Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2012 17:16:04 GMT -5
Also, if movie villains were brilliant strategic masterminds, we wouldn't have gotten: The Star Wars Saga. 23 Bond films. The Avengers. Or countless other franchises.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 27, 2012 17:19:37 GMT -5
And that's exactly why they are bad villains to me. Blowing up the city gives Bruce a lifetime of anguish, it immediately destroys everything he fought so hard to achieve, it destroys his spirit and the symbol he had created, and just hammers home that no matter what, one man can't make a difference. Instead, they throw him in a pit that has been escaped before, have no one of the vast assassin enterprise there guarding him to make sure that he's forced to stay there until it goes off, and even have the prison surgeon available to fix the back problems that would have stopped him from even getting the strength to get out. It's faulty logic, at best, from a series designed to try to make a world more realistic than other superhero movies. Also, if movie villains were brilliant strategic masterminds, we wouldn't have gotten: The Star Wars Saga. 23 Bond films. The Avengers. Or countless other franchises. What other franchises, especially popcorn action flicks, do doesn't make Nolan's series off-limits from being scrutinized. When you treat a movie as serious art, you get judged more heavily than if you make a movie to be a fun popcorn flick. People have put the Nolan series on a pedestal, so it gets looked at more closely because of it. Even then, if they were just crazy, then it'd be different. I can buy Joker doing it because he's nuts. But these two are supposed to be masterminds, they enacted a crazily detailed plot years in the making to get the advantage they had to begin with. That said, if people want to criticize Avengers or Bond films, they're free to do so as well.
|
|
|
Post by Hakumental on Sept 27, 2012 17:25:02 GMT -5
I say this as a man who deeply respects Christopher Nolan's skill and cannot even tangentially stand Joss Whedon:
Avengers.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,051
Member is Online
|
Post by dav on Sept 27, 2012 17:38:09 GMT -5
And that's exactly why they are bad villains to me. Blowing up the city gives Bruce a lifetime of anguish, it immediately destroys everything he fought so hard to achieve, it destroys his spirit and the symbol he had created, and just hammers home that no matter what, one man can't make a difference. Instead, they throw him in a pit that has been escaped before, have no one of the vast assassin enterprise there guarding him to make sure that he's forced to stay there until it goes off, and even have the prison surgeon available to fix the back problems that would have stopped him from even getting the strength to get out. It's faulty logic, at best. Not quite the full pain. The five months in between had Bane in control, not wiping out what Bruce had sacrificed for, but eroded it. Bane spent five months tearing down what Gotham had become, a place safe for people to live in. They tore down everything Gotham was as well as letting the criminals he'd sacrificed everything to put away run rampant and take over, making a mockery of everything he'd stood for. By delaying it, they just brought the point home that for everything he'd done, it was all meaningless when they were able to turn it and have criminals rule. Plus, no one had escaped the prison in over twenty/thirty years and only Talia had managed it. Quite a few of those guys were in much better shape than Wayne was in when he was there so expecting him to break out wasn't really high on their list, plus they kinda had a back up in that situation anyway. Surgeon was there as his own punishment since he'd been locked up in there since Talia's mother died.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 27, 2012 18:00:04 GMT -5
Once the bomb goes off, kills millions of people, and forces you to watch and cope with the fact that the city you put so much effort into saving was wiped away rendering all of your hard work, blood, sweat, and tears completely meaningless, the fact that an assassin set criminals loose and helped them terrorize people for a few months would just pale in comparison. Sure, you could have built false hope and have the guy think there's a way out before blowing the city up, but at the end of the day, it'd even out and the pain of losing the city would still cause far more grief than anything else.
As far as the prison goes, were all those prisoners the focus of a multi-year long plot by Talia and Bane to take vengeance on the guy who killed Ra's, a plan that they're obviously intending to die for? Bruce wasn't exactly a normal man, he was trained by League of Shadows and he was the very man their entire, horrible plot was designed to hurt. If you're smart, you don't just drop a guy like that into a pit and forget about him, even if you don't think he's likely to escape.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Sept 27, 2012 18:58:24 GMT -5
I loved the shit out of all 3 comic movies this year, but the vote goes to Avengers.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Sept 27, 2012 19:54:53 GMT -5
Avengers
DKR was good but very flawed, In fact I preferred Dredd to DKR
|
|
|
Post by wildojinx on Sept 27, 2012 22:08:00 GMT -5
Both films were very good. That said, Avengers works more as a stand-alone movie. I didnt see Thor until after seeing Avengers and barely remembered much about Hulk but the film still worked on its own merits and didnt feel like a sequel at all. Compare that to DKR, where if you never saw Begins or TDK you'd be lost.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Sept 27, 2012 22:51:18 GMT -5
I'll dodge the real topic and try to focus on the positives of each franchise rather than individual films.
