The Avengers VS The Dark Knight

[karamazov80]

Without becoming as ridiculous as BR, BF, or B&R.

The Marvel movies have had a hard challenge in front of them making these films that are fantastical and out there but focusing on the human story and having a good balance of drama, action, and humor. Some have done better than others, but as a whole series of films, it's done a great job.

I'd like to see something like B:TAS with some sci-fi elements thrown in. It doesn't need to be arc deco, but I like how they included Man Bat, Killer Croc, and Clay Face. I'd prefer they still stay away from aliens and other DCU characters but I guess I might be in the minority (at least around these parts).

I agree. I have read/inferred suggestions from some of the Nolanites that anything less than what Nolan has done wouldn't be "believable," suggesting that your two options with Batman are essentially the Burton/Schumacher-verse or the Nolan-verse, but I totally don't buy that. B:TAS is a perfect example of a Batman that takes itself seriously, that maintains a lot of what makes Batman the character distinctive and compelling, is really ____ing good!, and yet doesn't go too far with the gloom and doom. In other words, much of what we've seen with comic Bats over the last 40 years or so. Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Alan Moore, and a handful of others have explored that truly gritty side of Batman to great effect in the comics. But there's always been other approaches to serious Batman stories that don't need to go that direction. Yes, tragedy informs what he is, and he will always be a dysfunctional human in some ways, and was never very well adjusted psychologically since the murder of his parents. But that doesn't mean that every Batman story has to have these strong undercurrents of dread, despair, and the frailties of humanity, which is what you can't help but feel with the the Nolan-verse. I have no doubt the series will end on a hopeful note, but that's conditioned by all the stuff we've seen with Ra's and Joker, and will no doubt see with Bane.

 

[Khev]

I'd like to see a Batman film set in the 30's.

 

[karamazov80]

I don't see that happening, but. . .could be cool. I guess you would be looking for the old-school, "shoot and kill guys who break the law" Batman? Different from Burton Bats only in that he uses a gun to kill guys

 

[DiFabio]

I agree. I have read/inferred suggestions from some of the Nolanites that anything less than what Nolan has done wouldn't be "believable," suggesting that your two options with Batman are essentially the Burton/Schumacher-verse or the Nolan-verse, but I totally don't buy that. B:TAS is a perfect example of a Batman that takes itself seriously, that maintains a lot of what makes Batman the character distinctive and compelling, is really ____ing good!, and yet doesn't go too far with the gloom and doom. In other words, much of what we've seen with comic Bats over the last 40 years or so. Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Alan Moore, and a handful of others have explored that truly gritty side of Batman to great effect in the comics. But there's always been other approaches to serious Batman stories that don't need to go that direction. Yes, tragedy informs what he is, and he will always be a dysfunctional human in some ways, and was never very well adjusted psychologically since the murder of his parents. But that doesn't mean that every Batman story has to have these strong undercurrents of dread, despair, and the frailties of humanity, which is what you can't help but feel with the the Nolan-verse. I have no doubt the series will end on a hopeful note, but that's conditioned by all the stuff we've seen with Ra's and Joker, and will no doubt see with Bane.

Agree with everything you said, especially about BTAS but, why lump in Batman and Batman Returns with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin in the same universe? The Burton film are pretty different in tone and what they were trying to achieve compared to the Schumacher ones. Other than a few throw away comments the Schumacher series could be considered a reboot even though the term was never coined in the 90s.

I think in the span of the 1989 - 2012 Batman film franchise, fans have three options, not just two.


As for Avengers vs. The Dark Knight, I'd probably go with The Dark Knight simply because I prefer Batman more. The Dark Knight is more my thing. I mean don't get me wrong, I loved the Avengers. I really felt something with Cap, Iron Man, the Hulk and Thor on the big screen. The dialogue, the interactions between characters and the action scenes were fantastically well done and I really enjoyed the hell out of the movie. It is great and witty and I'm glad it's doing well.

I do hate the fans of Batman though, especially those that see Nolan as end-all, be-all. It really rubs me the wrong way. While I won't vote in any pole that pits things against each other, I would vote for the Avengers out of spite against those that would think a popularity contest for TDK would matter. I'm sure Marvel has it's fair share of twits but I think since my interest is purely Batman focused the "enthusiasm" of bat fans is a lot more loud and annoying.



