a great love letter to the genre instead of a love letter to just one character.

Plus, I hated Nolan's "We will honor the recently deceased by completely ignoring them" treatment of the Joker in TDKR. Batman apprehends the Joker, and all anyone remembers is that he kicked a swat team out a window?

I enjoyed both. Superheroes aren't my thing, I'm more about the villains in these films, so with that in mind:

Avengers - Well acted but poorly scripted & used bad guy. Turns out he was a patsy. Didn't bug me so much.

TDKR - Middle of the road and generic. Turns out he was a patsy of the first order. That bugged me.

I do think I got in to TDKR a bit more than Avengers but that's probably more to do with my familiarity with the characters (although this was my first introduction to Bane and he didn't impress me at all). For Avengers the only lead up movie I saw was the first Iron Man.

I will say though that Dark Knight blew both of them out of the water. The Joker is probably my favorite villain of any comic character and Ledger portrayed him brilliantly in a film that kept me engaged the whole time. I can't say I got that same feeling from either of the other two films. I didn't particularly like Batman Begins either.

Michael Bergeron said:

I didn't particularly like Batman Begins either.

Click to expand...

Blaphemy, best of the Nolan verse.

Avengers hands down the most fun to watch. :thumbsup

Finhead said:

Blaphemy, best of the Nolan verse.

Click to expand...

:lol

So much potential wasted IMO. Scarecrow could have been awesome, instead we get a Tibetan story line with a bland Liam Neeson and the cringe worthy performance of Katie Holmes. TDK knocked it out of the park when they killed that character off. Took real guts to do that and the pay off was huge in effectiveness.

Okay, I'm going to give my response to each person in the order that they posted.

Shadow345 said:

This argument is so 2012 now.

The Avengers won, move on.

Click to expand...

Shadow345: And Star Wars is so 1977. I don't see many people "moving on" from that one, though, and I don't plan on "moving on" from what I see as a debate over styles of movie making, which I think is still pretty relevant.

Mektar said:

For me the dark knight trilogy was a waste of time. It was good but it dint need 3 movies from nolan. I would have preferred them making a batman that existed in the same universe as Superman etc. But they rather make 3 movies from 2005 till 2012 while marvel was dishing out one blockbuster after another wich then resulted in the avengers.

Click to expand...

Mektar: I think this is more a debate about quality, rather than quantity. Sure, Marvel has Nolan beat in the quantity department. That's no indication of how good each individual movie was compared to the other, though, and that's what I am trying to discuss. And just because a BATMAN movie (a movie about Batman) didn't have Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Aqua Man, and everyone else in the JLA in it, does in no way detract from the quality of the movie; in fact, I think it is better this way, as Batman is such a complex character, you wouldn't get much of anything in terms of a compelling character arc if he had to share the 2 hours with like 5 other people.

rodneyfaile said:

I liked both movies, even though they both had flaws.

Realistic superhero movie? That would be the movie where the superhero gets shot multiple times, paramedics save he life and take him to get psychologically evaluated while the police track down and arrest the shooter.

Click to expand...

rodneyfaile: I think when I mentioned the whole "realism" thing in my original post, I addressed that the TDK trilogy was NOT trying to be uber realistic. If it were, it would make for one boring movie, and I don't think Nolan ever intended for his films to be extremely realistic, in that sense. The characters were realistic, the implementation of the details (Batsuit, Batcave, etc.) were realistic, but they were realistic not for realism's sake; they were realistic to make the overall story more relatable to the audience.

JD said:

Eh. I've already said more than my fair share of the Nolan take on Batman (it's not the Dark Knight trilogy... only two of the films were 'Dark Knight' movies), so I won't say too much more on that.

But, as far as I'm concerned The Avengers was so much better than any of the Nolan Batfilms... while it's far from perfect, it's a great example of a comic book movie done right. It captured the characters, action and well, just about everything just about perfectly. Whereas - while wildly popular and somewhat successful - Nolan just made Batman darker (darker does not mean more realistic) and strayed too far from what made Batman what he is.

Click to expand...

