Which will be the better film?

Both will go for the label "epic." Both will have quite a task in front of them with numerous characters to juggle. Both have British villains (The Dark Knight Rises has multiple British villains). One has Samuel L. Jackson... the other has Hines Ward.

YOU MAY ONLY CHOOSE ONE. Go on record-- which movie do you have more faith in to be the better summer blockbuster of the two?

(Since, cmon, we all know Battleship will be the best of the bunch.)

Poll question: AVENGERS or DARK KNIGHT RISES?

Poll result (71 votes) "We're not a team, we're a time bomb!" (25 votes) Vote "mumblemumblemumblemumble*" (46 votes) Vote

Avengers is the Frosh with upside. We know Nolan isn't going to shit the bed. Anything can happen with Avengers.

as good as it may be, i've seen it all before.

but im going with avengers since dc was too much of a pus to try for a justice league movie

I'm all in.

Yep, its the Avengers!

better film is not necessary the better blockbuster.

avengers has been teased/hyped for literally the past 5+ years, through comic, tv, movie, and of course internet. by virtue of it happening, it will be bigger.

DKR might be the better film and more appreciated, but the popcorn poppers will fill the theaters more for marvel.

we've seen multiple versions of batman, but an actual superhero team movie that they established through other movies?

its a no-brainer

No, this poll isn't loaded. Not one bit.

________________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

we've been waiting for an Avengers movie for ages and its here but there's no guarantee this will *pop* like all the fanboys are expecting it to...

But, Captain America, Hawkeye, Iron man, Thor, The Hulk, etc. all in one film?! WAAT?!

but, DKR: folk are kinda acting like its a retread of the same world Nolan created for the other films...

but, I suspect that Nolan has tricks up his sleeve for this one and he will go out with a bang...

and DUUUUDE this is *THE* movie where Batman gets his back BROKEN...like, CRACKALACKIN BROKE...

*I am SO IN for real*

since there isn't an option for both (way to stack the deck, Frank.) cause I would choose both...

but, i'm giving the *SLIGHT* edge to Dark Knight Rises...

but i'll be going to see BOTH when they come out.

and it's not supposed to be, but I think blockbusters are easier to mint if the film itself is fun.

Seeing a movie at a theatre is still a social experience.

So, while I have no doubt I'll enjoy DKR, I doubt I'll have as much fun in it as I will in Avengers.

...I'm looking forward to GI JOE II more than DKR. I think DKR will be the best film out of the three of them, but the Nolan Batmans are just so devoid of fun and take themselves so seriously that it is hard for me to be excited. Whereas every single thing I've seen from the AVENGERS has made me damn near geek out. And that Seven Nation Army JOE trailer is still the biggest surprise I've seen in awhile.

Bruce Willis should just show up in all three movies:

GI Joe = as the original GI Joe
Avengers = as Crusher Creel
DKR = as Mr. Freeze (with out the Joel Schumacher assless suit)







I'm just being a jackass after reading Kevin Smith's new book.

but I have a bad feeling The Avengers will disappoint as well.

Simply put, it wasn't that good. It was not, as so many people put it "Shakespeare in space". It was a jumbled, conoluted mess with an unlikeable protagonist, played by an actor devoid of charisma.

With Loki as the central villain, The Avengers may have a little too much Thor to be good.

The movie had it's flaws, it may have sucked, but the weak link wasn't Thor or Loki...the only two carryovers from that film.

He def had some charisma.

Nah, the problem there wasn't Thor. It was the plot - which, IMO, has no bearing on The Avengers.

talk about missing the point.

Portman and tig ol bitties was annoying
The Warriors 3 was meh
The Frost Giants were meh

<------ Boho Model Madness Presents: Andy Allo

http://www.gifsoup.com/view3/2298233/andyallo2-o.gif

http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://djshinobishaw.tumblr.com/
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c) T510

With the ginger behind the camera I think it will be great. Serenity didn't let me down and that didn't have near the budget this one has. I generally don't like any of Whedon's work outside of Firefly so that's saying a lot for me.

Nolan is going to do a solid job but I just don't think that DKR is going to give us the closure that we're all hoping for.

that said I'll be at both opening day.

TDK just blew it way out the frame?

Yes, the Avengers will be a great summer popcorn flick and it'll be a joy seeing all the superheros all in one action movie, but people had that same kind of hyped up expectations for the Expendables. It'll be entertaining, fun-filled, but in comparison, we're talking about Christopher Nolan. Christopher Nolan have proven time and time again, that he will put all of his love for his work to give people the BEST QUALITY film out, from its story right down to technological aspects of filmmaking.

So if the question is which film will be the BETTER film, my vote easily goes to TDKR. The biggest difference is that Nolan is a perfectionist in his craft vs. the people at Marvel are cash cows and just essentially going to pimp the audience for massive ticket sales.

It's just my opinion, BTW...

Again... approached as art, TDK is a much better film, but approached as "Which of these two movies would win in a heads up 'What do you wanna watch right now?'" nine times outta ten, I'm picking IRON MAN.

But the question, if I am not mistaken is which one will be the BETTER film. I feel you on which one you are more hyped to see, because this will be something that's people been waiting for for the last 5 years now.

Let's not forget his involvement. It's not like they just handed it over to Action Movie Director X and said make us a cash cow.

They picked the biggest Hollywood nerd to make a movie for nerdlings all over the world.

That's actually good and bad because like Serenity he might make a movie to please the nerds and no one else. You know, it goes out Scott Pilgrim style as the bomb that everyone loved.

The Dark Knight is probably going to be a hit. And a downer. It'll probably be overall the better movie, but I doubt if it'll be the most enjoyable one.

For which I have 2 separate answers.

him why he didn't ask him to be in Avengers?

Fully thinking Nick Cage thinks he's really Johnny Blaze and Sam Jack is really Nick Fury.

He probably set up a meeting with him at a diner or something and waited for him to pop the question.

Bringing up old anecdotes from the set of "Amos & Andy".

I'd love to see Dr. Strange or Daredevil (reboot) show up.

pretend the first one never happened.

Different company owns the rights to the Ghost Rider franchise. Probably the same with Daredevil too.

Shoot, I'd imagine Marvel Films would like nothing more than to throw in a Spider-Man cameo in this new flick, but again, different companies.

i've enjoyed the Iron Mans over the Batmans, i think it'll continue.

Watch Avengers my friends.

Stop acting dumb.

This shit gonna backfire on Longo... GOOD!

_________________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

... instead of one and 3/4s.

And I have my concerns about Avengers too, btw. The Dark Knight Rises concerning elements are just easier to joke about.

_________________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

I'ma take it easy on em for now

*b-boy stance*

I know I said Iron Man 1 is better than both Nolan Batmans. I gave Iron Man 2 2.5 kernels and TDK 3 though.

It wasn't even this close tho

I
>gave Iron Man 2 2.5 kernels and TDK 3 though.

Iron Man >>> Batman Begins

So naturally one would believe IM2 >>> TDK. But it didn't turn out that way. Largely due to the clusterfuck of villains.

And if I could do quarter kernels, I'd give Iron Man 2.25. But I can't. It's got enough to keep most fans happy while not providing enough to make it an actually strong movie.

Batman has the Joker and a lot of other strong villains to choose from.

Who does IM have? His villains all really suck and he doesn't have a main Joker type rival. If you were to ask 10 people on the street who is IMs main villain, no one would know.

If IM2 had a good villain it would have been just as good, if not better than TDK.