So Avengers. It has the ____ing Hulk. Avengers finally made me see and understand the brilliance of the Hulk. I never got the fascination that Ski Man, Shai Hulud or their ilk had for the character until I saw the Avengers. I totally get it now and get where they're coming from. I'm sure it evokes the attitude and spirit of what makes the Hulk character great in the comics.

 

[intothevoid]

Good to have you back

 

[Alex Logan]

Conjecture, psychologizing, and other forms of making ____ up.



Cynic with low estimate of the race based on a concrete-bound myopia in a period of history that rarely produces examples of human excellence. Try looking past the end of your nose.



That's like saying Shaolin martial arts are junk because some modern wushu dancer got beat up by a Brazilian man-hugger.



Big companies create poverty???

Occupy Gotham!!!

I'm here to revoke.



No one is failing to realize that fiction is fiction. But if I write a novel dramatizing true principles, and some Californian ward-heeler tries to feed the poor on everyone else's dime, my novel would not be unrealistic, but the real-life legislator would be the epitome of fantastical.

Simply because no one has successfully managed to pull off a Batman style operation is not cause to claim it's unrealistic. There is no element whatsoever in Batman's composition that is beyond human ability. Nothing. Holding up a picture of some fat dolt isn't an argument.

So what's the point?

Avengers is a fantasy. TDK is a drama. Comic book origins or not, they are not the same kind of movie.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So Avengers. It has the ____ing Hulk. Avengers finally made me see and understand the brilliance of the Hulk. I never got the fascination that Ski Man, Shai Hulud or their ilk had for the character until I saw the Avengers. I totally get it now and get where they're coming from. I'm sure it evokes the attitude and spirit of what makes the Hulk character great in the comics.

I keep hearing this from everyone. What was so different about him in The Avengers? I got it from The Incredible Hulk. What am I missing here?

 

[Alex Logan]

Actually, the very character itself
Is beyond human capability. No actual person can endure what Batman does without completely falling apart, both physically & psychologically within weeks, or days.

Again with the freudian psychoanalysis. How can you know for sure what people can and cannot endure? Are you a doctor? Have you studied or is this just a theory?

 

[crows]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyNXnuHNF8k&feature=autoplay&list=UUkan4ZKlryf94OFFZc53Ojg&playnext=1[/ame]

 

[K07]

Agree with everything you said, especially about BTAS but, why lump in Batman and Batman Returns with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin in the same universe? The Burton film are pretty different in tone and what they were trying to achieve compared to the Schumacher ones. Other than a few throw away comments the Schumacher series could be considered a reboot even though the term was never coined in the 90s.

I think in the span of the 1989 - 2012 Batman film franchise, fans have three options, not just two.

I don't think think they're reboots in the sense Nolan's movies are. They actually refer back to past entries despite the huge departure in style, tone, and most of the cast. In fact, part of me is very curious to see where "Batman Triumphant" would have gone with Jack Nicholson reprising his role as Joker in the nightmare hallucinations induced by Scarecrow. Could it REALLY have gotten worse than B&R? I guess we'll never know.

 

[Khev]

I don't see that happening, but. . .could be cool. I guess you would be looking for the old-school, "shoot and kill guys who break the law" Batman? Different from Burton Bats only in that he uses a gun to kill guys

Maybe not killing guys but otherwise I'd like to see Batman get to play in his original period of origin like we did for Cap and X-Men: First Class.

 

[DarkMagic]

Actually, the very character itself
Is beyond human capability. No actual person can endure what Batman does without completely falling apart, both physically & psychologically within weeks, or days.

There is a book that deals with this very subject, written by a Nueroscientist, PhD, MD, Martial Artist.
https://www.becomingbatman.com/
It looks like it would be an interesting read (I haven't read it yet--I've got a long Amazon queue), but most of the reviews suggest that the science behind it shows it is very...VERY...unlikely. I think the disagreement is that some see "VERY unlikely" , but read "impossible", and some can see the distinction between the two.

I agree. I have read/inferred suggestions from some of the Nolanites that anything less than what Nolan has done wouldn't be "believable," suggesting that your two options with Batman are essentially the Burton/Schumacher-verse or the Nolan-verse, but I totally don't buy that. B:TAS is a perfect example of a Batman that takes itself seriously, that maintains a lot of what makes Batman the character distinctive and compelling, is really ____ing good!, and yet doesn't go too far with the gloom and doom. In other words, much of what we've seen with comic Bats over the last 40 years or so. Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Alan Moore, and a handful of others have explored that truly gritty side of Batman to great effect in the comics. But there's always been other approaches to serious Batman stories that don't need to go that direction. Yes, tragedy informs what he is, and he will always be a dysfunctional human in some ways, and was never very well adjusted psychologically since the murder of his parents. But that doesn't mean that every Batman story has to have these strong undercurrents of dread, despair, and the frailties of humanity, which is what you can't help but feel with the the Nolan-verse. I have no doubt the series will end on a hopeful note, but that's conditioned by all the stuff we've seen with Ra's and Joker, and will no doubt see with Bane.