The Avengers franchise demonstrates that a universe of interconnected films can be successfully done. The film alone is only the superhero equivalent to Frankenstein meets the Wolfman (or Abott & Costello meet Frankenstein for something bigger) and everything since. That's not the truly original part. The original part is laying the foundations for the eventual crossover movie in each movie that leads up to it while also establishing a universe with potential to keep building upon it after the big crossover movie is released. We might not see this too often, but it would be interesting to see it attempted elsewhere.
The Dark Knight Trilogy demonstrates that superhero films don't need to be "popcorn films." They can have heady themes and be allegorical. They can have complex plots and structure. They can be taken seriously. I'm not talking about grit and realism either; I'm talking about giving your audience more credit for being smart.
Ideally, both films and their franchises will leave a lasting legacy that future superhero movies incorporate and thus the genre evolves.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Sept 27, 2012 22:53:27 GMT -5
I loved both, and it's sorta apples and oranges as they're two very different types of movies, but Avengers was way more fun and probably right now in the top two or three superhero movies ever, if not the best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2012 0:46:17 GMT -5
Just financially, I rate Dark Knight Rises highly but the Avengers was pretty dreadful to me, then it became Iron Man 2.5 in the last third which helped it out tremendously.
So yeah, just financially.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Sept 28, 2012 0:57:16 GMT -5
I can say that Avengers has far more quotable moments than Dark Knight Rises, which isn't to say that TDKR doesn't have its share of memorable quotes. Of course Avengers is more quotable than Rises. It is freaking Joss vs. Nolan. Joss is the king of quotable films and shows.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,181
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Sept 28, 2012 2:07:55 GMT -5
I'll dodge the real topic and try to focus on the positives of each franchise rather than individual films. The Avengers franchise demonstrates that a universe of interconnected films can be successfully done. The film alone is only the superhero equivalent to Frankenstein meets the Wolfman (or Abott & Costello meet Frankenstein for something bigger) and everything since. That's not the truly original part. The original part is laying the foundations for the eventual crossover movie in each movie that leads up to it while also establishing a universe with potential to keep building upon it after the big crossover movie is released. We might not see this too often, but it would be interesting to see it attempted elsewhere. The Dark Knight Trilogy demonstrates that superhero films don't need to be "popcorn films." They can have heady themes and be allegorical. They can have complex plots and structure. They can be taken seriously. I'm not talking about grit and realism either; I'm talking about giving your audience more credit for being smart. Ideally, both films and their franchises will leave a lasting legacy that future superhero movies incorporate and thus the genre evolves. That point about the Avengers is something I think people overlook as it's 'just' a popcorn film. The Marvel project isn't just films, of sequels, it's a living universe, unless anyone can enlighten me, has anything like this ever been done in film? In comics, TV etc you have these universes where you follow different characters in different stories, but film tends to follow one story, then extend it in a sequel or prequel. It's as if Star Wars had a Han Solo film, a Yoda film, an Obi-Wan film etc. This could be a very influential series in the medium, far more than Nolan's Batman triolgy, which while good, is still a story and world told in a traditional way.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Sept 28, 2012 2:25:47 GMT -5
I'll dodge the real topic and try to focus on the positives of each franchise rather than individual films. The Avengers franchise demonstrates that a universe of interconnected films can be successfully done. The film alone is only the superhero equivalent to Frankenstein meets the Wolfman (or Abott & Costello meet Frankenstein for something bigger) and everything since. That's not the truly original part. The original part is laying the foundations for the eventual crossover movie in each movie that leads up to it while also establishing a universe with potential to keep building upon it after the big crossover movie is released. We might not see this too often, but it would be interesting to see it attempted elsewhere. The Dark Knight Trilogy demonstrates that superhero films don't need to be "popcorn films." They can have heady themes and be allegorical. They can have complex plots and structure. They can be taken seriously. I'm not talking about grit and realism either; I'm talking about giving your audience more credit for being smart. Ideally, both films and their franchises will leave a lasting legacy that future superhero movies incorporate and thus the genre evolves. That point about the Avengers is something I think people overlook as it's 'just' a popcorn film. The Marvel project isn't just films, of sequels, it's a living universe, unless anyone can enlighten me, has anything like this ever been done in film? In comics, TV etc you have these universes where you follow different characters in different stories, but film tends to follow one story, then extend it in a sequel or prequel. It's as if Star Wars had a Han Solo film, a Yoda film, an Obi-Wan film etc. This could be a very influential series in the medium, far more than Nolan's Batman triolgy, which while good, is still a story and world told in a traditional way. It's actually rather novel for any medium. Marvel did the very same in comic books back in the 60s, whereas DC was a collection of separate universes (and arguably worked better that way). In television it's mostly spinoffs from an original show. Prominent examples of "universes" in TV include Star Trek, Law & Order, CSI, and The Wire. The world of novels is where you find a bit more of this stuff like with the works of Michael Moorcock or Stephen King (to name a couple). But in film? I've never seen it done. The Avengers franchise is not built upon spinoffs so much as the exact opposite of spinoffs. It was obviously planned from the start, was a huge risk, and it paid off huge. The next hurdle is in continuing that universe and successfully building up to the sequel and hitting it big again.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Sept 28, 2012 6:42:26 GMT -5
It's like the difference between a really damn good chocolate cake, and a really damn good chocolate cake you weren't expecting to get...and it has a cherry on top.