The first one was good. Batman Begins was still better even w/o an iconic villain. Nolan got great performances from Liam & Cillian.

You cant follow Iron Man 2 up with Cowboys & Aliens w/o me tending to think most of the 1st credit's success goes to Downey & maybe Fav just got lucky. We'll see what Shane Black & perhaps Ben Kingsley have up their sleeve for the trilogy.

All around it is better movie and much more entertaining.

I hated the Batman voice, I hated the idea of destroying the water supply with a train. IMO Batman Begins is not repeat viewing. I have seen it once and that is plenty enough.

>The first one was good. Batman Begins was still better even
>w/o an iconic villain. Nolan got great performances from Liam
>& Cillian.

Batman Begins felt more lethargically paced, action-free, and disjointed for me. I enjoyed it, but not better than Iron Man 1. In my humble opinion.

sorry but Batman Begins doesnt hold a fart after a bean burrito eating contest to Iron Man.

BB is a good film. comparing two superhero movies its a no-brainer. people always say BUT ITS A CRIME DRAMA... one of the villains gets tazed in the fucking face and rides away crying and thats the last you see of him. REALLY. SWEET, AWESOME.

Tony Stark buildin robots and talking to his house while BB gettin beat up by a bunch of secret society 50 year olds in his own house like a BITCH.

Well, TDK is a crime drama. Just because the ending didn't "satisfy" you doesn't make it any less so.

I need to peep Batman Begins again, because y'all are up in here shitting all over it, and frankly it's pissing me off...

_________________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

... if jigga hadn't said Iron Man 1, held by many to be a top-three comic film of all time, was worse than it and went on a mini-Favreau tear up there, lol. Fanboys get defensive.

Batman Begins is probably my favorite Batman flick, honestly. I just think Iron Man 1 is notably better.

I could nitpick the 1st Iron Man to death if I wanted to but it's not worth it. It's a really good flick & certainly in the upper echelon of it's genre. I'm not taking shots at it by saying it's not better than Batman Begins either. Just a matter of opinion & personal preference.

But if you or anyone else want to try to convince me that Fav's a better director than Nolan...especially after Iron Man 2 & Cowboys & Aliens...you're wasting your time.

Trust that

Still...

All the scenes with Cillan prior to that were still better than anything Iron Man had to offer on the villainous level. Him & Liam were better than Bridges playin the Dude again.

I'm really not trying to tear Iron Man apart either beause I liked it a lot. Got plenty of ammo tho.

>Trust that
>
>Still...
>
>All the scenes with Cillan prior to that were still better
>than anything Iron Man had to offer on the villainous level.
>Him & Liam were better than Bridges playin the Dude again.
>
>I'm really not trying to tear Iron Man apart either beause I
>liked it a lot. Got plenty of ammo tho.

I liked Iron-Man a lot but motherfuckers act like it was perfect and overlook some serious issues with the shit.

I agree that Obediah Stane doesn't exactly instill fear in me (really, most of Iron Man's rogues gallery either wouldn't work in film or is super racist, so their backs are up against a wall to some degree... I'm curious what they'll do in the third).

But unlike nearly EVERY superhero film ever made-- including many of my favorites-- you have a hero in Iron Man that is more compelling than the villain.

That became one of my problems with Iron Man 2-- the Mickey Rourke shit was way more compelling.

I'm obviously not advocating weak villains... but since audiences will always be more drawn to a villain than a hero starting from Paradise Lost and going forward through the rest of literature and art, it didn't bother me that Iron Man's first villain was somewhat rote. If anything, Batman Begins and Iron Man are the two best films in cinematic history about ONE hero at creating a more interesting hero than the villain.

Which made both heroes becoming less interesting in the sequels as disappointing as it was.

>That became one of my problems with Iron Man 2-- the Mickey
>Rourke shit was way more compelling.

They spent the whole movie trying to make him a complex, compelling character. Then as the movie started winding done they just said fuck it and reduced him to a typical villain. His story doesn't get a satisfying resolution, and the final battle was weak.

It's a shame, because for most of the movie I thought they did a good job balancing it out and making the good and bad characters both exciting to watch on the screen. Then they throw it all away.

I can see how one might argue that The Dark Knight did the same thing--but it wasn't NEARLY as bothersome in execution.

>I agree that Obediah Stane doesn't exactly instill fear in me
>(really, most of Iron Man's rogues gallery either wouldn't
>work in film or is super racist, so their backs are up against
>a wall to some degree... I'm curious what they'll do in the
>third).

Isn't the rumor Mandarin?

>But unlike nearly EVERY superhero film ever made-- including
>many of my favorites-- you have a hero in Iron Man that is
>more compelling than the villain.

I'd say this was the case with Batman Begins as well

>That became one of my problems with Iron Man 2-- the Mickey
>Rourke shit was way more compelling.

Was it though? I honesty don't recall much about him at all besides having a pet mouse or rat or something. Downey's schtick also wasn't as memorable the second time around. It does look like he'll banter better with the rest of the Avengers this time.

>I'm obviously not advocating weak villains... but since
>audiences will always be more drawn to a villain than a hero

Not sure I agree with this

>starting from Paradise Lost and going forward through the rest
>of literature and art, it didn't bother me that Iron Man's
>first villain was somewhat rote. If anything, Batman Begins
>and Iron Man are the two best films in cinematic history about
>ONE hero at creating a more interesting hero than the
>villain.

>Which made both heroes becoming less interesting in the
>sequels as disappointing as it was.

Heath Ledger's Joker compeltely stole the show from Bale's Batman in TDK. Batman was pretty boring comparitavely. The same thing happened with Spidey too tho. Tobey>>>>>>>>>>>>Dafoe in the first one. Doc Ock steals it from him in the second. Seems to be par for the course with comic flicks.

>>I agree that Obediah Stane doesn't exactly instill fear in
>me
>>(really, most of Iron Man's rogues gallery either wouldn't
>>work in film or is super racist, so their backs are up
>against
>>a wall to some degree... I'm curious what they'll do in the
>>third).
>
>Isn't the rumor Mandarin?

They've dispelled this at every turn. But who else could it be?

>>But unlike nearly EVERY superhero film ever made-- including
>>many of my favorites-- you have a hero in Iron Man that is
>>more compelling than the villain.
>
>I'd say this was the case with Batman Begins as well

I agree.

>>That became one of my problems with Iron Man 2-- the Mickey
>>Rourke shit was way more compelling.
>
>Was it though? I honesty don't recall much about him at all
>besides having a pet mouse or rat or something. Downey's
>schtick also wasn't as memorable the second time around. It
>does look like he'll banter better with the rest of the
>Avengers this time.

Well that's what made Rourke stand out-- Downey's shtick wasn't as hot, and the alcoholism was sloppily handled. Give me more hambone Rourke petting a bird and smiling with gold teeth.

>>I'm obviously not advocating weak villains... but since
>>audiences will always be more drawn to a villain than a hero
>
>Not sure I agree with this

I mean, it's gone that way through most of time. The list of heroes more compelling than the villains are quite slim. Outside of Indiana Jones, can't really think of a genre hero more compelling over multiple films.


