The Avengers VS The Dark Knight

[thenammagazine]

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.

Try looking out your door. Batman = fiction.

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

Traditional martial arts are going the way of the dodo and are proving rather inefficient amongst those (nowadays your average joe) who're schooled in mixed forms of martial arts. An opponent nowadays isn't going to come at you with a straight right, a cross or a foot stomp anymore (assuming they don't have a gun). And they're not going to grab you and wait for you to attack them. Maybe back in the 80's, but today's a different day. Even Furley will back me on this one.

Big companies create poverty???

I'm assuming this "" is agreement. Big companies nowadays, buy out smaller companies creating jobloss which results in unemployment. With banks, despite bailouts (and also big businesses themselves) unwilling to give student loans to cover reeducation, that leaves people out of work and unemployed. Once those benefits expire, how many people do you really think are gonna hold down a job at Target or Walmart while flipping burgers on graveshift to cover their bills. You're looking at poverty.

I'm here to revoke.

You don't have the sobriety, nor the credentials.

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.

Yet, it would still be classified under "fiction."

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?

A Batman grounded by real rules, gets shot in the face the first time he attempts to stop a mugging. A man running around the rooftops trying to get a grappling gun to stick to bricks winds up falling to his death. A man running around as a bat, trying to break up a robbery, gets tased, proned out by the cops, and wakes up in a psychiatric ward, handcuffed to a hospital bed. Batman doesn't work in the real world.

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

Yet both are still fiction.

Now read what you wrote once you sober up.

 

[Niltusk]

That's why Doctor Parnassus made a load of money no?

One movie released about 6 months after his death, the other like two years after. Apples to oranges at that point, but sure, go with your theory, maybe it would have done half what it did if Ledger were alive?

 

[ZaCHw117]

A Batman grounded by real rules, gets shot in the face the first time he attempts to stop a mugging. A man running around the rooftops trying to get a grappling gun to stick to bricks winds up falling to his death. A man running around as a bat, trying to break up a robbery, gets tased, proned out by the cops, and wakes up in a psychiatric ward, handcuffed to a hospital bed. Batman doesn't work in the real world.

Yes, but Nam, if Batman were real. That'd mean Bruce Wayne would also be real, meaning that He would have real life training, which means he wouldn't be an average joe dressed as a bat. Because he'd not be a hero, he'd be a silent guardian, a watchful protector, A DARK KNIGHT!!

EDIT:
ehm, sorry I was listening to Hanz Zimmer while writing that post, might have got a bit carried away.

 

[thenammagazine]

Yes, but Nam, if Batman were real. That'd mean Bruce Wayne would also be real, meaning that He would have real life training, which means he wouldn't be an average joe dressed as a bat. Because he'd not be a hero, he'd be a silent guardian, a watchful protector, A DARK KNIGHT!!

EDIT:
ehm, sorry I was listening to Hanz Zimmer while writing that post, might have got a bit carried away.

So he'd essentially double as a security guard who'd call 911 when he saw a crime.

 

[jye4ever]

So he'd essentially double as a security guard who'd call 911 when he saw a crime.

sign me up, I want to be a mall security person (aka The Dark Night)

 

[ironwez20]

Yes, but Nam, if Batman were real. That'd mean Bruce Wayne would also be real, meaning that He would have real life training, which means he wouldn't be an average joe dressed as a bat. Because he'd not be a hero, he'd be a silent guardian, a watchful protector, A DARK KNIGHT!!

EDIT:
ehm, sorry I was listening to Hanz Zimmer while writing that post, might have got a bit carried away.

Im sure theres someone out there by the name of bruce wayne. i guess that means batmans real.

 

[DarkMagic]

You don't even need a law of averages. Avengers already crushed a movie that was driven into a frenzy by the general public due to the death of one of its major stars. You can't buy that kind of advertisement. they won't have that crutch for the third installment.

Wow, this tired argument again?