Avengers.
|
|
|
Post by WarChief on Sept 28, 2012 7:28:03 GMT -5
TDKR advertised a thrill ride with Batman being awesome. We got the thrill ride, but not enough Batman.
Avengers was advertised as a thrill ride with six superheroes that had been built up since 2008. It didn't turn into nearly three hours of people talking about how The Avengers kept the world safe. It went out there with the Avengers making the world safe.
Avengers and it's not even close.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Sept 28, 2012 8:31:40 GMT -5
I hated Dark Knight Rises, but I consider Avengers to be the greatest superhero film ever made.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,051
Member is Online
|
Post by dav on Sept 28, 2012 11:23:49 GMT -5
Once the bomb goes off, kills millions of people, and forces you to watch and cope with the fact that the city you put so much effort into saving was wiped away rendering all of your hard work, blood, sweat, and tears completely meaningless, the fact that an assassin set criminals loose and helped them terrorize people for a few months would just pale in comparison. Sure, you could have built false hope and have the guy think there's a way out before blowing the city up, but at the end of the day, it'd even out and the pain of losing the city would still cause far more grief than anything else. As far as the prison goes, were all those prisoners the focus of a multi-year long plot by Talia and Bane to take vengeance on the guy who killed Ra's, a plan that they're obviously intending to die for? Bruce wasn't exactly a normal man, he was trained by League of Shadows and he was the very man their entire, horrible plot was designed to hurt. If you're smart, you don't just drop a guy like that into a pit and forget about him, even if you don't think he's likely to escape. They were going to have their cake and eat it throughout the movie. I don't see the general problem with twisting the knife as much as they could with Bruce (Even literally later on), so that seems to be the difference where I'm happy to accept they're willing to dragging it out just to add as much pain as possible while. If you're not, can't grumble with that, I just don't mind it when they've gone that far to add one kick after another. I had more issue with Bane trapping the police underground during the same time as a nationally televised American Football game as I still reckon that was a fluke more than planned. As for the popcorn film description, for those who've seen the Avengers, is that generally all it is? This isn't a knock on that genre, I love Con Air for instance, but does it have any ambition outside of that? Did it try and do something different with superheroes like the Dark Knight Trilogy did?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Sept 28, 2012 11:40:00 GMT -5
It was less a popcorn movie, and more just a superhero comic come to life in a way that even for all the good-great ones we've seen over the decades haven't yet achieved.
Did it do something 'different'? Not really, unless you consider the achievement of building that entire universe over multiple films culminating in a living cinematic universe different ( I do, but your mileage may vary); but in the sense of Nolan's flick where it wasn't really a superhero franchise and more crime fiction no.
But again, I don't think it's JUST a popcorn flick, in generally those are just completely turn off your brain fare.. there's certainly some of that here, but for me, as I said, it's more just the most direct translation from page to screen that we've ever seen.
That's really why people love it so much.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,051
Member is Online
|
Post by dav on Sept 28, 2012 12:02:06 GMT -5
It was less a popcorn movie, and more just a superhero comic come to life in a way that even for all the good-great ones we've seen over the decades haven't yet achieved. Did it do something 'different'? Not really, unless you consider the achievement of building that entire universe over multiple films culminating in a living cinematic universe different ( I do, but your mileage may vary); but in the sense of Nolan's flick where it wasn't really a superhero franchise and more crime fiction no. But again, I don't think it's JUST a popcorn flick, in generally those are just completely turn off your brain fare.. there's certainly some of that here, but for me, as I said, it's more just the most direct translation from page to screen that we've ever seen. That's really why people love it so much. With different, I meant taking the genre somewhere you normally wouldn't expect. Something like the Dark Knight Trilogy, love it or not, did do as it had a take on the genre with its discussion of symbolism and the like that hadn't been seen up to that point. I had forgotten to mention the cross-movie aspects as that was a really impressive feat to actually lay that out to the extent they had. I've only really seen Iron Man out of them and waked away with the sense it was an OK movie, but lacked a decent villain and was fairly forgettable. I would like a box set to come out with the films leading up to the Avengers and that movie itself so I can watch them to get the full experience, it seems that'd be the best way of going about it. I just wish Marvel would get the rights to X-Men back so they could adapt the Claremont stories from the 70's/80's. Now those would be damn good films.
|
|