>>starting from Paradise Lost and going forward through the
>rest
>>of literature and art, it didn't bother me that Iron Man's
>>first villain was somewhat rote. If anything, Batman Begins
>>and Iron Man are the two best films in cinematic history
>about
>>ONE hero at creating a more interesting hero than the
>>villain.
>
>>Which made both heroes becoming less interesting in the
>>sequels as disappointing as it was.
>
>Heath Ledger's Joker compeltely stole the show from Bale's
>Batman in TDK. Batman was pretty boring comparitavely. The
>same thing happened with Spidey too tho.
>Tobey>>>>>>>>>>>>Dafoe in the first one. Doc Ock steals it
>from him in the second. Seems to be par for the course with
>comic flicks.

I'd say with pretty much all anthology flicks. Even in the Bond flicks, the bad guy steals the show from Bond pretty often. Which makes all hero sequels tough.

Really, the best hero/villain set-up in comic film history to date for me has been the Professor X/Magneto rivalry in the X-Men flicks. Beautifully handled, even when the films (first and third) fall apart. I'm interested to see how villains of repeat appearance play in The Avengers (note: TDKR not-really-spoiler-but-kinda coming up) and TDKR.

>>>I agree that Obediah Stane doesn't exactly instill fear in
>>me
>>>(really, most of Iron Man's rogues gallery either wouldn't
>>>work in film or is super racist, so their backs are up
>>against
>>>a wall to some degree... I'm curious what they'll do in the
>>>third).
>>
>>Isn't the rumor Mandarin?
>
>They've dispelled this at every turn. But who else could it
>be?

I'm not that familiar with his rogue gallery of villains so I'd have no clue.

>>>But unlike nearly EVERY superhero film ever made--
>including
>>>many of my favorites-- you have a hero in Iron Man that is
>>>more compelling than the villain.
>>
>>I'd say this was the case with Batman Begins as well
>
>I agree.
>
>>>That became one of my problems with Iron Man 2-- the Mickey
>>>Rourke shit was way more compelling.
>>
>>Was it though? I honesty don't recall much about him at all
>>besides having a pet mouse or rat or something. Downey's
>>schtick also wasn't as memorable the second time around. It
>>does look like he'll banter better with the rest of the
>>Avengers this time.
>
>Well that's what made Rourke stand out-- Downey's shtick
>wasn't as hot, and the alcoholism was sloppily handled. Give
>me more hambone Rourke petting a bird and smiling with gold
>teeth.

That's right. Bird. My bad. But yeah the drunken stupor stuff was pretty stupid. I remember smh duing the fight at the party & it never really managed to recover after that. I really wasn't all that impressed with Rourke either tho. Give me more Marv along those lines.

>>>I'm obviously not advocating weak villains... but since
>>>audiences will always be more drawn to a villain than a
>hero
>>
>>Not sure I agree with this
>
>I mean, it's gone that way through most of time. The list of
>heroes more compelling than the villains are quite slim.
>Outside of Indiana Jones, can't really think of a genre hero
>more compelling over multiple films.

I just think overall initially audiences are always more drawn to the hero which is why they see the films in the first place. A compelling villain will keep em coming back for more tho. To me this is Nolan's biggest challenge. How can/does a virtually unknown (to the masses, not comic fans) villain like Bane top what Ledger did with The Joker? Probably not possible which is why he's gotta bring the focus back to Bruce again like he did in Batman Begins. Could be tough to do while adding Catwoman to the mix too.

>>>starting from Paradise Lost and going forward through the
>>rest
>>>of literature and art, it didn't bother me that Iron Man's
>>>first villain was somewhat rote. If anything, Batman Begins
>>>and Iron Man are the two best films in cinematic history
>>about
>>>ONE hero at creating a more interesting hero than the
>>>villain.
>>
>>>Which made both heroes becoming less interesting in the
>>>sequels as disappointing as it was.
>>
>>Heath Ledger's Joker compeltely stole the show from Bale's
>>Batman in TDK. Batman was pretty boring comparitavely. The
>>same thing happened with Spidey too tho.
>>Tobey>>>>>>>>>>>>Dafoe in the first one. Doc Ock steals it
>>from him in the second. Seems to be par for the course with
>>comic flicks.
>
>I'd say with pretty much all anthology flicks. Even in the
>Bond flicks, the bad guy steals the show from Bond pretty
>often. Which makes all hero sequels tough.

Craig has clearly outshined both villains so far. But Quantum wasn't nearly as good as Casino. Brining in Bardem seems like the obvious remedy. As long as Bond doesn't become an after thought they should be back on track*

>Really, the best hero/villain set-up in comic film history to
>date for me has been the Professor X/Magneto rivalry in the
>X-Men flicks. Beautifully handled, even when the films (first
>and third) fall apart. I'm interested to see how villains of
>repeat appearance play in The Avengers (note: TDKR
>not-really-spoiler-but-kinda coming up) and TDKR.

I actually liked the 1st X-Men a lot. While it wasn't as good as X2 I don't think it really fell apart like X3 did. 1st class has some great moments on X2's level as well. It falls apart once they recruit the kids. I agree that the hero/villain rivalry between X & Mags is top notch throughout tho.



















*I AM gonna boo the shit outta the scene when Bond has a Heineken over a Martini. Apologies in advance to anyone else in the theater at that time

It's when you first see the laser light show. From there on, it's goofiness.

Anybody who says otherwise probably flies around in blue tights.

I'm not interested in which is better of these two because at best they'll be second to Alien 0

I've got concerns about both flicks in the poll but I guess it's better to go in with lowered expectations there. Prometheus caught me completely off guard & is now my most anticipated.

Don't get me wrong, I expect to thoroughly enjoy all 3. If I had to guess, it's gonna go:

1 Prometheus
2 TDKR
3 Avengers

with not much differentiation in quality of the three

..by a mile


..and miles to go before i sleep...

http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/early-avengers-tweeviews-all-extremely-positive

Looking good.

I want to be surprised when I actually see it
________________________________
http://www.last.fm/user/Boogiedwn/

http://cousinofdef.tumblr.com/

http://i42.tinypic.com/20gkt8p.gif

The batman films in all the various incarnations have almost always been fun & intriguing. Batman & Robin was the one disappointment for me. I can't stand O'Donnell.

nm

I will go absolutely batshit when July 20th comes upon us.
(no pun intended)

I'm thoroughly convinced that Nolan is the HNIC whenever his summer films are released.
No other film stands a chance.
I'm sure "Rises" will not disappoint. I saw TDK, probably, 12 times during the summer it released.

Catwoman still doesn't look right, I would rather see Scarlet Johanssen jiggling around in a catsuit then Anne Hathaway's pale, plain flat ass trying to be seductive. She just doesn't do anything for me.....

So I voted AVENGERS!!!!!

On The Lookout 4:
some new music. WTF is going on this year?

http://straightouttatrenton.tumblr.com/post/21102906340/theavengersreview

Summer starts now!!! DKR has alot to live up to.

i just don't see how it's possible to pull off a movie with like 6?? 7?? superheroes and have it seem compelling.

Nolan's track record, while not perfect, is better than like 99% of other directors so I have less doubt about the Dark Knight.

>i just don't see how it's possible to pull off a movie with
>like 6?? 7?? superheroes and have it seem compelling.

Some characters are pushed into the background, but everyone gets a moment to shine in the film.

My biggest problem is DKR won't be as fun as this movie. Avengers is a really good time.

and unique, aside from his origin story and his motivations and whatnot, in favor of more realism
the idea that superpowered beings don't exist in the Nolanverse is about as anti-DC as you can get in ideology
TDK was good to me but it's just Heat with Pacino in armor

I don't read comics or graphic novels but aren't that series of them celebrated for the way they "ground" the superhero and make him more real?

