Which is better: Avengers or The Dark Knight?

Avengers is a cultural phenomena. It is essentially the Star Wars of the current younger generation. Twenty years from now when the 8-10 yearolds who are watching Avengers in the theaters now have kids, Avengers is going to be the movie the show them. It will be a bonding film for multiple generations just like Star Wars. Even if Dark Knight is a better film, it won't matter in the long run, it won't have the same sort of legs in the cultural zeitgeist. China Town is a better film than any of the Star Wars... but how many people care about it?

IMHO, Both, I cannot and will not say either or because I love both

Originally posted by the ninjak
Take Joker out of TDK and you don't have much.

But the Joker is in TDK, so that is pretty irrelevant.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Avengers for sheer enjoyment.

IMO I didn't hate The Dark Knight, I resented the movie.
It emphasised too much on the mafia & corrupt cops & politicians taking the focus away from being a "super hero" movie.

It was like Batman only did cameos in this movie to remind the audience that it was a sequel.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Take Joker out of TDK and you don't have much.

The Avengers. TDK was great solely because of the Joker; Batman, Harvey, Lucius, et al. were all boring. The Avengers has a stronger, more developed, and a more dynamic cast, better dialogue, and was more entertaining.

The Avengers indeed had a more dynamic cast with more entertaining dialogue, though I wouldn't say it was more developed. How was TDK's cast boring exactly? Lucius still had the good ol' Morgan Freeman moments, the rise and fall of Harvey Dent (a.k.a. Gotham's white knight) was tragic and epic as Two-Face, Gordon actually did some shit unlike in most of the other movies, the Maroni they had was funny, Batman was awesome and swift as ever when fighting the SWAT team and other things, etc. Pretty solid supporting cast even without the Joker or Batman, even if it's not on Avengers' level.

As much as I love Ledger's Joker, I'd by lying to myself if I said he was the only thing that made the movie worthwhile, and believe that anyone who thinks that is definitely overrating him. Some of my most favorite scenes in the movie aren't even with the Joker. His performance was still pretty much oscar-worthy though, dead or alive.

I like both movies pretty much equally, for the record. Not sure which one I'd lean toward more.

ridley_prime
The Avengers indeed had a more dynamic cast with more entertaining dialogue, though I wouldn't say it was more developed. How was TDK's cast boring exactly? Lucius still had the good ol' Morgan Freeman moments,

While Morgan Freeman is undoubtedly a fine actor, that alone doesn't make the character interesting.

ridley_prime
the rise and fall of Harvey Dent (a.k.a. Gotham's white knight) was tragic and epic as Two-Face,

Not to me. Dent's transformation was ham-fisted and rushed, all in an effort to exaggerate the Joker's skills as a manipulator. "Don't hate me {the man who killed your one true love}, hate the guys who tried to save her {from me}." Really? I loved the movie enough to see it over half a dozen times in the cinema, but after the last scene with the Joker, I walked out of the theater every time after the first, so disinterested was I with Dent.

ridley_prime
Gordon actually did some shit unlike in most of the other movies, the Maroni they had was funny, Batman was awesome and swift as ever when fighting the SWAT team and other things, etc. Pretty solid supporting cast even without the Joker or Batman, even if it's not on Avengers' level.

It definitely wasn't a bad cast, just boring characters. Grim, grim, grim, grim, grim, brooding, brooding, brooding, brooding, quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet. Not a single one had any life to them bar the Joker. And minus Dent, none had any remote development but Maroni.

ridley_prime
As much as I love Ledger's Joker, I'd by lying to myself if I said he was the only thing that made the movie worthwhile, and believe that anyone who thinks that is definitely overrating him. Some of my most favorite scenes in the movie aren't even with the Joker. His performance was still pretty much oscar-worthy though, dead or alive.

Ledger's Joker is overrated, but was still the backbone of the film. Batman is just not an entertaining hero. All the leading Avengers had multiple dimensions to them rather than cling to a single character attribute.

ridley_prime
I like both movies pretty much equally, for the record. Not sure which one I'd lean toward more.

Both are definitely good movies. TDK had a more interesting villain, TA had more interesting protagonists.

It's all about what you prefer.

The Avengers is pure popcorn excitement and action.

The Dark Knight is dark, gritty, superhero drama mixed with some action.

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
Not to me. Dent's transformation was ham-fisted and rushed, all in an effort to exaggerate the Joker's skills as a manipulator. "Don't hate me {the man who killed your one true love}, hate the guys who tried to save her {from me}." Really? I loved the movie enough to see it over half a dozen times in the cinema, but after the last scene with the Joker, I walked out of the theater every time after the first, so disinterested was I with Dent.

Meh, I found the thing with Dent and Gordon & his family (the climax of the movie) just as good (if not a little moreso) as Joker's last appearance at the construction site. That little speech of Gordon's at the end while Bats was riding away on the Batpod was one of the most epic ways to end a superhero movie.

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
It definitely wasn't a bad cast, just boring characters. Grim, grim, grim, grim, grim, brooding, brooding, brooding, brooding, quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet. Not a single one had any life to them bar the Joker. And minus Dent, none had any remote development but Maroni.