Yet Parnassus, while not a failure (it made more than it's budget back), didn't post anywhere close to TDK numbers. Oh, but you have an explanation for that:

One movie released about 6 months after his death, the other like two years after. Apples to oranges at that point, but sure, go with your theory, maybe it would have done half what it did if Ledger were alive?

By your above logic, the reason for the discrepancy is that Parnassus came out much later after Ledger's death than did TDK, so I guess the public forgot he died? Or, after all that time, they just lost interest in seeing one of the last films of a dead actor?

The argument that the longer time it took to release Parnassus is the reason Ledger's death didn't have the same explosive effect on its box office as it supposedly did for TDK holds no water either. Ledger died six months before TDK's release. Raul Julia died just two months before the release of Street Fighter. It was panned by critics and fans, and made "just" three times its budget (still, not bad). TDK was lauded by critics and fans, and made almost six times its budget. By your logic, since the death of Street Fighter's star was closer to its release date, shouldn't it have performed even better than TDK, relative to its budget?

There is another explanation that makes more sense. Especially considering that the lowest-grossing, most hated live action modern Bat-flick, Batman and Robin, still made almost FOUR TIMES the box office of Dr. Parnassus.

This shows that maybe...just maybe, its not about Ledger, or the death of a star actor. The general public is just way more interested in seeing a Batman movie (apparently any Batman movie, even B&R) than a Dr. Parnassus movie.

How many links do you think you need to provide before one person who enjoyed the Avengers more than TDK will say," OMG you are so right!"

Now look at the other side, how many links do I have to provide before you realize that Avengers is a better movie? See? You're trying REAL HARD to convince people that they're opinion is wrong. But, good luck with youre whole winning at the internet campaign.

You can't make anyone "realize that Avengers is a better movie." Because it isn't, as an objective fact. It's all just opinion....all of it.

No one's opinion is wrong on which is a better movie to them. You missed the point of void's links completely. It is not to convince anyone to change their own mind that one movie is "better". It is to show that on those polls taken by a wider audience (not only mostly comic/sci fi fans--like here) TDK is on top, for now.

On imdb, as of today, TDK is rated higher by voters there. Great for it. Here, on the SSF forum poll, Avengers is on top. Great for it, too. Neither poll is about proving the "better" movie, or trying to convince anyone that their opinion is wrong. Where did you get that from? A poll can only show what the people that voted in that particular poll [imdb users/ SSF members] thought.

Avatar crushed everything, does that make it any good? Case closed.

I've never watched it, but by your lack of insight, yeah, I guess theres probably a list someowhere on the internet thatsays it is. Kind of like the fact that your "law of averages" is up at the top of the page getting ____-stomped.

CASE CLOSED BRO

Again you missed void's point. Box office gross does not directly or even necessarily correlate to which movie is better. The first is an objective measure, and the second is purely subjective. Avatar is objectively a higher grossing movie than Return of the King. That doesn't mean it is subjectively better...that can only be answered by personal preference. Just like no box office result or internet poll (popularity contest, whether here or on imdb) should have any bearing on what an individual thinks for themselves of TDK vs Avengers.

 

[ironwez20]

Marvel vs dc. A battle that's been raging since the 60s

 

[thenammagazine]

The argument that the longer time it took to release Parnassus is the reason Ledger's death didn't have the same explosive effect on its box office as it supposedly did for TDK holds no water either. Ledger died six months before TDK's release. Raul Julia died just two months before the release of Street Fighter. It was panned by critics and fans, and made "just" three times its budget (still, not bad). TDK was lauded by critics and fans, and made almost six times its budget. By your logic, since the death of Street Fighter's star was closer to its release date, shouldn't it have performed even better than TDK, relative to its budget?

This is actually untrue. Ledger's death was the perfect press to build up hype for TDK. It was all over the ____ing news before the movie hit and there was nary a broadcast that didn't say he was playing Joker in the upcoming Nolan Batman film. It built up the hype that put that unheard of amount of asses in seats to see what was (at least start to finish) his last complete role. Parnassus got like zero press and except for the hardcore trouser sniffers, barely anybody knew it was even coming out. Even void will side with me on this.