And as for your last sentence, that's the point. Should we maybe recalibrate our expectations for what a "comic book movie" is?

_________________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

>I don't read comics or graphic novels but aren't that series
>of them celebrated for the way they "ground" the superhero and
>make him more real?
>

it just took him out of the sci-fi element of the DCU and made him more of the pulp hero he's always been
but it never acted like he was better off without all that or it didn't exist


>And as for your last sentence, that's the point. Should we
>maybe recalibrate our expectations for what a "comic book
>movie" is?
>

if you to see a movie about a comic book hero, I expect the 'real=relatable' tenet to not be let in the back door
its about a fucking comic character, I'd expect all kinds of shit as long as its true to the core of the character
I feel sorry for people who can't accept anything the way it is and have to have the wonder removed from it in order to enjoy it

>_________________________________________________________________________
>© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

>I feel sorry for people who can't accept anything the way it
>is and have to have the wonder removed from it in order to
>enjoy it

Man, i couldn't agree more.

>it just took him out of the sci-fi element of the DCU and made
>him more of the pulp hero he's always been
>but it never acted like he was better off without all that or
>it didn't exist

But did it not also get into the psychological underpinnings of why Bruce Wayne decided to become Batman? It appears to me that Nolan is drawing on the graphic novels that delved into this notion and were at the same time highly praised for their realism and grit. It's not as if Nolan is the one who took the cartoonish elements from earlier Batman stories (and the Burton/Schumacher movies) and drained them of all color, life, and magic.



>if you to see a movie about a comic book hero, I expect the
>'real=relatable' tenet to not be let in the back door
>its about a fucking comic character, I'd expect all kinds of
>shit as long as its true to the core of the character
>I feel sorry for people who can't accept anything the way it
>is and have to have the wonder removed from it in order to
>enjoy it


So, in Nolan's movies, Bruce Wayne's psychosis is not "true to the core of the character?" Even without reading the graphic novels that Nolan has relied on, I can tell you that this is 100% bullshit, as is the notion that there's no "wonder."

Look, if you want bright colors and superpowers and BAM BOOOM POWs and shit in your comic book movies, just say so. Don't try to wrap this shit up in "sophisticated" talk about Nolan not being "true to the core of the character" and unnamed-but-really-talking-about-me-"people" not being able to "accept anything the way it is and have to have the wonder removed from it in order to enjoy it."

That's pure-dee, unadulterated bullshit.

When I see the Nolan Batmans there's a fundamental understanding -- without having read one page of the Frank Miller Batmans -- that you're not going to get the bright and bubbly, SUPER-POW! BAM!s of the Schumacher movies, or even the perverse sense of the world from the Burton movies. The very first movie gave you the psychological reasons why this dude needed to dress himself up like a freak to fight crime. And from what I understand, this was covered in the graphic novels as well. Now, armed with this knowledge, I'm still able to watch these movies, instead of bitching about the "core of the character" and "people" who are just enjoying the movies because they're being contrarian plus Nolan took the fun away so they like it because of that, or whatever.

I like "fun" (or, at least the way you want to define it, "Anti-Nolan") comic book movies too. But before I go see them I'm at least aware of what I'm about to watch. I'm pretty sure I'm going to enjoy the shit out of The Avengers, because I know what kind of movie Whedon's going to give me. And I'm pretty sure that his vision of what the Avengers are is going to be diametrically opposed to what Nolan's vision of Batman is. And guess what? I'm probably going to dig the shit outta The Dark Knight Rises too.

I mean, really, all you have to say is, "I prefer my comic book movies to be bright and colorful and super and fun and shit." That's more honest and to the point.

______________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

>Look, if you want bright colors and superpowers and BAM BOOOM
>POWs and shit in your comic book movies, just say so.

>I mean, really, all you have to say is, "I prefer my comic
>book movies to be bright and colorful and super and fun and
>shit." That's more honest and to the point.

But that's not his point.

What he seems to find most compelling is that Batman is a man in a world of superheroes. It's the reason "prep time" became such a catchphrase because, on his own, Batman gets destroyed by most comic book characters but once he gets time to prepare for the situation, he's almost even with superpowered beings.
When you take out the superpowers, you take away that element. And if the reason that angle was taken out is because some people might not be able to buy a world filled with superheroes, it's kinda sad/wrongheaded.

Of course, I just think the superheroes angle was removed because it has nothing to do with the stories Nolan is telling. Even if you established that superheroes existed in the Nolan Universe, it would impact the movies at all.

Personally, I think he's overplaying the importance of the man vs superhero aspect as the character of Batman is more than compelling enough without it but he's not saying he wants the 60's Batman.

>What he seems to find most compelling is that Batman is a man
>in a world of superheroes. It's the reason "prep time" became
>such a catchphrase because, on his own, Batman gets destroyed
>by most comic book characters but once he gets time to prepare
>for the situation, he's almost even with superpowered beings.
>When you take out the superpowers, you take away that element.
>And if the reason that angle was taken out is because some
>people might not be able to buy a world filled with
>superheroes, it's kinda sad/wrongheaded.
>

the part of Batman's character that has him being an equal of godlike beings with nothing but his own will and resources serving him adds a dimension to him you'll never see in Nolan's movies, and taking it away in favor of realism with the excuse that people won't believe it is a disservice to Batman as a character
that's all I'm saying


>Of course, I just think the superheroes angle was removed
>because it has nothing to do with the stories Nolan is
>telling. Even if you established that superheroes existed in
>the Nolan Universe, it would impact the movies at all.
>

the movies would still be great, it wasn't necessary to remove that element of Batman's character altogether


>Personally, I think he's overplaying the importance of the man
>vs superhero aspect as the character of Batman is more than
>compelling enough without it but he's not saying he wants the
>60's Batman.

I'm not overplaying it at all
I'm saying it's a part of his character and shouldn't have been removed, even if not utilized for these particular films
G-Mo acknowledged all of Batman's history in a storyline that was as believable as the films were-even more so because of how they were handled-because of the execution and the care taken for the character

>But did it not also get into the psychological underpinnings
>of why Bruce Wayne decided to become Batman? It appears to me
>that Nolan is drawing on the graphic novels that delved into
>this notion and were at the same time highly praised for their
>realism and grit. It's not as if Nolan is the one who took
>the cartoonish elements from earlier Batman stories (and the
>Burton/Schumacher movies) and drained them of all color, life,
>and magic.
>

those graphic novels played up Batman's more basic foundation, and did so well for the most part
but they didn't act like nothing else existed for him, that's what made them interesting in the first place
it's one thing to highlight an aspect of a character and go in that route, but it's another to remove them altogether to make the character 'more real'
its just dumb to me


>So, in Nolan's movies, Bruce Wayne's psychosis is not "true to
>the core of the character?" Even without reading the graphic
>novels that Nolan has relied on, I can tell you that this is
>100% bullshit, as is the notion that there's no "wonder."
>

I never said any of that so I'm not sure what you're bringing it up for


>Look, if you want bright colors and superpowers and BAM BOOOM
>POWs and shit in your comic book movies, just say so. Don't
>try to wrap this shit up in "sophisticated" talk about Nolan
>not being "true to the core of the character" and
>unnamed-but-really-talking-about-me-"people" not being able to
>"accept anything the way it is and have to have the wonder
>removed from it in order to enjoy it."
>
>That's pure-dee, unadulterated bullshit.
>

yeah too bad that's not what I said
and trust me, if I were talking about you, I'd have said your name
and while we're on it, the biggest thing about Batman is that he's a detective but both these movies had very little detective work in them



