Which is better: Avengers or The Dark Knight?

Originally posted by Zack Fair

The Avengers, on the other hand, was the most fun experience I've ever had in a movie theater. To say that it accomplished nothing is just plain wrong. Every character in the movie was interesting. Even throw away/death characters like Coulson or Maria Hill we're fun to watch. The Hero's made the film spectacular.

The Batman movies on the other hand, were made by the villains. Joker, Ra's Al Ghul, and even Scarecrow were better villains than Loki. Loki is a cool villain, but they kind of made him a joke in the movie. He was still fun to watch, but he never really stole any scenes like the Batman villains. It was kind of cool to find out that

Spoiler:
Thanos

Anyway, I'd give the win to Avengers. I think it will outlast TDK in terms of time too.

Talking about Dark Knight without Joker is like talking about Star Wars without Darth Vader. You just can't dismiss the impact that 1 character can have on a movie.

Not really, though. Even without Vader, Star Wars still would have been immensely popular and acclaimed, what with the special FX being the best of its time, the cool space battles and the lightsabers. Han ****ing Solo. The movies still have a lot to offer in entertaining characters, plot and action.

TDK on the other hand, doesn't. There's literally nothing appealing about the movie beyond Heath Ledger's joker.

False.

Two Face.

Had a retarded reason for turning into a sociopathic murderer.

Dark knight.

Originally posted by Nephthys
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.

My point was implicit, but, yes, I can deny that they are very different movies. It depends on the filter you're using on your microscope.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
The Avengers, on the other hand, was the most fun experience I've ever had in a movie theater. To say that it accomplished nothing is just plain wrong. Every character in the movie was interesting. Even throw away/death characters like Coulson or Maria Hill we're fun to watch. The Hero's made the film spectacular.

It's hard for me to understand statements like these. Was it really the most fun? The action was tamed down what we know the abilities of the characters to possess in their comic books. The fights were not "large scale" or "huge" like you'd expect them to be. The story was bland and linear.

As far as "action" in a movie, goes: the Pirates of the Caribbean movies have that in much more servings.

The movie did not feel epic, in any way. I had much more fun in the Prequel Trilogies than I did Avengers. Sure, it was entertaining and fun, but no where hear what people like you are proclaiming.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Not really, though. Even without Vader, Star Wars still would have been immensely popular and acclaimed, what with the special FX being the best of its time, the cool space battles and the lightsabers. Han ****ing Solo. The movies still have a lot to offer in entertaining characters, plot and action.

TDK on the other hand, doesn't. There's literally nothing appealing about the movie beyond Heath Ledger's joker.

I wasn't saying that Star Wars doesn't have anything else going for it. I was saying that it is dumb to dismiss one of the key elements of a movie. The fact is, Vader adds a ton to the movie and if you remove him, obviously the films drop in their overall enjoyment level. Same with Dark Knight. To say the movie would be dumb without a key character is stupid because all movies would become worse if you remove their most compelling character. Might as well say "The movie Spider-man would have been stupid if Spider-man wasn't in it."

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Had a retarded reason for turning into a sociopathic murderer.

Seriously, for a movie whose "only real appeal" is the Joker that's in it, it sure gets an unusual amount of people going back and comparing something to it every time a new fanboy phenomenon flick comes out, like it's one of the ****ing Godfathers or something.

Both Movies are very enjoyable, I really very enjoy to Watch Both Movies.....

Originally posted by dadudemon
My point was implicit, but, yes, I can deny that they are very different movies. It depends on the filter you're using on your microscope.

Trololololol!

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
And Anakin didn't when he turned in episode III?

Anakin's reason(s) and response(s) weren't nearly as unconvincing as Dent's, no.

Yeah they were. At least Dent had recently snapped from trauma. And he never choked his own love interest.