 

[Alex Logan]

Traditional martial arts are going the way of the dodo and are proving rather inefficient amongst those (nowadays your average joe) who're schooled in mixed forms of martial arts. An opponent nowadays isn't going to come at you with a straight right, a cross or a foot stomp anymore (assuming they don't have a gun). And they're not going to grab you and wait for you to attack them. Maybe back in the 80's, but today's a different day. Even Furley will back me on this one.

No, he won't.

Traditional being inefficient, yes, very true. Mixed forms of martial arts being totally effective, no, very untrue.

A traditional martial artist will lost against a UFC fighter because they are in a ring and they have rules. Most traditional martial artists will also lose in a street fight. However, a martial artist that completes his training in a "stand up" art as well as a "grappling" art, while throwing the traditional ways out the window, will be able to beat both.

 

[thenammagazine]

No, he won't.

Traditional being inefficient, yes, very true.

That was the only point I was referring to, so yes, you did. And thanks.

 

[Niltusk]

Wow, this tired argument again?

blah blah blah...

Yeah its so tired you decided to join it.

 

[DarkMagic]

This is actually untrue. Ledger's death was the perfect press to build up hype for TDK. It was all over the ____ing news before the movie hit and there was nary a broadcast that didn't say he was playing Joker in the upcoming Nolan Batman film. It built up the hype that put that unheard of amount of asses in seats to see what was (at least start to finish) his last complete role. Parnassus got like zero press and except for the hardcore trouser sniffers, barely anybody knew it was even coming out. Even void will side with me on this.

Haha, I remember seeing a lot of press for Parnassus and all of the actors that were filling in for Heath's role, even though I had zero interest in following that movie, and I still haven't seen it.

This doesn't explain why Raul Julia's death didn't bring the same relative success to Street Fighter. He was also a huge star when he passed (arguably more famous than Ledger was before the Joker) and Street Fighter was a huge video game property in the 1990s. Like I said, he also died, much closer to his film's release date than Ledger did to his, so if the star's death publicity is what puts asses in seats, Street Fighter should have seen the same effect.

Parnassus got better reviews and more favorable press than "Batman and Robin"--by far--and it had the advantage of the so called "dead-actor" effect, yet, its box office came no where close to that abomination of a Batman movie. The point is, people are going to see a Batman movie---because it's a Batman movie---in droves anyway, whether or not a star dies. As for TDK, it also didn't hurt that Batman Begins washed the taste of B&R out and showed the public the level of quality to expect from a Nolan-led Batman franchise.

If TDKR is more successful at the box office than TDK, what will your explanation be?

"Oh, well, it only did so well because it's riding the coattails of the last Batman movie---which had Ledger---you know, the dead actor---in it."

Yeah its so tired you decided to join it.

Great rebuttal. I decided to challenge it because its a tired old crutch argument by those that seek to dismiss TDK's success. I disagree with Nam a lot, (and its clear we disagree here) but at least when either of us challenges the other on a point we come back to defend it.

If you can't be bothered to actually defend your position, you shouldn't even be playing. Come back when you've thought of something to say about my argument.

 

[Niltusk]

its clear we disagree here) but at least when either of us challenges the other on a point we come back to defend it.

If you can't be bothered to actually defend your position, you shouldn't even be playing. Come back when you've thought of something to say about my argument.

Whats to defend? Unless you can go back in time and keep Ledger alive you can't really prove anything, so you like to argue over moot points? Good for you. I said what I thought, you said its tired, but you replied. Bored, trolling, whatever. You say I shouldn't be playing, I didn't realize this was a game, but if you don't want me in your game, then stop replying to me, its pretty simple. I didn't comment on your argument for the simple fact that I could care less about your endless droning.

 

[DarkMagic]

Whats to defend? Unless you can go back in time and keep Ledger alive you can't really prove anything, so you like to argue over moot points? Good for you. I said what I thought, you said its tired, but you replied. Bored, trolling, whatever. You say I shouldn't be playing, I didn't realize this was a game, but if you don't want me in your game, then stop replying to me, its pretty simple. I didn't comment on your argument for the simple fact that I could care less about your endless droning.