JD: I'm afraid I could not disagree more with your comment. The reason I love the Nolan Batman universe so much is that he DID distill the essence of the character so perfectly. Batman, the comic book character isn't about flashy action panels, big set pieces, or anything so superficial. The Batman comics were, at their best and pure form, a very HUMAN series. It was psychological, it was thrilling, it was mysterious, and most of all, stimulating. Seeing as the character was featured in "Detective Comics", and not "Action Comics", his stories were meant to be all of those things I just mentioned, as well as being dark. Detectives, after all, don't investigate lost toys, do they? Detectives (which Batman is at his core, more than a superhero) solve crimes. Crimes are violent. Dark. That is the world Gotham was constructed to be, in order to give Batman a wealth of crimes to solve. So, at the very core of what Batman is and what his stories are about, is the darkest corners of the human psyche. But, the themes of the character are far from bleak. Batman is all about inspiring good in the common man, symbolizing the realization of justice, even in a corrupt system. He IS incorruptible, even though far from perfect. So, in light of all that, I don't think Nolan's adaptation was any "darker" than any of the source material was, and rightly so. Batman, as a person, IS pretty flawed. He witnessed a traumatic incident as a young boy. It served as his impetus to strive to be a servant of Gotham, sure, but in the process it SCARRED him. As such, he is indeed a conflicted person, as portrayed in the Nolan universe. But moreso than highlight his IMperfections, Nolan chose to highlight the depths Bruce would go to be a symbol of good. That, I think, serves more to credit the notion that the Nolan universe isn't so "dark and gritty" as people seem to think.

MooMooEgg said:

I love both films, but if I had to pop one in JUST for entertainment's sake, it would be The Avengers. Without going into a rant, it's just a fun, action-packed popcorn movie, whereas TDKR you really do have to "watch". I do like both, but for different reasons, which is why it seems kind of pointless to compare the two.

Click to expand...

MooMooEgg: Well, I definitely wouldn't say it's POINTLESS to compare two movies. They are both comic book movies, right? I mean, I'm not trying to compare Alvin and the Chipmunks to like, the Godfather or something. Plus, a lot is to be gained from comparing, contrasting, and criticizing films; I think what a film INVOKES in its audience, the emotion it triggers, is much more important than the two hours it fills in and of itself.

NakedMoleRat said:

Well, I loved Batman Begins, hated Dark Knight, never saw Dark Knight Rises, so I can't comment on which one was better. I did love the Avengers though. And to be honest, if I were a rich guy who decided to become a superhero, I would opt for an Iron Man suit over a Bat suit any day.

Click to expand...

NakedMoleRat: That's strange, usually people's favorite of the trilogy is The Dark Knight. It's not the main focus of this thread, but if I may ask, what was so wrong with it in your eyes?

third3ye said:

There's nothing wrong with a CBM offering 'cerebral stimulation' over popcorn entertainment. The problem is that TDK did it much MUCH better than DKR! And look, I get DKR - it's a man behind the mask journey type of story to give some closure to Bruce Wayne and the entire Nolan trilogy. But the whole Tale of Two Cities revolution vibe detracted the movie too much for me from being a Batman story. And the plot twist at the end with Bane and Talia downgraded the badass villain Bane was to being some PO'd daddy issue girl's pet dog, and then how he dies was just anticlimatic as hell. Plus I'll take an epic alien invasion over a bunch of cops running towards machine gun fire any day. Both movies had plot holes, plenty of them. And while Loki by himself was never a serious threat, Tom Hiddleston's performance was still brilliant. Tom Hardy on the other hand, I didn't find his performance that compelling, definitely nowhere near Ledger's Joker; Bane's voiceover also didn't help. The whole dark and grounded vs fun and non-grounded debate is overplayed, Nolan and Whedon just showed they can do it either way and tell great stories to the general audience (fanboys aside). I think Nolan's trilogy is one of the best cinematic trilogies of all time, despite my disappointment for the threequel. And Avengers, I've seen it probably well over 10x, still hasn't lost its appeal. DKR... I saw it 3x by now and don't think I can watch it again many more times, despite having seen BB and TDK probably as often as I've seen Avengers.

