The Avengers VS The Dark Knight

[intothevoid]

Badguys failing to shoot Batman in the face =/= Hulk surviving bombs and missiles.

Both are unrealistic.

But one is more extreme.

Now let me retire from this debate in peace godammit

 

[jye4ever]

Badguys failing to shoot Batman in the face =/= Hulk surviving bombs and missiles.

Both are unrealistic.

But one is more extreme.

Now let me retire from this debate in peace godammit

void, I will never Hulk out on you.

 

[intothevoid]

void, I will never Hulk out on you.

Even if you did, you'd always be just 1 lolcat away from un-Hulking

 

[Sachiel]

Unrealistic is unrealistic.

Batman (even Nolan's) is also fantasy. "Yeah, but it's not as much of a fantasy as Hulk!" Do you even realize how silly this sounds?

This "debate" is futile. It's all fake.

I shake my head at those who think the Nolan series is "too realistic". It's a fantasy! How can it be considered realistic when it's really unrealistic?

Silly people...

 

[jye4ever]

Even if you did, you'd always be just 1 lolcat away from un-Hulking

I'm so happy I love both movies.

 

[K07]

There can be varying degrees of fantasy and realism in a film. I wouldn't clump all action movies in to the fantasy genre just because they're unrealistic. Fantasies contain magic or supernatural events. There is no magic or supernatural explanation for the events in Nolan's films just as there aren't in the Die Hard or Bond movies as crazy as some of the events in those movies are.

Die Hard movies are not realistic. James Bond movies are not realistic. Would it make sense for an alien invasion to swoop down and attack the world in those movies? Or would the audience be confused and likely outraged at such a stupid thing happening? I would argue despite all the laws of physics being broken, Nolan's Batman world doesn't contain gamma radiation powered heroes or creatures from alternate dimensions. To argue the 4th degree burn thing or the drop from a building as proof it could work is ridiculous.

There are, however, elements of both science fiction and fantasy in the Marvel Studios movies. Nothing wrong with that. I enjoy those elements in BTAS. But of all the live-action Batman movies, I get the most satisfaction with Nolan's films as opposed to the Burton/Schuemacher movies. I wouldn't mind a more fantastic approach in the Batman reboot, but I don't want the tone to change from serious to silly.

 

[crows]

There can be varying degrees of fantasy and realism in a film. I wouldn't clump all action movies in to the fantasy genre just because they're unrealistic. Fantasies contain magic or supernatural events. There is no magic or supernatural explanation for the events in Nolan's films just as there aren't in the Die Hard or Bond movies as crazy as some of the events in those movies are.



There are, however, elements of both science fiction and fantasy in the Marvel Studios movies. Nothing wrong with that. I enjoy those elements in BTAS. But of all the live-action Batman movies, I get the most satisfaction with Nolan's films as opposed to the Burton/Schuemacher movies. I wouldn't mind a more fantastic approach in the Batman reboot, but I don't want the tone to change from serious to silly.

thank you... that's what I mean, of course batman is a movie, is not real, but like someone else said, avengers is fantasy to the extreme, is like Men in black or something, is beyond, batman might be fantasy too of course, but the degree is a lot smaller compared to avengers, or men in black, or hellboy, see to me avengers is like saying Hellboy is the same as batman , avengers is closer to hellboy or men in black in fantasy

 

[IrishJedi]

Fantasy is fantasy. Again, you're just debating semantics. Batman cannot happen.

 

[YoNoSe]

Black Widow is better fantasy than Rachel Dawes.

 

[K07]

Again, you're just debating semantics. Batman cannot happen.

Not my point. My point is that there are different degrees of realism and fantasy in fiction.

Fantasy is fantasy.

Not the case, see above. There are different levels of realism/fantasy. When I hear the word fantasy used, I think magic and talking animals. That's what the fantasy genre is all about. Batman, Bond, and Die Hard are not fantasies. They are unrealistic, fictional stories but are set in our world. The laws of physics can be defied to make the story more interesting or exciting at times, but there is simply no magic or talking animals. Thus, it is not a fantasy in the sense of the genre. The Avengers does have magic and talking creatures from other worlds. Thus, it is a fantasy in the sense of the genre.

I don't understand this cyclical argument. It's as clear to day to me that there can be different degrees of real/fake things in a story. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my argument and think I believe Batman, Bond, and John McClane could all exist in our world and do the amazing things that they do here. They couldn't. I'll give you all that, but that was never my point in this argument. My point is there are varying degrees of fictional stories.

