Master Valon
Well-Known Member
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.
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.