I don't see how a "popcorn movie" ( which implies being superficial and in it for the explosions) "accepting" that it's a superficial and in it for the explosions somehow makes it better than a movie that has so much more depth to it.
You don't see it, because you think the Nolan series has more depth. I don't. Therefore to me, the film that is not pretentious about itself, is more enjoyable.
As to your other gripes...I think that was the point of Dent...y'know...."Two Face"? He's duplicitous. That's kinda the point.
Well I guess that's what I get for not explaining myself (again). The film stumbled on the Dent character arc. The first time I saw the film actually, I thought it was genius, because for the first two or so acts of the film, it's a very slow build for Dent that makes it seem like they're really planting seeds for the next picture. Then in the second half of the film, they throw him out there and kill him. For me, that was shoving too much into a movie that ending up being too long. It would have been better (IMHO obviously) to keep Dent a slow build and reveal him as Two-Face towards the end of the movie to have him be the villain (or at least a secondary villain) in the third film. To me, it wasted the character. It didn't do that subplot any favors that Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance was a bit stiff so I didn't really find myself invested in her character.
As for the Tumbler...well, thats something to take up with the guys who designed it. I don't see how the Tumbler's aesthetics play any role in what we are debating about here. Can't really say much more about that.
When you have an established conception in popular culture of what something is, when you wildly break from those norms, parts of your audience will view this problematic. We see the same thing in discussions about the new Star Trek, many people feel that the design of the new Enterprise looks ridiculous. And for them, it's an issue which makes the film less enjoyable. You can't seriously sit there and argue that aesthetics of the props in a film don't matter. There's a reason why prop designers get paid money to design futuristic looking phasers instead of just sending people out pieces of cardboard wrapped in tin foil. Of course aesthetics matter. If I think the design of a vehicle looks ridiculous, then it's going to be another element which takes me out of the film.
Is that REALLY hard to understand?
Are you telling me that if Batman was rolling around in a black VW beetle it wouldn't matter?
The voice? Again...how does that in any way detract from the plot of the film? It'd be like me disliking The Avengers because I really just couldn't get over that shirt Tony wears. It was just really, really awful, and so it's a reason to not like the whole movie.
Really? Not finding Batman intimidating or fearful in anyway, and instead seeing him as doing a comically bad job at hiding his identity doesn't detract from the film? Maybe I have to spell this out to you, but the ridiculous voice made the character LESS BELIEVABLE.
Again with the audio, regarding Bane's voice. I'm like 90% sure it was related to the detail that he's wearing a mask that covers his mouth. But, not too sure on that one.
Ho ho, look how witty you are!
Surely you understand that there are good sound effects, and that there are bad sound effects. Pretty simple concept, yes? What they did with Bane was just bad sound design. Why would you distort the voice to the point of making it difficult to understand? That's self defeating to the ultimate end of the film, which is to tell a story. You can wear a mask and have an otherwordly voice and still be understood. E.G. Darth Vader. Test screen audiences complained vocally about the initial mixes of the film remember. This was a deliberate choice by the director which had to be drawn back because nobody could tell what was going on. What was left in the final mix was still just muddled. I think it was a bad choice.
But, regarding what actually matters, the theme of both of the films. Yeah, you can say that The Avengers "has" a theme. The movie also "has" actors. Doesn't mean that the lines were delivered well, does it? Same goes for the message. Yes, it possesses one. Doesn't mean it was well executed, enables the audience to take away something from the movie, or was notable for any reason other than the sheer fact of its presence.
The problem you have conceptually is that you're not able to actually empathize with what other people are seeing as faults of the film.
And oh, I should point out the blatant hypocrisy here. Last I checked, a "well delivered" line includes the timbre and pitch of one's voice. Yet above, you say that such concerns should not be counted against the film.
Odd.
But what I have a problem with is the statements that say it was just all around a much better film than TDKR, whose point is to actually make the audience USE their brains, and to conjure emotion. That "point", to me at least, is a much more enjoyable one than just losing the last two hours to explosions and CGI. Because the enjoyment extends way beyond just the two hours the movie physically played. It makes you think about the important things in your life, makes you reflect about the decisions you've made, try to think of what the crew of the movie is trying to say in a larger context. For The Avengers, the enjoyment stops once the credits roll.
Again, conceptually, you just can't possibly fathom how anyone else might possibly have a different interpretation of the Nolan films.
I don't think the Nolan films really did convey any deeper philosophical message, certainly nothing that's significantly deeper than the kinds of generalized sentiment like: "the hope one can inspire in others by taking action, and the importance of convictions in the face of adversity." Sorry my friend, that's just not a very deep thought. Not in the way a good film can provoke thoughts about the individual's place in society, or capture cultural and political shifts.
When I think of a movie which has a deeper philosophical point and makes it in an entertaining way, I think of a film like Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Which is a film which for all intents and purposes, I can't truly understand given that I didn't live in the world when nuclear war was a legitimate threat. But that film satirizes the cold war in a dark and compelling way, and has moments which are truly funny.
When I think about a movie which challenges the viewer to examine what choices they would make in the face of adversity, I think of a film like Do the Right Thing, which was considered so "controversial" at the time, that there were fears among some that the the film would cause race riots.
When I think about a film that made me think about all the important things in my life, and the decisions I made, I think about a film like Darjeeling Limited. To me, it's a great examination of family, and roots, and remembering that we're all different and can't expect everyone to think the same way or see everything the same way.
Ahh, see what I did there?
The point is, fine, I get that you liked the Nolan films. Great. It's awesome that you have that relationship with these films. I'm not going to say that your opinion is wrong, or stupid if the film resonates to you in that way. Quite simply, it didn't work for me, for all the reasons above and more (like the ending of The Dark Knight being a total stylistic rip-off of High Noon).
But you want to pretend like there's this huge gap between The Avengers and the Nolan Trilogy and I don't see it that way, because I don't see the films delivering anything particularly deep. To me, the gap between Avengers and BB/TDK/TKDR is smaller than the gap I see between either of those films and a film which really wants to engage the audience like the ones I mentioned above.
Edit to add: this is why I miss Roger Ebert. He was brutal on bad movies, but he was never afraid to say he really liked a popcorn film if it succeeded on its own merits. Likewise, he thought Avengers was pretty predictable, but said it was "done well...with style and energy," and gave it 3/4 stars. Sometimes that's all you need from a movie. So tying this all back in, if you want to make the case that The Nolan films made some really deep philosophical point, I disagree; conceptually I don't think that was their goal, and if it was, in terms of execution, it didn't come across for me.