Click to expand...

third3ye: Well, "No Man's Land" did a great job of a large scale, War in Gotham story in the comics, and showed that not all of Batman's stories had to be small and personal tales. Also, the Talia twist with Bane connected TDKR so seamlessly with the rest of the trilogy, which you seem to like. And I wouldn't exactly say Bane was Talia's "dog", it's very clear there was a lot of mutual love and respect between the two, due to Bane's rescue of Talia and Talia's subsequent rescue of Bane. As to the conclusion, I sure as Hell cried a lot more when I was convinced Bruce was dead, then when I was shown how Tony MIGHT die, which I never believed for a second. Plus, I'd take a mostly practically-shot but still epic-in-scale battle that held represented so much for the characters involved, and was the culmination of so many struggles coming to a head, than an overly-CG explosion fest, that held little to no value to the characters themselves, other than being a dramatic set piece. As to Tom Hiddleston's performance....I honestly don't know where people are getting the idea that he is on the same level as Ledger's Joker. He has like, one megalomaniacal speech to a bunch of Germans, continues his one dimensional performance through his dialogue with the various heroes, and then gets rag-dolled by the Hulk. There was simply nothing compelling about his character, or how Tom portrayed him. He was there because he had to be, or there wouldn't be any conflict, but beyond that...nothing very spectacular.

Jeyl said:

The Avengers. It was a great love letter to the genre instead of a love letter to just one character.

Plus, I hated Nolan's "We will honor the recently deceased by completely ignoring them" treatment of the Joker in TDKR. Batman apprehends the Joker, and all anyone remembers is that he kicked a swat team out a window?

Click to expand...

Jeyl: How else would Nolan deal with the fact that Ledger is DEAD, other than not mentioning him, 8 years after his character had been dealt with? Everyone was sure Batman had killed the corrupt cops responsible for Rachel's death in addition to Harvey Dent, but relatively few people knew he apprehended the Joker. Plus, I think several murders were still murders in the eyes of Gotham, despite the apprehension of a terrorist. Plus, in the TDKR novel, the Joker is mentioned, saying during Bane's revolution, the Joker escaped Arkham, and no one was sure where he was. They could have pulled a Jeff Bridges in TRON: Legacy, and CGI'd in Heath as the Joker (which would be insanely disrespectful), but I would still fail to see how his character was still relevant to the story.

Michael Bergeron said:

I enjoyed both. Superheroes aren't my thing, I'm more about the villains in these films, so with that in mind:

Avengers - Well acted but poorly scripted & used bad guy. Turns out he was a patsy. Didn't bug me so much.

TDKR - Middle of the road and generic. Turns out he was a patsy of the first order. That bugged me.

I do think I got in to TDKR a bit more than Avengers but that's probably more to do with my familiarity with the characters (although this was my first introduction to Bane and he didn't impress me at all). For Avengers the only lead up movie I saw was the first Iron Man.

I will say though that Dark Knight blew both of them out of the water. The Joker is probably my favorite villain of any comic character and Ledger portrayed him brilliantly in a film that kept me engaged the whole time. I can't say I got that same feeling from either of the other two films. I didn't particularly like Batman Begins either.

Click to expand...

@ Michael: I think Bane, while he was "declawed" a bit by the end, was a way more compelling character than Loki. His motivations actually made sense in regards to his past, and you could see why he was doing the bad things he was doing. Loki....well, beyond being "Thor's evil brother", there is little to no explanation of his motivation in the Avengers.

Finhead said:

Blaphemy, best of the Nolan verse.

Avengers hands down the most fun to watch. :thumbsup

Click to expand...

Finhead: Again, I'm not really arguing that TDKR is more "fun and popcorn-y" than The Avengers. Quite the opposite. I'm arguing that TDKR is a critically better movie, that it makes you think more, and that it has more to say. I think if you are going to be a good, thoughtful, rewatchable movie, you sort of have to fulfill those requirements.

I mean Quality aswell tho when i compared the dark knight trilogy to the marvel releases (Thor, IM and avengers mostly tho). While i enjoyed the dark knight trilogy i found the marvel movies more entertaining and just better in my opinion and thats coming from someone who in general prefers dc comics.
I got the whole point about wanting to have it all realistic but the third one was totally unnecesary and not even close to the quality of the first 2.