As a self-proclaimed "Nolanite" I see what you're saying, and believe it or not, I would actually like to see a different interpretation of Batman after the Nolan series that has more fantastical elements in it, similar to B:TAS. I find it interesting that you'd mention that from [some] Nolanites point of view, your only two options are the Burton/Schumacher Batman or the Nolan gloom and doom Batman when the entire point of the argument from "Nolanites" like myself in the last few pages is that there are not only two levels in fantasy. When we try to make a distinction between the level of fantasy involved in the Nolan universe and the level of fantasy involved in the Avengers universe, we're met with arguments that boil down to this: "Both are not real-life, therefore, both are the same level of fantasy". By that simplified logic any reinterpretation of Batman, even one using B:TAS levels of fantasy...is on the same level of fantasy as the Nolan movies...which is on the same level of fantasy as the Schumacher movies...which is on the same level of fantasy as the Avengers, Superman, Clash of the Titans, Harry Potter, etc...etc.... All the same level, all on the ONLY level. To quote another poster -- Fiction is fiction, right?

As for Avengers vs. The Dark Knight, I'd probably go with The Dark Knight simply because I prefer Batman more. The Dark Knight is more my thing. I mean don't get me wrong, I loved the Avengers. I really felt something with Cap, Iron Man, the Hulk and Thor on the big screen. The dialogue, the interactions between characters and the action scenes were fantastically well done and I really enjoyed the hell out of the movie. It is great and witty and I'm glad it's doing well.

Makes sense. Like a lot of people have said before me, it largely depends on which superheros you prefer. Looked at in this way, this entire poll could ignored the movies completely and have been re-worded as "Do you prefer the Batman character or the Avengers characters", and probably have a very similar result...well, except for "spite votes":

I do hate the fans of Batman though, especially those that see Nolan as end-all, be-all. It really rubs me the wrong way. While I won't vote in any pole that pits things against each other, I would vote for the Avengers out of spite against those that would think a popularity contest for TDK would matter. I'm sure Marvel has it's fair share of twits but I think since my interest is purely Batman focused the "enthusiasm" of bat fans is a lot more loud and annoying.

So Avengers. It has the ____ing Hulk. Avengers finally made me see and understand the brilliance of the Hulk. I never got the fascination that Ski Man, Shai Hulud or their ilk had for the character until I saw the Avengers. I totally get it now and get where they're coming from. I'm sure it evokes the attitude and spirit of what makes the Hulk character great in the comics.

Welcome back DiFabio! While I understand what you are saying when you say that the enthusiasm of some bat-fans is annoying, I will never get the logic of going against something YOU like because other people like it "too much". Even though you liked Avengers (as did I, just not as much as TDK), this kind of cheapens your vote for them, it's like a backhanded compliment. You yourself admit TDK is more your thing, but you are voting for the Avengers anyway out of spite for some bat-fans.

"Hey Avengers, I'm not really voting FOR you, I'm voting AGAINST the TDK fans." I don't even really have a problem with it, at least you're self-aware. From the derisive tone of a lot of the posts here ("nolancompoops" etc --looking at you Nam ), I wouldn't be surprised at all if Avengers is getting a lot of votes "out of spite" against Nolan-fans.

 

[devilof76]

Christopher Nolan's vision is sure as hell not the be-all end-all of Batman. I do think his two films thus far have been the best Batman films. They captured the character concisely and completely, and it took itself 100% seriously.

I'm trying to decide whether The Avengers was a better Avengers movie, or if TDK was a better Batman movie. I voted for TDK (the lesser film to Begins) but I'm not sure which did what it was trying to do best.

And mornin DiFabio.

 

[intothevoid]

There is a book that deals with this very subject, written by a Nueroscientist, PhD, MD, Martial Artist.
https://www.becomingbatman.com/
It looks like it would be an interesting read (I haven't read it yet--I've got a long Amazon queue), but most of the reviews suggest that the science behind it shows it is very...VERY...unlikely. I think the disagreement is that some see "VERY unlikely" , but read "impossible", and some can see the distinction between the two.