>When I see the Nolan Batmans there's a fundamental
>understanding -- without having read one page of the Frank
>Miller Batmans -- that you're not going to get the bright and
>bubbly, SUPER-POW! BAM!s of the Schumacher movies, or even the
>perverse sense of the world from the Burton movies. The very
>first movie gave you the psychological reasons why this dude
>needed to dress himself up like a freak to fight crime. And
>from what I understand, this was covered in the graphic novels
>as well. Now, armed with this knowledge, I'm still able to
>watch these movies, instead of bitching about the "core of the
>character" and "people" who are just enjoying the movies
>because they're being contrarian plus Nolan took the fun away
>so they like it because of that, or whatever.
>

show me where I said the movies weren't fun or that anything about POW and BAM
its obvious you missed the fact that this isn't about Batman or the movies, it's about people's insistence on changing shit just to change it and not giving the audience enough credit for being able to bring something of themselves to a film experience
its possible to enjoy something without thinking everything about it is perfect
not once did I ever say I didn't like the Nolan movies


>I like "fun" (or, at least the way you want to define it,
>"Anti-Nolan") comic book movies too. But before I go see them
>I'm at least aware of what I'm about to watch. I'm pretty
>sure I'm going to enjoy the shit out of The Avengers, because
>I know what kind of movie Whedon's going to give me. And I'm
>pretty sure that his vision of what the Avengers are is going
>to be diametrically opposed to what Nolan's vision of Batman
>is. And guess what? I'm probably going to dig the shit outta
>The Dark Knight Rises too.
>

good for you but you're way off track with what I said


>I mean, really, all you have to say is, "I prefer my comic
>book movies to be bright and colorful and super and fun and
>shit." That's more honest and to the point.


how about "I prefer my comic book movies to put all a character's strengths to the front of the narrative and not have them be cherrypicked or set aside because the director thinks no one will take it seriously"
you took one statement you didn't understand and made a long ass post about shit I never said in the first place

I think most people look at Gotham as pretty much sans superpowers. When I think of Batman's arch-villains, I don't think of them as having superpowers.

The only guy I could see from the first two movies as having something special would be Ra's but I'm not sure if it was established that he had NO powers and it also would have been incredibly awkward for him to reveal himself and then have to explain that whole Lazarus Pit background.

I mean the fact that in the Nolanverse, there are no superpowered beings at all-no Superman, no Wonder Woman, no aliens, etc

And I wouldn't just say Nolan is at fault here. None of the Batman movies really played the no superpower angle at all. It's always been more of the Detective Comics Batman than Justice League Batman.

But mainly, I guess I disagree with the fact that Batman isn't compelling on his own and that he needs to be set in a world with actual superheroes to be seen as compelling.

That stuff boosts him in terms of the Justice League but as a standalone, I don't think it really plays that big of a part in making him compelling. (I'd argue that his stable of villains help him more than that.)

>And I wouldn't just say Nolan is at fault here. None of the
>Batman movies really played the no superpower angle at all.
>It's always been more of the Detective Comics Batman than
>Justice League Batman.
>

I'm saying that Nolan specifically said that Batman is the only superhero in the world and there is no Superman or GL or anyone else, those elements don't exist


>But mainly, I guess I disagree with the fact that Batman isn't
>compelling on his own and that he needs to be set in a world
>with actual superheroes to be seen as compelling.
>

I never said he wasn't compelling on his own
I said the things that make him compelling applied to the superhero setting make him more compelling and interesting

>I'm saying that Nolan specifically said that Batman is the
>only superhero in the world and there is no Superman or GL or
>anyone else, those elements don't exist


And what exactly, except for staying true to the DC ideology, does adding superheroes do for the stories that the Nolans (and Goyer) are telling here? Do you need to see some kind of acknowledgement from Batman that Superman or some other superhero is out there somewhere? I'm seriously asking here. And if so, why? Why is it so important, that in a psychologically-based set of stories about one possibly psychopathic man, that he has to stop what he's doing and acknowledge that there are others out there who are like him? Why is the notion that Batman exists in his own universe and Superman exists in his (apparently) so detrimental to your enjoyment of these stories?


>>But mainly, I guess I disagree with the fact that Batman
>isn't
>>compelling on his own and that he needs to be set in a world
>>with actual superheroes to be seen as compelling.
>>
>I never said he wasn't compelling on his own
>I said the things that make him compelling applied to the
>superhero setting make him more compelling and interesting


What is the superhero setting? The DC universe? Does his interaction with and "differences" from other superheroes in this universe make him more interesting to you?

It's almost as if Batman is nothing (or as you term it, not more compelling and interesting) to you, without existing within the larger, sprawling framework of the DC universe. Though I'm still trying to figure out how the Nolans and Goyer are supposed to convey this notion while remaining true to the grounded and insular stories that they have told and want to tell...

_______________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

... is if DC was announcing they were doing what Marvel has been doing. Which does to some degree create a universe unlike any we've seen, which I suppose has appeal to comic heads. I don't think a Superman cameo at the end of TDK would've added anything to the mix at all though-- if anything, it'd be jarring from the style of film Nolan's trying to make.

I think if the style of the Batman flicks ain't for someone, that's understandable, but the style is what needs to be called out, not the lack of appearance of other heroes.

(Did they even mention other heroes in any Batman film to date?)

And I don't believe there has been a mention of any other DC superheroes

________________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

There was the scene with the news reports of Superman saving people all over the world and they listed a bunch of cities he had been to "Philadelphia, Tokyo and GOTHAM"

That was it though

>And what exactly, except for staying true to the DC ideology,
>does adding superheroes do for the stories that the Nolans
>(and Goyer) are telling here?

You seem to miss the fact that I'm not saying powered heroes have to be in the story
I'm talking the spirit of it and the feel it gives the films


>Do you need to see some kind of
>acknowledgement from Batman that Superman or some other
>superhero is out there somewhere? I'm seriously asking here.

it's not about that in the slightest-its the perspective the film was built from before it was even filmed


>And if so, why? Why is it so important, that in a
>psychologically-based set of stories about one possibly
>psychopathic man, that he has to stop what he's doing and
>acknowledge that there are others out there who are like him?
>Why is the notion that Batman exists in his own universe and
>Superman exists in his (apparently) so detrimental to your
>enjoyment of these stories?
>

I didn't say I enjoyed them less, I said they'd be more true to the character and that it was an unnecessary move to remove those elements or the spirit of those elements


>
>What is the superhero setting? The DC universe? Does his
>interaction with and "differences" from other superheroes in
>this universe make him more interesting to you?
>

it adds a dimension to him you can't get otherwise
he's a normal man who plays on equal footing, and in some cases is superior, to beings that are basically gods
its extremely interesting to see those things play out, even in the most subtle ways and without said heroes around



>It's almost as if Batman is nothing (or as you term it, not
>more compelling and interesting) to you, without existing
>within the larger, sprawling framework of the DC universe.

where you got that from, I have no idea, because I'm a huge fan of Batman and the first stories I read about him didn't have anyone in them but him
why does 'more interesting' seem to mean 'he wasn't interesting before' to you?



>Though I'm still trying to figure out how the Nolans and Goyer
>are supposed to convey this notion while remaining true to the
>grounded and insular stories that they have told and want to
>tell...

the same way comic book movies have done it all along
it's not exactly unheard of

I actually forgot it was even coming out this summer.