😬

Nah, they weren't. Anakin's descent spanned three films and was attributable to the problem identified with him from the very beginning: pathological attachment. The seeds were planted by a then-trusted mentor. When said mentor revealed himself to be a less than reputable source, Anakin responded by [not] swearing allegiance and notifying the proper authorities. When said authorities attempted to neutralize the possibility of said source's rumored expertise in areas important to the health and well being of Anakin's loved one, Anakin reacted intervened (non-lethally, however), which enabled said source to exploit the opportunity to kill said authority, making Anakin complicit in said act. Backed into a proverbial corner and desperate, he agreed to obey said source's orders in exchange for both help for his loved ones and eliminating the remnants of said authority as a threat to his well-being. Even after betraying said authorities and committing horrible crimes, Anakin still exhibited struggle and remorse (tears on Mustafar, anyone?) and only attacked said loved one when he believed her to have brought another member of said authority to kill him.

Then there is the fact that Anakin was under the influence of the dark side, which has been established to be an exceedingly tempting metaphysical phenomenon that is comparable to drug addiction.

In contrast, Dent was told to kill heroes and children by a known psychopath for whom he not only had zero affection, but the psychopath (a) had nothing to offer him by way of solution and (b) was responsible for the death of Dent's own loved one. In one movie... for which he showed zero remorse.

Yeah, not even close.

Anakin force choking his love interest was still a result of the dark side though.

Vader: Noooooooo! I just killed the only woman I love, but I'm not going to blame it on the guy who told me that going to the dark side could save her!

Sidious: Just as planned.

As for Dent, he only went after the corrupted cops who picked up his loved one on the night she was captured and killed, and Maroni, prior to the ending. Since those said cops were Gordon's men too, there was no way in hell he was gonna let Gordon not suffer any like he did, after failing to save Rachel. Now Anakin showing/having a bit of remorse for his actions prior to Padme landing on Mustafar is understandable (not to mention his crimes were waaaaay worse than Dent's after becoming Two-Face), but why should Dent have had any, given his situation? Gordon clearly didn't deserve remorse/sympathy, not from him anyway.

Ok this page has become a hardcore movie critics one.

TDK and Avengers were both Awsome! But for completely different reasons.

Yes The Joker was the highlight of TDK. But he wasn't the ONLY good thing. Not by a long shot. The movie did focus heavily on the villains, whilst Batman Begins focused heavily on Batman.

I could similarly argue that Hulk was the highlight of Avengers, and it would not have been anywhere near as good without him.

And the SW Prequels were frigging brilliant and you all Know It!

Originally posted by dadudemon

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

Nope, apples to apples. 🙂

Although, you know, you can do that with anything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, which is better?

Cast your votes!

This is no contest for me whatsoever.The Dark Knight easily.Hands down,no contest.Batman is my second favorite comicbook character and as many here already know about me,I am very grateful to Nolan for rebooting Batman and making two Batman films loyal to the comicbook and not betraying the source material like the previous four films did.

as much as I loved Batman Begins,I loved The Dark Knight even more so.I enjoyed The Avengers and everything but I hated it how Banner was able to easily turn into The Hulk in no time flat and become him with no problem at all.

I never read the comic or anything but I was always under the impression that he had to experience pain or lose his cool and get angry to become The Hulk.Not become him just cause he wanted to.Even the other two Hulk movies got THAT much right and I did not care for either one of them.I also hated it that he tried to kill Black Widow.The Hulk only gets mad at people who try to do harm to him like that jet fighter that fired at him.what the hell were they thinking. 😠

Now when The Dark Knight Rises,you might want to have this poll again because with bane the lamest villain of all from the Batman universe being in this movie,I dont see myself enjoying that movie like I did The Avengers.Having Bane for the main villain is like having The Spot from spiderman being the main villain for a spidey movie. 🙄

Originally posted by rudester
Micheal Keaton says FU to the statement above...

That would make sense if you were talking about Christian Bale instead of Michael keaton.

This is a silly comparison, while both SH movies and therefore in the same genre, they're very different.

DK has a superior story. Avengers is by far the more in-your-face entertaining. Might as well compare the films Alien and Robocop, when they're both good Sci-Fi; for different reasons.