As a self-proclaimed "Nolanite" I see what you're saying, and believe it or not, I would actually like to see a different interpretation of Batman after the Nolan series that has more fantastical elements in it, similar to B:TAS. I find it interesting that you'd mention that from [some] Nolanites point of view, your only two options are the Burton/Schumacher Batman or the Nolan gloom and doom Batman when the entire point of the argument from "Nolanites" like myself in the last few pages is that there are not only two levels in fantasy. When we try to make a distinction between the level of fantasy involved in the Nolan universe and the level of fantasy involved in the Avengers universe, we're met with arguments that boil down to this: "Both are not real-life, therefore, both are the same level of fantasy". By that simplified logic any reinterpretation of Batman, even one using B:TAS levels of fantasy...is on the same level of fantasy as the Nolan movies...which is on the same level of fantasy as the Schumacher movies...which is on the same level of fantasy as the Avengers, Superman, Clash of the Titans, Harry Potter, etc...etc.... All the same level, all on the ONLY level. To quote another poster -- Fiction is fiction, right?


Makes sense. Like a lot of people have said before me, it largely depends on which superheros you prefer. Looked at in this way, this entire poll could ignored the movies completely and have been re-worded as "Do you prefer the Batman character or the Avengers characters", and probably have a very similar result...well, except for "spite votes":


Welcome back DiFabio! While I understand what you are saying when you say that the enthusiasm of some bat-fans is annoying, I will never get the logic of going against something YOU like because other people like it "too much". Even though you liked Avengers (as did I, just not as much as TDK), this kind of cheapens your vote for them, it's like a backhanded compliment. You yourself admit TDK is more your thing, but you are voting for the Avengers anyway out of spite for some bat-fans.

"Hey Avengers, I'm not really voting FOR you, I'm voting AGAINST the TDK fans." I don't even really have a problem with it, at least you're self-aware. From the derisive tone of a lot of the posts here ("nolancompoops" etc --looking at you Nam ), I wouldn't be surprised at all if Avengers is getting a lot of votes "out of spite" against Nolan-fans.

Another top post

The bolded parts in particular

I would absolutely love to see a different, fantastical take on Batman post TDKR. I want to see Man Bat, I want to see justice done to Mr. Freeze, I want to see a Ra's Al Ghul that is 1000 years old, I want to see Two Face as a mob boss (not of the TLJ variety though) etc.

Nolan's vision resonates with me unlike anything else i've seen on screen, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see other interpretations.

Also - the voting out of spite thing, yeah, just don't get it

What one likes or dislikes in terms of any art, be it movies, music, paintings etc, should not be determined by what others think of it.

 

[Khev]

Just imagine an Avengers/X:FC/Spider-Man vs. Nolanverse/MoS/GL movie.

If done well it could actually be the first film to break a trillion dollars.

 

[devilof76]

It'd be better if you put a Wonder Woman movie in Green Lantern's spot. The Trinity alone against the Avengers, the X-Men, andSpider-Man would be an epochally great fight. Adding more Justice League would make it that much better.

 

[IrishJedi]

Denial is a hell of a thing, no?

BTW, Cracked.com has joined the fray:

 

[intothevoid]

Denial is a hell of a thing, no?

Touche

 

[Sachiel]

I would absolutely love to see a different, fantastical take on Batman post TDKR. I want to see Man Bat, I want to see justice done to Mr. Freeze, I want to see a Ra's Al Ghul that is 1000 years old, I want to see Two Face as a mob boss (not of the TLJ variety though) etc.

I would like something similar in style to Watchmen. The look and feel of the world on screen was great. It had a great comicbook look to it where the costumed superheros felt perfectly natural.

 

[intothevoid]

I would like something similar in style to Watchmen. The look and feel of the world on screen was great. It had a great comicbook look to it where the costumed superheros felt perfectly natural.

Well Snyder seems to be one of WB/DC's go to men - I'm sure he'll get a crack at Batman sooner or later (unless MoS turns out to be an abomination, which I doubt).

I know he really wanted to do a The Dark Knight Returns adaption, wouldn't mind seeing that but would rather see a big screen version of BTAS

 

[jye4ever]

I hope the reboot is an ultra releastic version of Batman, Nolan's movies were based too much on fantasy for my tastes.