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
Ledger's Joker is overrated, but was still the backbone of the film.

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
Batman is just not an entertaining hero.

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
All the leading Avengers had multiple dimensions to them rather than cling to a single character attribute.

Both are definitely good movies. TDK had a more interesting villain, TA had more interesting protagonists.

No argument here though on that last part.

Originally posted by Impediment
It's all about what you prefer.

The Avengers is pure popcorn excitement and action.

The Dark Knight is dark, gritty, superhero drama mixed with some action.

Seriously it's kinda irrelevant comparing a funny, family oriented feel-good action-adventure to a grim movie of corruption & redemption.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime

His army was more of a threat than he himself was. I mean pretty much any one of the Avengers (especially Hulk) could beat him up singlehandedly.

And even then, the army really did nothing to the Avengers. The army damaged the city, but the Avengers never seemed in danger.

I'll weigh in:

Avengers wasn't as good as everyone says it was/is. I was greatly disappointed. Not even the Michael Bay-esque finale could keep me awake: I fell asleep twice.

I gave Avengers a 6 or 7. I thought Thor was better. So was Ironman (the first one). I was more entertained and got more enjoyment out of all the X-men films (including Wolverine Origins) than this film.

For once, I don't get the rabid consumption of a film. I am generally in the minority on KMC when it comes to films because I fall in line with the general population. This time, nah.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Apples and Oranges

"Comic Book film adaptations that have become money powerhouses at the box office"

Nope, apples to apples. 🙂

Also, threads like this one have popped up all over the internet. I figured I would go ahead and create it, here.

The Dark Knight and Watchmen are both still the best. The Avengers is definitely the best Marvel has to offer.

It was just a bigger scale of a movie. Avengers, as dope as it was, just felt like Iron Man and Thor(both really good movies) on steroids in a good way. I loved it. But The Dark Knight was something else when it came out. Obviously the effects of it have worn off cause its been 4 years but if you were to ask me when I first saw both what was I more impressed by it would have easily been The Dark Knight.

The performances of Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart are just too much. These were real people with with real consequences. The Avengers is better at making it seem like a comic book come to life. I'll give it that aspect. Is it more fun? Of course. Better film? Nah.

Avengers was good. It wasn't bad by any means, but it wasn't unique in a way that went above and beyond expectations. Avengers delivered exactly what it promised which was an adequate display of special effects mixed with superheros smashing shit. For the people who praise this movie for being a benchmark in doing something that no other comic flick could achieve...,that's just silly and naive ignorance. Of course this movie was going to be a success. It isnt as though, Marvel concocted some grand masterpiece script that brought together a group of diverse characters whom possess a hearty heritage. No, it was a well calculated plan that didn't take any risks. The Avengers wasn't a planned story that someone had conceived from their hearts. It was a general idea that relied on the success of many different cash-ins. The Avengers was never guaranteed to happen and if it were not for the success of Iron Man (which marvel owes everything to jon favereu and Robert downey for) there most possibly wouldn't have been an Avengers movie. They could have backed out of that tease at any time and just continued remaking, retrying and rebooting their crap until they got it right. This is possible when they have so much financial support and demographic control.
No, the Avengers did not do something that no other comic book movie couldn't do before, infact it did the absolute minimum. It took no risk. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I enjoyed it. I believe the Avengers is a good launching point for many future possibilities. I just hope the studios decide to take a chance one day to do something different. People need to recognize the risks that others in the field have taken. There are far better comic book movies out there and The Dark Knight is undoubtedly one of them. Avengers is a great thrill ride, it's a fun popcorn flick. The Dark Knight is a film. Much like Burtons 89, Batman, the Dark Knight transcends it's fluffy comic counter part and stands just as strong as a separate entity and delivers something new whilst staying true to it's source.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Avengers is a cultural phenomena. It is essentially the Star Wars of the current younger generation. Twenty years from now when the 8-10 yearolds who are watching Avengers in the theaters now have kids, Avengers is going to be the movie the show them. It will be a bonding film for multiple generations just like Star Wars. Even if Dark Knight is a better film, it won't matter in the long run, it won't have the same sort of legs in the cultural zeitgeist. China Town is a better film than any of the Star Wars... but how many people care about it?

The first Spider-Man movie.

LoL, no. In 10 years Avengers will be long at the way-side; in 20 basically forgotten. Star Wars is a rare phenomeom that overcomes cultures and age groups and apparently time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The first Spider-Man movie.

May the Defoe Lord bless you and keep you. May he make his countenance to shine upon you. May he bring you peace. (I second this) 👆

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Comic Book film adaptations that have become money powerhouses at the box office"

Nope, apples to apples. 🙂

You can't deny that they're very different movies. Its very hard imo to judge which one is superior because of this. It'll just come down to personal taste in the end.

Originally posted by Myth
But the Joker is in TDK, so that is pretty irrelevant.

I think it's relevant when the Joker was the only aspect of the movie I liked.