Again, I'm not really arguing that TDKR is more "fun and popcorn-y" than The Avengers. Quite the opposite. I'm arguing that TDKR is a critically better movie, that it makes you think more, and that it has more to say. I think if you are going to be a good, thoughtful, rewatchable movie, you sort of have to fulfill those requirements.

Click to expand...

It's all a matter of personal opinion.

Master Valon said:

@JD: I'm afraid I could not disagree more with your comment. The reason I love the Nolan Batman universe so much is that he DID distill the essence of the character so perfectly. Batman, the comic book character isn't about flashy action panels, big set pieces, or anything so superficial. The Batman comics were, at their best and pure form, a very HUMAN series. It was psychological, it was thrilling, it was mysterious, and most of all, stimulating. Seeing as the character was featured in "Detective Comics", and not "Action Comics", his stories were meant to be all of those things I just mentioned, as well as being dark. Detectives, after all, don't investigate lost toys, do they? Detectives (which Batman is at his core, more than a superhero) solve crimes. Crimes are violent. Dark. That is the world Gotham was constructed to be, in order to give Batman a wealth of crimes to solve. So, at the very core of what Batman is and what his stories are about, is the darkest corners of the human psyche. But, the themes of the character are far from bleak. Batman is all about inspiring good in the common man, symbolizing the realization of justice, even in a corrupt system. He IS incorruptible, even though far from perfect. So, in light of all that, I don't think Nolan's adaptation was any "darker" than any of the source material was, and rightly so. Batman, as a person, IS pretty flawed. He witnessed a traumatic incident as a young boy. It served as his impetus to strive to be a servant of Gotham, sure, but in the process it SCARRED him. As such, he is indeed a conflicted person, as portrayed in the Nolan universe. But moreso than highlight his IMperfections, Nolan chose to highlight the depths Bruce would go to be a symbol of good. That, I think, serves more to credit the notion that the Nolan universe isn't so "dark and gritty" as people seem to think.

Click to expand...

Everyone's entitled to their opinion... and mine will always be that Nolan's never read a Batman comic and got what makes Batman what he is so wrong.

Everyone needs to read Batman: Year One or some of the Denny O'Neil, Frank Miller, even the Long Halloween series. At this point, Adam West is a better Batman than Christian Bale ever was.

There just wasn't enough Batman in it. I'm sorry, but I don't shell out my hard earned money to go see a nearly three hour long Batman film just to see 8 or 9 minutes of Batman.

This is the point where someone points out how terribly wrong I am and tells us all exactly, to the second, how much screen time the suit actually has.

Laspector said:

There just wasn't enough Batman in it. I'm sorry, but I don't shell out my hard earned money to go see a nearly three hour long Batman film just to see 8 or 9 minutes of Batman.

This is the point where someone points out how terribly wrong I am and tells us all exactly, to the second, how much screen time the suit actually has.

Click to expand...

Batman is more than just the suit. He's also Bruce Wayne, the guy beneath the mask. That was more important to the story than Batman beating up thugs in the suit, I think.

JD said:

Everyone's entitled to their opinion... and mine will always be that Nolan's never read a Batman comic and got what makes Batman what he is so wrong.

Everyone needs to read Batman: Year One or some of the Denny O'Neil, Frank Miller, even the Long Halloween series. At this point, Adam West is a better Batman than Christian Bale ever was.

Click to expand...

I've read Year One. I've read Frank Miller's stuff. I've read Long Halloween. In addition to many other Batman novels. How in the heck is the Adam West representation of Batman MORE accurate to the comics than Nolan's Batman? It was trashy, campy, and tongue in cheek the whole way through; the comics were none of those things. Also, you fail to point out what, in your opinion, makes Batman what he is, and why Nolan got it so wrong, apparently. You're just saying "No, he didn't get it right" while not saying HOW he didn't get it right. Oh, and as to Nolan not ever reading comic book, he did give Ledger The Killing Joke to read to help him with his performance, not to mention that the two other most important people involved with the stories, Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer, are HUGE comic book fans. David Goyer has even WRITTEN comic books, for crying out loud. So I really don't get the argument that the creative team behind the TDK trilogy somehow are ignorant to the source material. If you want a team who didn't read comics, that's what Burton's Batman series is for. He hates comic books, and is on the record about that.