It's also not much of a re-imagining of the source material. Visually, this new one doesn't look much different from Raimi's.

they kinda played on the "darkness" of Spidey in the trailers, which is too much like Spiderman 3 -- a movie that doesn't exactly inspire warm nostalgia.

i'll be shocked if dark knight can be able to match or out do the last one.
avengers stacked the deck out the gate.

But I think Avengers takes home the gold this summer.
No way can Dark Knight Rises be better than Dark Knight, and if it is, I'll eat the crow happily.

because the last two Batman Movies have been...arguably...the best to have ever been created.

God forbid if Heath Ledger hadn't passed away.

Team Dark Knight all day.

D

_________________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

Whedon's a director who puts characters above and beyond, enough where the plot and other aspects of film making suffer at times. It's why he can take mediocre actors and make them shine.

Nolan's someone who's technically proficient in everything he does and everything is razor tight...but the characters tend to be the last thing on his list, lol. In his case though, he's always surrounded with top tier acting talent so you never notice, lol.

He's a master craftsman and has directed one of my favorite movies of all time (PRESTIGE). It's just that these Bat movies lack the fun of the Marvel Universe. That's all.

B/c it's the best, following it up is quite more challenging than the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, which have been leading up to the mash-up.

On paper, both are damn near flawless, and surefire goldmines.

Outside of the dude claiming the Nolan Batmans lacked superhumans and that's what brought them down or something and the guy who said every Nolan movie has a wack 3rd act (which I think is an exaggeration of an issue that I can at least understand), I've yet to see people say the Batmans Nolan did are bad.

It's mostly a matter of preference in tone and a matter of faith.

because I certainly never said it did
I didn't say anything that wasn't true

I don't need the existence of superhumans to make Batman cool. I might even prefer the idea of a world without magic or mutation-- this guy is just smart and rich and willing. That, to me, is pretty goddamn awesome.

My problems with the Batman flicks don't really have much to do with concept (multiple villains is the only thing that makes me bite my nails conceptually), since Nolan goes big in the ambition department. Mine have more to do with execution.

>I don't need the existence of superhumans to make Batman
>cool. I might even prefer the idea of a world without magic or
>mutation-- this guy is just smart and rich and willing. That,
>to me, is pretty goddamn awesome.
>

I never said he wasn't great on his own
I said the shit made him MORE interesting
and whether you like it or not, there is a portion of Batman's character that is closely tied into the DC proper that revolves around his status with superhumans
just with training and will he's able to be their equal, and in some cases superior
but my problem isn't with the finished product, it's with the attitude used in making the films


>My problems with the Batman flicks don't really have much to
>do with concept (multiple villains is the only thing that
>makes me bite my nails conceptually), since Nolan goes big in
>the ambition department. Mine have more to do with execution.
>

I'd tend to agree
I wanna see BATMAN when I watch a Batman film, not a version of Batman thats basically dropped into a real-world setting with not much else but the suit to let you know he's Batman
he didn't even do any detective work in these films really, and I can't say iont find that troublesome

>he didn't even do any detective work in these films really,

is like calling for Superman to lift heavy shit
its a part of what he does
that's not being a tough critic, that's being someone who loves the characters and wants to see them do what they do

>is like calling for Superman to lift heavy shit
>its a part of what he does
>that's not being a tough critic, that's being someone who
>loves the characters and wants to see them do what they do

Superman handled a lot of heavy shit in Returns but overall it was still pretty boring. I was content with the amount/type of detective work Bats did in Begins & TDK. I certainly wanted to see him do some other shit as well & was pleased with that too.

I don't see Nolan hate at all in here.

>The Avengers: Film Review
9:01 PM PDT 4/19/2012 by Todd McCarthy

The Bottom Line
The biggest Marvel movie yet, destined for the box office stratosphere.

Opens
April 25 (international), May 4 (U.S.)
(Disney)

Cast
Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston, Clark Gregg, Cobie Smulders, Stellan Skarsgard, Samuel L. Jackson, Gwyneth Paltrow, Paul Bettany

Director
Joss Whedon

Director Joss Whedon pulls off a stunning feat in bringing balance to this superhuman circus, engineered to charm the geek core and non-fans alike.

The All-Star Game of modern superhero extravaganzas, The Avengers is humongous, the film Marvel and its legions of fans have been waiting for. It's hard to imagine that anyone with an appetite for the trademark's patented brand of fantasy, effects, mayhem and strangely dressed he-men will be disappointed; not only does this eye-popping 3D display of visual effects fireworks feature an enormously high proportion of action scenes, but director Joss Whedon has adroitly balanced the celebrity circus to give every single one of the superstar characters his or her due. Worldwide box office returns will be, in a word, Marvelous.

Over the past several years, Marvel has, with accelerated speed, expanded its cinematic repertoire of over-muscled, generally double-identitied heroes not otherwise encumbered by exclusive contracts with other studios—most notably The Hulk, Iron Man, Thor and Captain America--to arrive at the point where this summit meeting of superhuman good guys could be assembled. (A prominent relative, Spider-Man, has his own reboot coming up this summer.) After this, the characters will go their separate ways (Iron Man 3 starts shooting next month, with second chapters of Thor and Captain America set to roll within the year) before gathering again before too many movie summers pass. With the bundle this one will make, the pressure will be on make it happen sooner rather than later.

As creatively variable and predictably formulaic as the Marvel films have been, this one will not only make the core geek audience feel like it's died and gone to Asgard but has so much going for it that many non-fans will be disarmed and charmed. This is effects-driven, mass appeal summer fare par excellence, that sought-after rare bird that hits all the quadrants, as marketing mavens like to say. As enormous as the production is, though, the appeal of the ensemble cast makes a crucial difference; you get enough but not too much of each of them and they all get multiple scenes to themselves to shine.

To boil down the particulars of this latest attempt to bring ruin to all we hold dear, sinister Thor villain Loki (Tom Hiddleston, looking like Richard E. Grant's effete younger brother), has gained possession of the tesseract, an all-powerful substance contained in an opaque cube that not only provides unlimited sustainable energy but a portal to outer space. “I am burdened with glorious purpose,” Loki purrs while taunting eye-patched S.H.I.E.L.D. master Samuel L. Jackson (finally with something to do in a Marvel film) with the promised arrival of his army of outer space warriors.

Down but not out, the good guys begin assembling on board one of the cooler modes of transport seen anywhere in a while, a giant (and beautifully rendered) aircraft carrier that can rise out of the water to become an invisible space ship—hence, a helicarrier--and serve as a first-rate staging area for operations against Loki. Among those arriving on board are Bruce Banner, otherwise known as The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo, the third actor, after Eric Bana and Edward Norton, to give the green giant a go); Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlet Johansson), a sultry scarlet-haired assassin first seen turning the tables on nasty interrogators despite being strapped to a chair; Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Loki's long-locked brother and bearer of the universe's mightiest hammer, and Mr. Old School himself, Steve Rogers, aka Captain America (Chris Evans), a World War II hero who's not quite up to speed on all the latest super-technology but who does carry an impenetrable shield. For his part, Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, better known as Iron Man, joins incipient girlfriend Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) for a brief-tete-a-tete before deigning to lend his special expertise to the cause.