"Playing" as in "participating in the discussion". If you didn't get the metaphor, no problem, I can speak in strictly literal terms so you can understand.

Yes, I said its tired...and then proceeded to back it up. You (and others) are the ones making the assertion that the death of one of the stars is what leads to huge box office success, and the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion, not on the one challenging it...so you, as the person making the assertion, failed to prove your assertion that Ledger's death led to TDKs box office success.

Even though the burden of proof is not on me, here is what I have proven, and the facts (not opinions) I have to back up my position.

A Batman movie will make truck loads of money at the box office, even if none of the main stars die, and even if the movie is panned. Supporting evidence: "Batman and Robin".

The so called "dead-actor-hype-effect" doesn't have a significant effect on the box-office of a film, even if the actor is a huge star, even if his death is close to the films release date, and even if the film is a huge property. Supporting evidence: "Street Fighter"

 

[thenammagazine]

Haha, I remember seeing a lot of press for Parnassus and all of the actors that were filling in for Heath's role, even though I had zero interest in following that movie, and I still haven't seen it.

This doesn't explain why Raul Julia's death didn't bring the same relative success to Street Fighter. He was also a huge star when he passed (arguably more famous than Ledger was before the Joker) and Street Fighter was a huge video game property in the 1990s. Like I said, he also died, much closer to his film's release date than Ledger did to his, so if the star's death publicity is what puts asses in seats, Street Fighter should have seen the same effect.

Parnassus got better reviews and more favorable press than "Batman and Robin"--by far--and it had the advantage of the so called "dead-actor" effect, yet, its box office came no where close to that abomination of a Batman movie. The point is, people are going to see a Batman movie---because it's a Batman movie---in droves anyway, whether or not a star dies. As for TDK, it also didn't hurt that Batman Begins washed the taste of B&R out and showed the public the level of quality to expect from a Nolan-led Batman franchise.

If TDKR is more successful at the box office than TDK, what will your explanation be?

"Oh, well, it only did so well because it's riding the coattails of the last Batman movie---which had Ledger---you know, the dead actor---in it."


Great rebuttal. I decided to challenge it because its a tired old crutch argument by those that seek to dismiss TDK's success. I disagree with Nam a lot, (and its clear we disagree here) but at least when either of us challenges the other on a point we come back to defend it.

If you can't be bothered to actually defend your position, you shouldn't even be playing. Come back when you've thought of something to say about my argument.

The fact that you're even attempting to comparing Raul Julia and Street Fighter (by Steven E. de Souza) to Heath Ledger and The Dark Knight (by Chris Nolan) is extreeeeeeeeeeeemely sad and pathetic.

 

[Niltusk]

"
The so called "dead-actor-hype-effect" doesn't have a significant effect on the box-office of a film, even if the actor is a huge star, even if his death is close to the films release date, and even if the film is a huge property. Supporting evidence: "Street Fighter"

Really? Street Fighter is all you have after all your bull____ text walls?
How old are you? I remember Raul's passing, I remember Heath's passing. If you remember both and you think Raul generated a fraction of the news that Heath's did it pretty much sums up why your opinion is so myopic on the subject. Plus, going back to some of your earlier BS, I never said that TDK was a hit because of Ledgers passing, I said it was a crutch of free publicity. Again, I have no problems with discussions, but if you're going to try to twist what I'm saying so that you can have some of my attention then its not going to be a discussion its just going to be a flame war.

 

[Alex Logan]

That was the only point I was referring to, so yes, you did. And thanks.

When you ignore the full statment your point becomes invalid.

 

[Kibagami]

Really? Street Fighter is all you have after all your bull____ text walls?

OMFG Street Fighter the movie.

 

[karamazov80]

Supporting evidence: "Street Fighter"

Agreed. Street Fighter proves that a guy who only knows Karate can beat all kinds of wacky soldiers and a Bison with special boots and whatnot. Sorry, but Nam was wrong about this one. *cue Van Damme speech*