 

[IrishJedi]

My point is even more simple: Once you establish that something isn't realistic and couldn't actually happen in our real world, what does it matter?

Sure, Nolan's Batman movies are indeed less fantastical than the Marvel movies. So what? None of this stuff can actually happen anyway.

 

[The Josh]

Josh, don't front, you know you have real Hobbit hostages in your basement.

They like to be called little people.

 

[thenammagazine]

My point is even more simple: Once you establish that something isn't realistic and couldn't actually happen in our real world, what does it matter?

Sure, Nolan's Batman movies are indeed less fantastical than the Marvel movies. So what? None of this stuff can actually happen anyway.

I think a few of these guys are puffing off the same hooka. "I can be BATMAN!"

 

[K07]

My point is even more simple: Once you establish that something isn't realistic and couldn't actually happen in our real world, what does it matter?

Sure, Nolan's Batman movies are indeed less fantastical than the Marvel movies. So what? None of this stuff can actually happen anyway.

That's the reason people like it when they say it's realistic. That word is incorrectly used. It's not realistic in the sense that it could happen. It is realistic in the sense that compared to all other big superhero movies that came before it, it's more believable and takes less imagination to accept. Just put Nolan's entries up against Burton's and Schuemacher's. You can leave the Marvel films out of this and my point will still be valid.

My argument can also be used to defend WB's and Nolan's decision to not continue this series of films and link them to a larger DC continuity. Having Superman and other superpowered beings and aliens would destroy that level of "heightened realism" Nolan used in his movies. Batman becomes less special when he has no super powers in a world filled with super powered beings. In the comics and cartoons, that works for me. It might work in live action film too. But not the Batman Nolan created. I think audiences would have a difficult time accepting aliens in these films suddenly.

Disclaimer, I also hate that term "heightened realism." I don't know how to describe these movies, but you agreed with me that they are very different from Marvel's films. That is one thing people will likely consider when picking which movie they enjoyed more. It's for that reason I think this poll is a bit silly. It's personal preference which you like based on the style and tone of the movie. Not to mention the source material. Very few Marvel fans would vote for Batman and very few Batman/DC fans would vote for Avengers. Not saying all of you. But most of us. If I were a Marvel fan, I'd likely have voted for Avengers. But I'm not, I'm a Batman fan.

I'm done now. We're not even arguing really anymore. We agreed that Batman can't exist and we agreed there are different levels of realism in fiction. So... We all agree. Yay.

 

[ZaCHw117]

A billionaire fighting crime is much more plausible than a Greek god riding a rainbow bridge down to earth because he was banished for starting a fight with big blue pissed off avatars.

 

[thenammagazine]

A billionaire fighting crime is much more plausible than a Greek god riding a rainbow bridge down to earth because he was banished for starting a fight with big blue pissed off avatars.

Let's put an end to this right now. Behold, a "realistic" Batman:

[ame]https://youtu.be/af0PGRReqxY[/ame]

[ame]https://youtu.be/UJ_sJ_wPf-Q[/ame]

This is as close as any of you will ever get to being/seeing a "real" Batman. Case closed.

 

[ZaCHw117]

Let's put an end to this right now. Behold, a "realistic" Batman:

https://youtu.be/af0PGRReqxY

This is as close as any of you will ever get to being/seeing a "real" Batman. Case closed.

Of course you wouldn't see the "real" batman. He's a ninja, and definitely wouldn't be going out during a day unless completely necessary. Especially without his gadgets.

 

[thenammagazine]

Of course you wouldn't see the "real" batman. He's a ninja, and definitely wouldn't be going out during a day unless completely necessary. Especially without his gadgets.

Ninjas don't exist anymore. Watch UFC 1. A blackbelt in ninjitsu got his ass kicked by a kickboxer. That put an end to any believability regarding the "martial arts" aspect of ninjas.

 

[ZaCHw117]

Ninjas don't exist anymore. Watch UFC 1. A blackbelt in ninjitsu got his ass kicked by a kickboxer.

That's one ninja on TV. Certainly not Bruce Wayne.

 

[thenammagazine]

That's one ninja on TV. Certainly not Bruce Wayne.

Nope, you're right. A real life Bruce Wayne would likely be too chicken____ and afraid to confront, first hand, the poverty his company created.