Although they really should be saving their energy for the the battle against Loki and his minions, the Avengers team can't resist getting into it with each other from time to time. One could say that this is just gratuitous time-killing, but it could as persuasively be argued that watching The Hulk duke it out with Thor for bragging rights as to who's tougher is what such a film is all about; at least there's nothing perfunctory about it, as there is when superheroes routinely dispatch aliens and enemies who exist just to get blown away. The friction between Iron Man and Captain America, for example, is all about style and attitude; the former is far too irreverent and glib for the latter, for whom patriotism and coming to the rescue are not laughing matters.

'With only one feature directorial credit to his name, the middling 2005 sci-fier Serenity, Whedon of Buffy fame would not have been the first name on most people's lists to tame a potentially unwieldy project. But from a logistical point of view alone, Whedon imposes a grip on the material that feels like that of a benevolent general, marshaling myriad technical resources (including an excellent use of 3D) while, even more impressively, juggling eight major characters, giving them all cool and important things to do.

Never, though, does the film stall to dwell on individual characters just to give them screen time; the heroes are almost always doing something that relates to the challenge at hand. Even when the impudent Loki is held prisoner in seemingly inescapable circumstances, there is still forward movement, which crests and then crashes with tsunami force near Grand Central Station in Manhattan; uncountable numbers of alien warriors arrive from the skies, accompanied by strikingly designed metal leviathans that undulate like skeletal monsters of the deep as they cruise over New York seeking targets.

In this titanic battle, which occupies most of the film's final half-hour, all the Marvel heroes' talents are put to the test. In addition to Iron Man making a quick trip to outer space to deal with an incoming missile, special agent Clint Barton, or Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), is so good with a hi-tech bow and arrow that you imagine they'll have to dragoon Katniss Everdeen into the sequel as a guest star just to see who's better. For his part, Jackson's Nick Fury has his hands full restraining army generals from nuking the Big Apple in order to off the aliens.

It's clamorous, the save-the-world story is one everyone's seen time and again, and the characters have been around for more than half a century in 500 comic book issues. But Whedon and his cohorts have managed to stir all the personalities and ingredients together so that the resulting dish, however familiar, is irresistibly tasty again. A quick coda reveals, to well-versed fans at least, who the new adversary in the next installment will be, underlining a reality as absolute as the turning of the Earth: Especially after this, Marvel movies will go on and on and on.

________________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

Most of the reviews of "Avengers Assemble" have been glowing at best and wildly entertained at worst.

High on Rotten Tomatoes. Patton Oswalt raved about its perfection, and there's a dude that would definitely nitpick. Many calling it the best superhero movie ever.

Please please pleeeeeeeease let that be true.

>High on Rotten Tomatoes. Patton Oswalt raved about its
>perfection, and there's a dude that would definitely nitpick.
>Many calling it the best superhero movie ever.
>
>Please please pleeeeeeeease let that be true.
Relax. They both going to be dope as fuck. They just are. Now sit back and wait a week and enjoy.

I think Spider-Man is going to be hurt somewhat by Dark Knight Rises. July 4th weekend is a great release time, but DKR drops two weeks later.

>Relax. They both going to be dope as fuck. They just are. Now
>sit back and wait a week and enjoy.

_________________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

And since people will inevitably compare it to Dark Knight Rises, why am I not allowed to make a poll?

Goddamn. Yes, I thought the first two Batman flicks weren't perfect (but still enjoyable!) and I'm more excited for Avengers as a result. Where is that a problem? I'm not rooting for Batman to suck-- he was my favorite character growing up.

This ain't OkaySports. I'm not Rjcc. I'm not in here saying unfair shit about either flick. Yes, I've got my opinion and preference, but I'm not yelling "YOU'RE WRONG" or trying to turn people against Avengers. Obviously everyone in here wants both movies to be dope. Relax.

>This ain't OkaySports. I'm not Rjcc. I'm not in here saying
>unfair shit about either flick. Yes, I've got my opinion and
>preference, but I'm not yelling "YOU'RE WRONG" or trying to
>turn people against Avengers. Obviously everyone in here wants
>both movies to be dope. Relax.

_________________________________________________________________________
© ZooTown74 All Rights Reserved

>And since people will inevitably compare it to Dark Knight
>Rises, why am I not allowed to make a poll?
you're missing my point. be hyped about it being dope, but chill with worrying about it not, that's all i was saying, they're both gonna be tight.

people are short-sighted and lack vision. i never liked the comparison of iron man to batman because they are set in totally different universes. there's nothing "funny" or "cool" about batman. iron man has lots of those. they're going to be two dope as fuck movies but have nothing in common besides having heroes in each.


>Goddamn. Yes, I thought the first two Batman flicks weren't
>perfect (but still enjoyable!) and I'm more excited for
>Avengers as a result. Where is that a problem? I'm not rooting
>for Batman to suck-- he was my favorite character growing up.
NOT A PROBLEM HOMEY. your enthusiasm is good, but your pleeeeease be good stuff i think is unnecessary. they ain't gon fuck this up


i'm bigging up both. i wasn't even bothered by your initial post although i said up above the premise was confusing. better film is not necessarily better blockbuster. i think avengers is going to be more fun and will be the better blockbuster. DKR may be the better film. both shall be seen with unbridled enthusiasm by I. win win situation.

>people are short-sighted and lack vision. i never liked the
>comparison of iron man to batman because they are set in
>totally different universes. there's nothing "funny" or "cool"
>about batman.

Bruce, Alfred, Lucius, The Joker, etc have all been funny at times in these movies. If you don't find the wisecracks, mannerisms, gestures or whatever funny that's fine. But let's not act like Nolan isn't trying. It's a comic. The comic relief is there. Yes they're dark & moody but some of the naysayers seem to act like he's making Requiem for a Batman.

And maybe we have different definitions of cool. But I've seen plenty of cool stuff in these movies as well. The ninja training, tumbler, Scarecrow side effects, Joker pencil trick, Batpod etc was all cool shit to me.

>>people are short-sighted and lack vision. i never liked the
>>comparison of iron man to batman because they are set in
>>totally different universes. there's nothing "funny" or
>"cool"
>>about batman.
>
>Bruce, Alfred, Lucius, The Joker, etc have all been funny at
>times in these movies. If you don't find the wisecracks,
>mannerisms, gestures or whatever funny that's fine. But let's
>not act like Nolan isn't trying. It's a comic. The comic
>relief is there. Yes they're dark & moody but some of the
>naysayers seem to act like he's making Requiem for a Batman.
don't misunderstand me, i'm the biggest batman movie geek ever. since 1989 when that shit started, to the crash and burn that joel schumacher destroyed the franchise with; then with the nolan rebirth i've been all in. i've appreciated many many things about it. i just put "funny" and "cool" in quotes to underscore how different the settings are of batman and the marvel (ironman, avenger) universe. i definitely took comic amusement from the batman flicks.


>And maybe we have different definitions of cool. But I've seen
>plenty of cool stuff in these movies as well. The ninja
>training, tumbler, Scarecrow side effects, Joker pencil trick,
>Batpod etc was all cool shit to me.
same with this, i personally loved the shit, just using it to deconstruct what i think are poor comparisons people try to make with batman/ironman.

I've just heard so many complaints about the lack of fun that it felt like a good place to respond there.

Truth be told I might me more excited for The Avengers right now since they stacked the deck so high & it's something we haven't really seen before. It's also coming out sooner & in the past few years there's always been a must-see big blockbuster that comes out during my birthday week.

(I'm not accusing you of this, btw.)

But when people say, "Avengers will be more FUN, but DKR will be a better FILM" (which I hear often), it makes me a little salty. It implies that a movie full of explosions, color, and quips is somehow inferior to something with more ambition from the jump. And if people got points for ambition, The Fountain and Southland Tales would be the best movies I've ever seen.

I just think better is better, and people use the phrase "fun" a little too often like it's a slur of some sort. The type of movies I want to write are "fun," so maybe I'm just taking it personally... but movies that execute fun perfectly are just as valid as any indie arthouse flick or grand screen epic as being a "great film."

>(I'm not accusing you of this, btw.)
>
>But when people say, "Avengers will be more FUN, but DKR will
>be a better FILM" (which I hear often), it makes me a little
>salty. It implies that a movie full of explosions, color, and
>quips is somehow inferior to something with more ambition from
>the jump.
I liked how they set the backstory before the real action set in, and then the RAGE. that was tremendous fun to watch.



>
>I just think better is better, and people use the phrase "fun"
>a little too often like it's a slur of some sort. The type of
>movies I want to write are "fun," so maybe I'm just taking it
>personally... but movies that execute fun perfectly are just
>as valid as any indie arthouse flick or grand screen epic as
>being a "great film."
while i enjoyed IM and DK, I didn't think a comparison was apt. IM was an origin story, plus the "elite" to which you referred starting poking holes and nitpicking EVERYTHING about DK, less than a month after busting their pants over it. Most movies will have a few things that people didn't like, Iron Man had two SERIOUS ones (1) Stane left Tony alive enough so that Pepper could save him --WEAK, RAG doing it for Bruce in BB was according to a strict code of honor/ethics and repaying a debt, this wasn't 2) Stark revealing his secret identity, that's like one of the major themes of almost every super hero movie, protecting one's secret identity, especially considering he was a masked one) yet I heard none such criticism when it was compared to DK, as if IM was crafted from Mt. Olympus and DK was the Edsall.


tangential i know, but felt like a good spot to address side topics.

Literally NO ONE is talking about it. Folks are more hyped for Battleship. Which is saying something.

>Literally NO ONE is talking about it. Folks are more hyped
>for Battleship. Which is saying something.

I think that's a genre war. Avengers and DKR are just OWNING shit right now. July 4th weekend is going to salvage it, plus Bieber youngins and such will get out there. Won't do Toby numbers but it should bank no less than 250-275.

I think part of the problem is it's promotion. Marvel/Sony isn't doing SHIT to get buzz about it going.

Said it in the GD post: Love him as a comedian, but he's kind of a Marvel shill. They trot him out to hype up every big "event" Marvel is involved with, including some REALLY ass-awful comic series they've put out in recent years.

That said, I'm still hyped and will be seeing it opening weekend. But Oswalt calling it perfection does nothing for me.

I don't recall him shilling something I was torn on like THOR particularly hard, but your point is well-taken.

"...I saw it...it is amazing, GOD, did he NOT fumble that."

tricky character to begin with, and Nolan has a bad history with writing and casting female parts in Batman. Rachel Dawes lowered the quality of both movies.

less overt exposition, too. we don't need Bane giving the same character speech 10x like Harvey Dent did.

So I'ma say Batman.

I'm a huge Batman fan, and while I'll probably end up preferring TDKR as a film (if it's a good as I think it'll be) in general I think The Avengers might just be the best comic book film ever made.

This is literally like watching a comic book on the big screen. There's humor, larger than life battles, lots of action and most importantly there's no time wasted on stupid romances. That has always been my gripe with comic book films. They'll write in the romance, the love interest will find out the real identity and another character becomes useless.

Avengers doesn't have any of that. Whedon pulled it off to give every character a good amount of screen time. There really weren't any filler scenes to me, everything made perfect sense. Did I mention the film starts with action right away?

Shit, he even nailed the Hulk.

>there's no time wasted on stupid
>romances.

>Avengers doesn't have any of that. Whedon pulled it off to
>give every character a good amount of screen time. There
>really weren't any filler scenes to me, everything made
>perfect sense. Did I mention the film starts with action right
>away?
>
>Shit, he even nailed the Hulk.

most importantly there's no time wasted on stupid
>romances.



THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ever since Spider-Man dropped first weekend of May, really.

Always make mine marvel. They have not done the comics justice in any of the movies that have come out. With all the heavy amount of CGI, Superstars, explosive fight scenes, sponsored product placement and all together shiny stuff, Nolan puts in even more effort in creating an all around solid intriguing story. My baby cousin cant wait for the Avengers to come out

I am not an elitist, but I'd rather play a video game than watch a CGI fest, and I lost faith in Nolan's Batman ability after TDK.

Did you read the great article posted on Scanners a month or two ago about CGI?

maybe because TDK took a more serious, less campy tone but I respect what Nolan did and I realize that TDK and Tim Burton's Batman are 2 different movies. Instead of correlating, I've learned to enjoy both. This is what I'm going to do with the Avengers and Dark Knight Rises; I'm going to enjoy them both.

dude completely doesn't get batman.

at all.

fuck that movie.

>dude completely doesn't get batman.
>
>at all.
>
>fuck that movie.
without burton's batman, avengers, much less anything else, never sees the light of day. BELIEVE IT.

>>dude completely doesn't get batman.
>>
>>at all.
>>
>>fuck that movie.
>without burton's batman, avengers, much less anything else,
>never sees the light of day. BELIEVE IT.

CHUUCH!

>dude completely doesn't get batman.
>
>at all.
>
>fuck that movie.

Well I think that movie's a classic comic book flick and he did get Batman but added his own sick twist to it.

So I could give a fuck about his "understanding"....Burton's movies had more star power, were better acted, and were just as exciting.

Burton's
>movies had more star power, were better acted, and were just
>as exciting.

Pretty sure Nicholson, DeVito and Pfieff >>>>> Dude from 28 days later, Ledger and Hathaway; both in star power and performance. (Nope! already writing off Hathaway).

DeVito doesn't get much praise for Penguin, but he fucking KILLED it. Perfect performance, just like Pfieff.

Or were you only referring to the villains?

>Pretty sure Nicholson, DeVito and Pfieff >>>>> Dude from 28
>days later, Ledger and Hathaway; both in star power and
>performance. (Nope! already writing off Hathaway).
>
>DeVito doesn't get much praise for Penguin, but he fucking
>KILLED it. Perfect performance, just like Pfieff.

He was good, but overall I'd have to give the acting edge to Nolan's crew

Anne Hathaway has her work cut out for her tho. Michelle Pfieff-Dawg was fantastic in Batman Returns.

>Anne Hathaway has her work cut out for her tho. Michelle
>Pfieff-Dawg was fantastic in Batman Returns.

Pfieff Dog's performance in that is one of the best in any superhero movie ever. She is CRAZY in that joint, and it doesn't look like acting, lol.

>>Anne Hathaway has her work cut out for her tho. Michelle
>>Pfieff-Dawg was fantastic in Batman Returns.
>
>Pfieff Dog's performance in that is one of the best in any
>superhero movie ever. She is CRAZY in that joint, and it
>doesn't look like acting, lol.

She was perfect as Selina Kyle & Catwoman. Completely stole the movie. Anne doesn't have it in her but hopefully she'll suffice.

cause I had already accepted boxseats to go watch the Red Bulls game :(

My boy who works for Disney was doing the premier and got me on the list--but the shit starts at 5 and the red bull game at 3:30...ugh

AVENGERS SON.